2008/5/8 Pamidipati Suresh-G20238 :
> Regarding the example you mentioned, why do you want to gather all the
> instances of the table in the 1st getnext itself when snmpwalk is given.?


I believe that Valantina is concerned about the data changing while the
walk is taking place.

For example, consider a table containing two columns and (initially)
two columns.
Walking this table would look like:

GETNEXT table --> this.1
GETNEXT this.1 --> this.2
GETNEXT this.2 --> that.1[*]
GETNEXT that.1 --> that.2
GETNEXT that.2 --> endOfTable

The client could then display the two rows quite happily:

this.1 that.1
this.2 that.2


But suppose that a new row (3) was created at exact moment that the
walk had got to the point marked[*]
The remaining sequence of GETNEXT requests would then be

GETNEXT that.1 --> that.2
GETNEXT that.2 --> that.3
GETNEXT that.3 --> endOfTable

leaving the client with the inconsistent table

this.1 that.1
this.2 that.2
(?) that.3


Alternatively, suppose the second row was deleted at[*]
The walk would then finish

GETNEXT that.1 --> endOfTable

giving the client a table:

this.1 that.1
this.2 (?)


Loading all the data at the start of the walk would allow the client
to retrieve a consistent set of information (albeit one that was
slightly out of date).

Dave

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by the 2008 JavaOne(SM) Conference
Don't miss this year's exciting event. There's still time to save $100.
Use priority code J8TL2D2.
http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;198757...un.com/javaone
_______________________________________________
Net-snmp-users mailing list
Net-snmp-users@lists.sourceforge.net
Please see the following page to unsubscribe or change other options:
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/...net-snmp-users