Part of the problem as I see it is that portmon tends to wait TOO LONG
for things to timeout when they are down. Another problem is that
everything is monitored serially; perhaps having portmon fork off a
couple of helper children who actually do all of the work and just
take instructions/return results from/to the parent via pipes.
Just thoughts.
On Mon, Aug 16, 1999 at 09:01:12AM -0400, Mike Gibbs said:
>
> Portmon seems way to slow for what it is doing. Monitoring 150 servers
> for 2 ports (smtp and http) it takes 1.5 hours to cycle once. Is this
> normal, or a misconfiguration on my part? Also, if it is normal, what
> functions are needed to output the same stuff to nocols databases if I
> write my own portmon, so I can still use nocol for the gui.
>
>
> Mike Gibbs
--
Michael Douglass
Texas Networking, Inc.
Any sufficiently advanced bug is indistinguishable for a feature.
-- from some indian guy
|