|
osdir.com mailing list archive |
|
Subject: RE: TEC Reception Cache Full - msg#00495List: sysutils.tivoli.tme10Yes, I am periodically having event storms. "Blankenship, I.V. (Contractor)" <I.V.Blankenship.ctr-pJB2nRgMujA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Sent by: owner-tme10-XtjxT7Vmt5b1ENwx4SLHqw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 01/28/2005 10:17 AM
Please respond to ********************************************************** Privileged and/or confidential information may be contained in this message. If you are not the addressee indicated in this message (or are not responsible for delivery of this message to that person) , you may not copy or deliver this message to anyone. In such case, you should destroy this message and notify the sender by reply e-mail. If you or your employer do not consent to Internet e-mail for messages of this kind, please advise the sender. Shaw Industries does not provide or endorse any opinions, conclusions or other information in this message that do not relate to the official business of the company or its subsidiaries. ********************************************************** Thread at a glance:
Previous Message by Date: click to view message previewITMHi list, is it possible to distribute an custom configurationfile together with a Ressource Model Profile , like the Distribution Action in DM3.7. -- 10 GB Mailbox, 100 FreeSMS http://www.gmx.net/de/go/topmail +++ GMX - die erste Adresse für Mail, Message, More +++ Next Message by Date: click to view message previewRe: ITMAh, another compelling reason why IBM has been struggling to get customers off of DM 3.7 Classic product ....it is much more user friendly. ITM is a pain the donkey's behind really. For 2 years, IBM has not been able to correct ITM's many major shortcomings. I know that a new release is due this fall to try and combine DM Classic & Candle agents before moving into ITM in 2006 sometime....but ITM is just plain no good in practice. It is great conceptually in that it correlates etc. Take a look at what NetCool is doing....no agent code needed on monitored servers...it learns the servers normal behaviour, reacts only when a particular server is out of norm....very very nice indeed. ITM is unfortunately built on the presumption that all servers are relatively equal.......maybe true in IBM lab.......but not in customer's world. We only use out of box resouce models and absolutely refuse to use the Resource model builder to add BASIC capabilities that DM provided. The RM builder is OK for adding monitoring for components/elements not covered by ITM out of box, but not features such as multiple thresholds, distributing scripts/code for task execution. Many ITM Resource models are not even pertinent to the OS they monitor....one key one is TMW_LogicalDisk.....it calls for a pecentage in the setting of thresholds (no coding of bytes/MB etc) and cannot ignore any LogicalDisks...... while the DMX Unix RM allows for coding of MB. This makes the TMW RM completely irrelevant due to varying disk sizes. Just imagine hat happens when a Windows admin gets paged due to a TEC event indicating server "X" has only 1% disk space on Logical disk D .....when disk D is 200GB...thats 2GB still free!! The OS admin will tell you to jump off a bridge. ITM must be redesigned. Our shop is testing MS MOM for all windows monitoring. Thus far it is going well and we will likely end up pulling the plug on 3/4 of our ITM presence before too long. IBM really messed up with ITM. Rob From: owner-tme10@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Date: 01/28/2005 08:06:34 PM Subject: [tme10] ITM Hi list, is it possible to distribute an custom configurationfile together with a Ressource Model Profile , like the Distribution Action in DM3.7. -- 10 GB Mailbox, 100 FreeSMS http://www.gmx.net/de/go/topmail <<http://www.gmx.net/de/go/topmail>> +++ GMX - die erste Adresse für Mail, Message, More +++ Rob Traill, Tivoli Specialist Enterprise Systems Operations ph: (905) 795-5400 ext 7315 fax: (905) 795-5404 email: robert_traill@xxxxxxx email (rim): rtraill@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ~~DLNK0.URL Description: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/topmail Previous Message by Thread: click to view message previewRE: TEC Reception Cache FullAre you getting event storms? -----Original Message-----From: owner-tme10@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-tme10@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Jeff.Richards@xxxxxxxxxxxSent: Friday, January 28, 2005 9:47 AMTo: tme10@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxSubject: [tme10] TEC Reception Cache FullI guess this is a configuration/performance issue. Here's what I saw in an event dump: 1~3183448~65537~1106906597(Jan 28 05:03:17 2005) ### EVENT ### TEC_Notice;source=TEC;msg="Reception Cache Full: NON-TME Events: Reception Log E nabled. Events saved in WAITING state";severity=CRITICAL;END . ### END EVENT ### PROCESSED 1~3184146~65537~1106909724(Jan 28 05:55:24 2005) ### EVENT ### TEC_Notice;source=TEC;msg="Reception Cache Full: NON-TME Events: Reception Log E nabled. Events saved in WAITING state";severity=CRITICAL;END . ### END EVENT ### PROCESSED Here's what I saw in /tmp/tec_rule Jan 28 05:55:22.348559 tec_rule[48154] ERR tec_msg.c:45: No message type: 1, T Jan 28 05:55:22.354526 tec_rule[48154] ERR tec_pool.c:406: Could not receive msg : msg does not contain msgtype Jan 28 06:19:31.097860 tec_rule[48154] ERR tec_msg.c:45: No message type: 1, T Jan 28 06:19:31.098340 tec_rule[48154] ERR tec_pool.c:406: Could not receive msg : msg does not contain msgtype Any help would be appreciated. Thanks. ********************************************************** Privileged and/or confidential information may be contained in this message. If you are not the addressee indicated in this message (or are not responsible for delivery of this message to that person) , you may not copy or deliver this message to anyone. In such case, you should destroy this message and notify the sender by reply e-mail. If you or your employer do not consent to Internet e-mail for messages of this kind, please advise the sender. Shaw Industries does not provide or endorse any opinions, conclusions or other information in this message that do not relate to the official business of the company or its subsidiaries. ********************************************************** Next Message by Thread: click to view message previewRef: [TEC371] limit for string used in PROLOG listHi, List. I am dropping event if certain string is found in the msg slot. To achieve this I created a list and the request keeps coming form administrator to drop events. The list is growing as I add more string to filter events. Is there any limitation for using list this way? Any one has experienced any problem? Is there any limit on number of characters that can be used in list? Is there any better way to accomplish this? reception_action: ( _string_list = ['Fatal Exception occurred','IsEvents ERROR IntegrationServiceException,''java.io.IOException: Stream closed','The maximum number of characters for this COBOL', 'Failure retrieving policy access'], findall(_match, ( member(_match, _string_list), atompart(_msg,_match,_,_), !), [_matched]), /* succeeds if at least one match is found */ drop_received_event, commit_set ), Vina Patel IT Infrastructure, Tivoli Support Chubb & Sons, Inc. Phone: 908-903-5794 vpatel@xxxxxxxxx Loading Comments...
|
|
