DFM's usability?

[nickmaiolo]

Hi,

Im using LMS primarily for configuration management. We use HP Network Node Manager for fault management. Ive never really looked at DFM as ive always seen it as overlap with NNM. Now, my question is what does DFM provide that NNM cant, or what does it do better than NNM?

Is it worth running them side by side? Is there really much benefit in running DFM alongside NNM?

Hopefully someone has experience of both tools and can shed some light for me.

Thanks in advance.

Nick

[Joe Clarke]

Typically people that have both NNM and DFM run both together. They usually forward traps from DFM to NNM. The primary advantage of having DFM is the Cisco ruleset and integration. Out-of-the-box, DFM has pre-built rules for managing a variety of Cisco devices. Adjusting thresholds to meet specific environments is also very easy.

Unlike other fault management systems, DFM relies on EMC/Smarts poll-driven engine. This means traps are less important, and DFM will poll devices to get fault details. This sometimes means more accurate device health information.

[nickmaiolo]

Thats just the answer i was looking for.

Spot on as ever Joe. Ive had a quick look on the LMS whitepapers page and cant seem to find any more info on DFM. Does any exist? Ive got the LMS deployment guide, but would prefer something a bit deeper if possible.

Many thanks :-)

Nick

[Joe Clarke]

We don't have any white papers specific to DFM, but we do have some covering the deployment of LMS. The documentation on Cisco.com for DFM may also be helpful.

http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/sw/cscowork/ps2425/prod_white_papers_list.html

http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/sw/cscowork/ps2421/products_user_guide_book09186a0080702aed.html