[Search for users] [Overall Top Noters] [List of all Conferences] [Download this site]

Conference noted::sns

Title:POLYCENTER System Watchdog for VMS OSF/1 ULTRIX HP-UX AIX SunOS
Notice:Wishes:406,FAQ:845,Kits-VMS:1000,UNIX:694 VMS ECO01 FT kit: 521
Moderator:AZUR::HUREZZ
Created:Fri May 15 1992
Last Modified:Fri Jun 06 1997
Last Successful Update:Fri Jun 06 1997
Number of topics:1033
Total number of notes:4584

1009.0. "differences in the P8 field..." by CIMBAD::SHUMWAY () Wed Feb 26 1997 16:19

Hello,

	I am having a problem with the same sensor reporting missing 
processes in different ways. (see below)

  P1 = "24-FEB 16:26 F6GUI4 Process RTCLDS with UIC=[GUI$FAB6] is missing"
  P2 = "24-FEB-1997 16:26:17.54"
  P3 = "SNS_C_PRO" 
  P4 = "F6GUI4"
  P5 = "F6GUI4"
  P6 = "CIM_ACTION"
  P7 = "SNS_C_NEW"
  P8 = "RTCLDS|GUI$FAB6||"


  P1 = "24-FEB 17:34 F6GUI4 Process RTCSRV with UIC=[GUI$FAB6] is missing"
  P2 = "24-FEB-1997 17:34:45.57"
  P3 = "SNS_C_PRO"
  P4 = "F6GUI4"
  P5 = "F6GUI4"
  P6 = "CIM_ACTION"
  P7 = "SNS_C_NEW"
  P8 = "RTCSRV"

The problem is P8 in the second one does not have the |'s or the UIC
It is the same node, same consolidator, same sensor, same day, 
same execution... everything seems the same.

Is this just a glitch in the system, or is this a common bug.  I havn't 
seen this problem since, but it did happpen multiple times.

I am runing V2.2-02.  Thanks for any insight.

Keith Shuwmay
cimt::shumway
T.RTitleUserPersonal
Name		DateLines
1009.1I'm watching over it...AZUR::HUREZConnectivity & Computing Services @VBE. DTN 828-5159Thu Feb 27 1997 05:4618
    
    Yep, I'm now monitoring action results, as I've had a couple of heads
    up from the field about it and experienced it myself a couple of times
    when performing regression tests on the ECO03 ...
    
    It might be a bug in PSW; considering the way it shows up, I'd bet it
    has something to do with bad field (re)initialization problem or
    something like this.  I already did some cleanup work around this into
    the ECO04, currently beeing tested by a Computer Associates QA engineer.
    (Would you give it a try when CA will give its greenlight?)
    I'll investigate further asap specifically around the P8 parameter.
    
    Thanks for the feedback!
    
    Best Regards,
    
    	-- Olivier.
1009.2CIMBAD::SHUMWAYThu Feb 27 1997 10:3113
Olivier,

>    (Would you give it a try when CA will give its greenlight?)

	Sure I would...  Let me know when that happens, I'd be glad to test it 
out.  Although I really do not know how to make the problem happen again.  It 
is sort of a random thing that happens at random times on random events.  I do 
not see it too often, but I am now keeping a log of when it is happening.

	Let me know when it is released.

Thanks,
Keith
1009.3Another P8 questionCIMBAD::SHUMWAYTue Apr 08 1997 14:5215
Olivier,

	We just ran into another P8 problem.  The DNF sensor has lately been 
reporting using the P8 field in different ways.

Most common       
		diskname|percentage|blocks

once in a while we get
		diskname|nodename

Do you have any idea why it would report in this way?

Thanks,
Keith