[SNMP4J] snmp vs jmx

[Torsten Curdt]

> > I am interested in the current state of the project. Is
> > active/stable/dormant?
> >
> Active and stable as stable as a 1.0 version can be.
> This is statement is true for SNMP4J-Agent. SNMP4J
> itself

Good

> There will be only bug fixes and enhancements in the
> near future. There are no plans to change the API
> significantly.

OK

> > We need to monitor a couple of machines and I am currently evaluating
> > on how to do that best. For many reasons SNMP would be the first
> > joice. On the other hand the JVM already exposes many information via
> > JMX. How much work is left for the JMX-SNMP bridge?
>
> I am currently developing an add-on API for SNMP4J-Agent
> that facilitates integrating JMX with the agent instrumentation.
> As a proof of concept I am implementing the JVM-MANAGEMENT-MIB
> with that API and without it (thus directly with SNMP4J-Agent
> MO* objects and AgenPro generated stubs).

Sounds good

> > I did hear thoough that such a bridge is expensive and not really
> > desireable. How suitable would it be to expose JVM information and
> > log4j configurations via SNMP. Is there code for that already? (I
> > think I've seen some log4j stuff in the javadocs)
>
> The log4j debug levels (and the J2SE 1.4 logging) can be
> already changed/configured with SNMP4J-AGENT. See the
> SNMP4J-LOG-MIB for details. I think this MIB is easy to
> use. Comments are welcome. The JVM-MANAGEMENT-MIB is even
> easier to use (less complex).

Great news ...I will give that a try

> A JMX<->SNMP bridge is not as effective as a direct instrumentation
> that directly accesses the MBeans, but I expect not a significant
> performance loss.

OK

> > Some comments would be great. If it's a viable way we may be able to
> > help out here with some engineering time.
>
> I will contact you when the basics of the API are ready.
> Currently, I am doing more research than coding...

Great ...just let me know

cheers
--
Torsten