AW: Problem with MLM - conflict with 'portmap'?

1998-08-11 10:50:21
Subject: AW: Problem with MLM - conflict with 'portmap'?
From: James_Shanks AT TIVOLI DOT COM
To: nv-l AT lists.tivoli DOT com
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 10:50:21 -0400
According to my sources, this was fixed in the latest 2.3.1 ptf and the 5.0
Looks like you are at  at 2.3.0.  You should call Support and get the
latest level.

James Shanks
Tivoli (NetView for UNIX) L3 Support


---------------------- Forwarded by James Shanks/Tivoli Systems on 08/11/98
09:41 AM ---------------------------

"Brunschede, Gerd" <Gerd.Brunschede AT HIK.FZK DOT DE> on 08/11/98 08:05:25 AM

Please respond to Discussion of IBM NetView and POLYCENTER Manager on
      NetView et alia <NV-L AT UCSBVM.UCSB DOT EDU>

cc:    (bcc: James Shanks)
Subject:  AW: Problem with MLM - conflict with 'portmap'?

> -----Urspr
üngliche Nachricht-----
> Von:  Steven Casagrande [SMTP:steve_casagrande AT BE.IBM DOT COM]
> Gesendet am:  Dienstag, 11. August 1998 13:48
> Betreff:      Problem with MLM - conflict with 'portmap'?
> Hello,
> We are using the Netview MLM on our system, and whenever we start up
> midmand, it destroys NFS performance on the system.  We've traced it
> to one possibility: a possible conflict between 'portmap' and
> 'midmand'.  Using 'lsof', we found portmap and midmand both using
> UDP:*.*  (whatever port *that*  is...), and when this happens, the
> biods (NFS client daemons) don't use any CPU, and NFS performance is
> terrible (several seconds for a 'df', for example).  Killing midmand
> clears up the problem.
> I suspect that the UDP:*.*  port is being fought over by midmand and
> portmap (which acts as a broker for rpc services, including NFS).
> Then, when packets get grabbed by midmand, the portmap never sees
> them, and we're in a timeout condition for the NFS application.  The
> bad performance seems random (sometimes it's OK), which might indicate
> that the midmand was off doing something else, and the portman had a
> chance to get at the socket.
> Has anyone else seen this problem?  Any ideas for a work-around?
> FYI: AIX, mlm, RS/6k-380/192MB RAM/584MB Swap,
> very lightly loaded (just us chickens!).
> Many thanks,
> Steve Casagrande
> IBM Belgium
> Steve_Casagrande AT be.ibm DOT com
> +32-3-897-2550

        yes, we saw a similiar problem after migration from NV 4.1 with
MLM-Products to NV 5.
        The performance went down dramiticly on our AIX-Nodes. After
stopping the MLM-
        Products (MLM,SLM and SIA) and deleting them the problems has

        The monitoring of our AIX-nodes we are doing now with TME10 DM
3.5 without any

        What now we cannot use are the private MIB-variables. We can
live with this

        Gerd Brunschede
        Forschungszentrum Karlsruhe GmbH
        Abteilung HIK
        Postfach 3640
        76021 Karlsruhe

        Tel: +49 7247 82-5637
        Fax: +49 7247 82-4972
        e-mail: brunschede AT hik.fzk DOT de

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>