Re: PerfHist-TC-MIB

[Rajesh Abbi <[e-mail]>]

Chunhui Teng wrote:
> 
> In message "Re: PerfHist-TC-MIB", you write:
> 
> >Keith McCloghrie wrote:
> >>
> >> > The 'Perf***Count' objects are supposed to be 'monotonically increasing'
> >> > -
> >> > thus Counter32/Counter64 would have been a better representation.
> >>
> >> This is incorrect.  For each of these objects, its value in one interval
> >> can be smaller than its value in the preceeding interval.
> >>
> >> Keith.
> >
> >These objects have a lifetime of 15-minutes.  During their lifetime
> >their
> >value is certainly 'monotonically increasing' !  After the interval is
> >over,
> 
> I remember somewhere in the draft it is indicated that some values might
> decrease, i.e., not 'monotonically increasing'. For example, some seconds
> may be counted as "Errored Seconds" but later it is found that they should
> not be counted in (this decision can not be made any earlier), so you will
> have to subtract number of them (seconds) from the total count.
> 

Are you serious ?

This is 'flaky behavior' in any equipment ! After a second has expired,
it was
either 'errored' or 'non-errored'.  If the equipment cannot make a
determination,
it cannot just increment the counter and change its mind later.

I sure hope there is no such product out there.  Do you have one like
that ? ;)


> >the current counter starts again - ie: a new instance is created.
> >
> >Regarding Interval Counters - each interval is a 'separate instance' of
> >the
> >object.  The value in all 'historic' intervals (except the current one)
> >is
> >fixed - neither increasing nor decreasing.
> >
> >Rajesh
> >

Rajesh