Subject: Re: PerfHist-TC-MIB

From: "Chunhui Teng" <[email-masked]>
Date: 04 Jun 1998 16:21 EDT

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.

>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
>