| Author |
Message
|
| jdye |
 Posted: Wed Jun 20, 2007 7:12 am Post subject: Intermittent 2059 |
 |
|
Apprentice
Joined: 14 Jun 2002
Posts: 31
Location: Kansas City
|
We are experiencing a problem with one of our vendor applications. During periods of high application activity, the application receives mulitple 2059 reason codes. I assume that there are so many because it is retrying the call. There are no errors on any of the MQ logs. This application uses bindings to connect. Once when this error was occuring, I tried to connect to the qmgr using the MQ Explorer and it also received the 2059. After a few minutes, everything works again. From what I have read, this error is normally associated with a failed MQCONN call although I have seen where others reportedly have received it during a MQOPEN, MQGET or MQPUT. I am waiting on the vendor to verify what function the failure is occuring on.
The queue manager is at level 5.3 CSD 4 (which is requirement of the vendor). It is running on an AIX box. It is clustered.
I read that it is recommended on AIX to set IPCCBaseAddress to 12, but
I would assume that if there was a shared memory conflict that it would not work at all and also with the extended shared memory in 5.3 (which we implementeed due to a previous problem) that would eliminate the need for IPCCBaseAddress option.
I am not seeing a memory shortage when this occurs.
Any ideas?
Thanks
Janet |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| jefflowrey |
| Posted: Wed Jun 20, 2007 7:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Poobah
Joined: 16 Oct 2002
Posts: 19981
|
You should put pressure on the vendor to certify on MQ v6. Make it a condition of contract renewal, perhaps. CSD4 is several years old.
Are there any FDCs thrown at the same time as all these 2059s?
_________________
I am *not* the model of the modern major general. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| DTran |
| Posted: Wed Jun 20, 2007 7:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
Acolyte
Joined: 11 May 2006
Posts: 62
Location: Amsterdam
|
Janet,
by using IPCCBaseAddress=12 you can prevent the memory conflict as you describe. If you using HACMP make sure you change it on all the systems.
And ofcourse you have to stop and restart the queue manager 
Grz,
Doan
_________________
There are 10 types of people in this world - those who understand binary and those who don't |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| jdye |
| Posted: Wed Jun 20, 2007 7:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
Apprentice
Joined: 14 Jun 2002
Posts: 31
Location: Kansas City
|
Jeff,
There were not errors in any of the MQ logs. The vendors most current release will work with MQ 6, but unfortuneatly, upgrading the application is a major project and won't happen real soon.
Doan,
So if there is a memory conflict, it wouldn't necessarily happen every time?
Thanks |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| DTran |
| Posted: Wed Jun 20, 2007 8:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
Acolyte
Joined: 11 May 2006
Posts: 62
Location: Amsterdam
|
It depends on how "busy" the server was at that time. What i know from JMS is that JMS can consumes a lots of memory (assuming you are using Java )
I think CSD7 resolves this problem, but like Jeff said, it is better to migrate to v6.
Grz,
Doan
_________________
There are 10 types of people in this world - those who understand binary and those who don't |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| wschutz |
| Posted: Wed Jun 20, 2007 8:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Knight
Joined: 02 Jun 2005
Posts: 3316
Location: IBM (retired)
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| jefflowrey |
| Posted: Wed Jun 20, 2007 9:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Poobah
Joined: 16 Oct 2002
Posts: 19981
|
Why would TCP/IP backlog come into play for bindings connections?
_________________
I am *not* the model of the modern major general. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| wschutz |
| Posted: Wed Jun 20, 2007 9:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Knight
Joined: 02 Jun 2005
Posts: 3316
Location: IBM (retired)
|
sorry, i guess i see mq clients where there are none.
_________________
-wayne |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| jdye |
| Posted: Wed Jun 20, 2007 10:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
Apprentice
Joined: 14 Jun 2002
Posts: 31
Location: Kansas City
|
| Thanks! We are going to try the IPCCBaseAddress parm and hope for the best. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
