[SERVER-48567] Warnings while processing snmpwalk Created: 03/Jun/20 Updated: 29/Oct/23 Resolved: 13/Nov/20 |
|
| Status: | Closed |
| Project: | Core Server |
| Component/s: | Admin, Diagnostics |
| Affects Version/s: | None |
| Fix Version/s: | 4.9.0, 4.2.15, 4.4.7 |
| Type: | Bug | Priority: | Major - P3 |
| Reporter: | Spencer Jackson | Assignee: | Mark Benvenuto |
| Resolution: | Fixed | Votes: | 0 |
| Labels: | None | ||
| Remaining Estimate: | Not Specified | ||
| Time Spent: | Not Specified | ||
| Original Estimate: | Not Specified | ||
| Issue Links: |
|
||||
| Backwards Compatibility: | Fully Compatible | ||||
| Operating System: | ALL | ||||
| Backport Requested: |
v4.4, v4.2
|
||||
| Sprint: | Security 2020-06-29, Security 2020-09-07, Security 2020-11-16 | ||||
| Participants: | |||||
| Case: | (copied to CRM) | ||||
| Description |
|
When running the server in SNMP master mode, I performed an SNMP walk with the following command:
This produced the following set of warnings in the server logs which included the following:
|
| Comments |
| Comment by Githook User [ 21/Jun/21 ] |
|
Author: {'name': 'Mark Benvenuto', 'email': 'mark.benvenuto@mongodb.com', 'username': 'markbenvenuto'}Message: (cherry picked from commit 5369acbf46accd6e460097ba9d43ee052d52c03f) |
| Comment by Githook User [ 14/Jun/21 ] |
|
Author: {'name': 'Mark Benvenuto', 'email': 'mark.benvenuto@mongodb.com', 'username': 'markbenvenuto'}Message: (cherry picked from commit 5369acbf46accd6e460097ba9d43ee052d52c03f) |
| Comment by Githook User [ 13/Nov/20 ] |
|
Author: {'name': 'Mark Benvenuto', 'email': 'mark.benvenuto@mongodb.com', 'username': 'markbenvenuto'}Message: |
| Comment by Mark Benvenuto [ 09/Nov/20 ] |
|
Yeah, option 1 would be less disruptive. You transition plan is correct but very expensive in terms of time. I add a separate ticket to make the a decision about the transitioning to 64-bit counters. The transition will likely be deferred until suitable customer demand. |
| Comment by James Wahlin [ 09/Nov/20 ] |
|
I guess option 1 above would be less disruptive to users? If we wanted to move towards matching types we could: I am not sure if this would be worth the effort however either for us our our users |
| Comment by Mark Benvenuto [ 09/Nov/20 ] |
|
In We have two possible fixes: james.wahlin, do you have an suggestions? |