NetXMS Support Forum

I am shock netxms 5.1  is limited to 250 nodes   
It reduced my enthusiasm for NetXMS and even gave up on it because it is no longer so open and free. Although I have never needed the company's institutionalized services, I feel discouraged by this new restriction.

nodeid 76050 have a interface(objectId=76051) ifindex=5 mac address A0:36:BC:5B:19:A7 is physical link on the sw-203-dlink(dgs-1510-52) switch eth1/0/2
nodeid 76040 have a interface(objectId=76041) ifindex=5 mac address A0:36:BC:5B:18:D9 is physical link on the sw-203-dlink(dgs-1510-52) switch eth1/0/41
nodeid 76048 have a interface(objectId=76049) ifindex=5 mac address A0:36:BC:5B:1A:E0 is physical link on the sw-203-dlink(dgs-1510-52) switch eth1/0/42

my nodeid 76050 76040 76048 's operation The operating systems are completely cloned. Only the hardware information is slightly different, such as the network card mac address and ip.
in netxms i use topology sw-203-dlink switch forwarding database list result ,It is also consistent with the actual interface between the computer and the switch.

so i search in source code
In lln.cpp I find I saw the relevant code below


Also, I have also directly queried the lldp of the switch and I get this result

Name/OID: .1.0.8802.1.1.2.1.4.1.1.7.306145956.42.9; Value (OctetString): A0-36-BC-5B-1A-E0
Name/OID: .1.0.8802.1.1.2.1.4.1.1.7.306145970.41.17; Value (OctetString): A0-36-BC-5B-18-D9
Name/OID: .1.0.8802.1.1.2.1.4.1.1.7.306146123.2.15; Value (OctetString): A0-36-BC-5B-19-A7

The information on lldp also confirms that the node is on the correct interface.
so,Is it possible that some misjudgment or mistake occurred here?

/**
* Check if given information is duplicate
*/
bool LinkLayerNeighbors::isDuplicate(const LL_NEIGHBOR_INFO& info)
{
    for(int i = 0; i < m_connections.size(); i++)
    {
      LL_NEIGHBOR_INFO *n = m_connections.get(i);
        if (n->ifLocal == info.ifLocal)
        {
          if ((n->ifRemote != info.ifRemote) || (n->objectId != info.objectId))
          {
              nxlog_debug_tag(DEBUG_TAG_TOPO_LINK, 5, _T("LinkLayerNeighbors::isDuplicate: inconsistent data: %s(ifLocal=%d remote=%d/%d) %s(ifLocal=%d remote=%d/%d)"),
                          GetLinkLayerProtocolName(n->protocol), n->ifLocal, n->objectId, n->ifRemote,
                        GetLinkLayerProtocolName(info.protocol), info.ifLocal, info.objectId, info.ifRemote);
          }
        return true;
        }
      if (n->ifRemote == info.ifRemote)
      {
        if ((n->ifLocal != info.ifLocal) || (n->objectId != info.objectId))
        {
            nxlog_debug_tag(DEBUG_TAG_TOPO_LINK, 5, _T("LinkLayerNeighbors::isDuplicate: inconsistent data: %s(ifLocal=%d remote=%d/%d) %s(ifLocal=%d remote=%d/%d)"),
                        GetLinkLayerProtocolName(n->protocol), n->ifLocal, n->objectId, n->ifRemote,
                        GetLinkLayerProtocolName(info.protocol), info.ifLocal, info.objectId, info.ifRemote);
        }
        return true;
      }
    }
    return false;
}

Quote from: combpl on September 30, 2024, 02:40:35 PMThanks  @uldis . In my management client also showing JAVA version 17 . But my Installed JAVA 8 SE . 

I encountered the same problem as you. My solution was to uninstall all java, including jre and jdk, and then reinstall jdk17. I found that jre may affect its operation.

When performing network topology on the switch, the results of lldp and fdb are obtained at the same time, resulting in a conflict and failure to establish the peernode.

In the following log record, I found that two record is

2024.10.16 23:13:55.965 *D* [topology.link      ] LinkLayerNeighbors::isDuplicate: inconsistent data: FDB(ifLocal=2 remote=76050/5) FDB(ifLocal=41 remote=76040/5)
2024.10.16 23:13:55.965 *D* [topology.link      ] LinkLayerNeighbors::isDuplicate: inconsistent data: FDB(ifLocal=2 remote=76050/5) FDB(ifLocal=42 remote=76048/5)

As a result, I was supposed to find 5 but then I only found 2.

The netxms I use is 5.0.8 and the switch is dlink dgs-1510-52
Other switches of the same type Also having the same issue. The switches are connected to computers and operating systems with the same hardware specifications.
I would like to ask what is the reason for this result, which makes me very confused. I've found that this issue may not be limited to a certain type of network switch.


2024.10.16 23:13:51.088 *D* [topology.fdb      ] GetSwitchForwardingDatabase(sw-203-dlink [47278]): 165 entries read from dot1qTpFdbTable
2024.10.16 23:13:51.177 *D* [topology.fdb      ] GetSwitchForwardingDatabase(sw-203-dlink [47278]): 0 entries read from dot1dTpFdbTable
2024.10.16 23:13:51.177 *D* [poll.topology      ] Switch forwarding database retrieved for node sw-203-dlink [47278]
2024.10.16 23:13:51.177 *D* [topology.link      ] BuildLinkLayerNeighborList(sw-203-dlink [47278]): building link level topology
2024.10.16 23:13:51.177 *D* [topology.driver    ] Collecting topology information from driver DLINK for node sw-203-dlink [47278]
2024.10.16 23:13:51.177 *D* [topology.driver    ] Driver for node sw-203-dlink [47278] cannot provide link layer topology information
2024.10.16 23:13:51.177 *D* [topology.lldp      ] Collecting LLDP topology information for node sw-203-dlink [47278]
2024.10.16 23:13:55.690 *D* [topology.lldp      ] 5 entries in LLDP-MIB connection database for node sw-203-dlink [47278]
2024.10.16 23:13:55.690 *D* [topology.lldp      ] Finished collecting LLDP topology information for node sw-203-dlink [47278]
2024.10.16 23:13:55.965 *D* [poll.topology      ] Node::addHostConnections(sw-203-dlink [47278]): FDB retrieved
2024.10.16 23:13:55.965 *D* [poll.topology      ] Node::addHostConnections(sw-203-dlink [47278]): found single MAC A0:36:BC:5B:19:A7 on interface eth1/0/2
2024.10.16 23:13:55.965 *D* [poll.topology      ] Node::addHostConnections(sw-203-dlink [47278]): found remote interface ethernet 2 [76051]
2024.10.16 23:13:55.965 *D* [poll.topology      ] Node::addHostConnections(sw-203-dlink [47278]): found single MAC A0:36:BC:5B:18:1C on interface eth1/0/3
2024.10.16 23:13:55.965 *D* [poll.topology      ] Node::addHostConnections(sw-203-dlink [47278]): found remote interface ethernet [75986]
2024.10.16 23:13:55.965 *D* [poll.topology      ] Node::addHostConnections(sw-203-dlink [47278]): found single MAC A0:36:BC:5B:18:D9 on interface eth1/0/41
2024.10.16 23:13:55.965 *D* [poll.topology      ] Node::addHostConnections(sw-203-dlink [47278]): found remote interface ethernet 2 [76041]
2024.10.16 23:13:55.965 *D* [topology.link      ] LinkLayerNeighbors::isDuplicate: inconsistent data: FDB(ifLocal=2 remote=76050/5) FDB(ifLocal=41 remote=76040/5)
2024.10.16 23:13:55.965 *D* [poll.topology      ] Node::addHostConnections(sw-203-dlink [47278]): found single MAC A0:36:BC:5B:1A:E0 on interface eth1/0/42
2024.10.16 23:13:55.965 *D* [poll.topology      ] Node::addHostConnections(sw-203-dlink [47278]): found remote interface ethernet 2 [76049]
2024.10.16 23:13:55.965 *D* [topology.link      ] LinkLayerNeighbors::isDuplicate: inconsistent data: FDB(ifLocal=2 remote=76050/5) FDB(ifLocal=42 remote=76048/5)
2024.10.16 23:13:55.965 *D* [topology.link      ] BuildLinkLayerNeighborList(sw-203-dlink [47278]): 2 connections found

I'm sorry. I found that some interface names appear unknown not because of the hook script but because there is no appropriate snmp mib and agent installation. If the interface is only obtained through icmp and arp, it seems that only the unknown name can be obtained.

In the attached file, I have attached normal and abnormal screenshots.

the normal interface display after I remove the script.

I only use the simplest snmp polling and agent. Before adding this script to the hook, 
interface name and description was normal without using any regular expressions.

i use netxms server 4.4.2
after hook::CreateInterface add below script ,interface name and descript become unknown. why? 

if ($1->name ~= "(?i).*Teredo.*|.*isatap.*|.*Loopback.*|.*Bluetooth.*|Local Area Connection\* 12|Local Area Connection\* 11|Local Area Connection\* 9|Local Area Connection\* 8|Local Area Connection\* 2|6TO4 Adapter|sit0") {
  return false;
} else {
  return true;
}

I use the latest windows X64 version of netxms 2.2.17 with the Microsoft sql server database.
I found that when using a string mixed with one-byte word and two-byte word to store the database,
the calculation length error will occur, causing the string to be Truncated.
I suspect that it may be that ms sql calculates the character length for varchar in a different way than other databases.
Nvarchar will treat both one-byte word and the two-byte word as one character, but the varchar data type will treat the ASCII word of one-byte  as a character, but the two-character word will be treated as two characters.

Is there any possibility to solve this problem?

Attached below is the SQL query I fetched using SQL PROFILER, select @p1 actully is stored = 'Sw-209-dlink總務' not 'Sw-209-dlink總務處',because the p1 is varchar(16)

declare @p1 int
set @p1=6981
exec sp_prepexec @p1 output,N'@P1 varchar(16),@P2 int,@P3 int,@P4 int,@P5 int,@P6 int,@P7 int,@P8 int,@P9 int,@P10 varchar(9),@P11 int,@P12 varchar(9),@P13 varchar(1),@P14 int,@P15 int,@P16 varchar(9),@P17 varchar(9),@P18 int,@P19 int,@P20 varchar(37),@P21 varchar(37),@P22 int,@P23 varchar(1),@P24 varchar(1),@P25 varchar(1),@P26 varchar(1),@P27 bigint,@P28 int,@P29 int',N'UPDATE object_properties SET name=@P1,status=@P2,is_deleted=@P3,inherit_access_rights=@P4,last_modified=@P5,status_calc_alg=@P6,status_prop_alg=@P7,status_fixed_val=@P8,status_shift=@P9,status_translation=@P10,status_single_threshold=@P11,status_thresholds=@P12,comments=@P13,is_system=@P14,location_type=@P15,latitude=@P16,longitude=@P17,location_accuracy=@P18,location_timestamp=@P19,guid=@P20,image=@P21,submap_id=@P22,country=@P23,city=@P24,street_address=@P25,postcode=@P26,maint_event_id=@P27,state_before_maint=@P28 WHERE object_id=@P29','Sw-209-dlink總務處',2,0,1,1566991628,0,0,1,0,'01020304',75,'503C2814','',0,0,'0.000000','0.000000',0,0,'d025b358-fd3d-1d4d-9b5e-6337e2fd9fc1','00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000000',0,'','','','',0,0,713
select @p1

I USE NODE TOPOLOGY->SWITCH FORWARDING TABLE (MAC ADDRESS TABLE) FOR HP ARUBA SWITCH S2500 & S3500,

NetXMS:
Version: 2.2.16
Platform: Windows, 64-bit
Database: PostgreSQL

ALL ARUBA S2500 & S3500 SWITCH  is detected as GENERIC driver by NetXMS.

Problem:
Switchports that are in access mode in vlan 1, and ports that are in trunk mode and include vlan 1 in trunk vlans list are identified properly.
However, ports that do not include vlan 1 are shown as interface name "[ 0 ]" in the "Topology -> Switch forwarding database (MAC address table)" screen.
so i can't to know what peer node,problem screen is below


.1.3.6.1.2.1.17.1.4.1.2

.1.3.6.1.2.1.2.1.0

.1.3.6.1.2.1.2.2.1.1

.1.3.6.1.2.1.31.1.1.1.1

.1.3.6.1.2.1.2.2.1.2