| Author |
Message
|
| bmccarty |
 Posted: Mon Jul 22, 2002 7:33 am Post subject: AMQ8101: Unexpected error (10806020) on endmqcsv |
 |
|
Apprentice
Joined: 18 Dec 2001
Posts: 43
|
Hi,
We have been having some trouble with our command servers on our MQ 5.2 CSD05 installations on Solaris and NT/2000.
From time to time the command server because unresponsive from remote admin so in trying to rectify the problem without bouncing the queue manager we have been trying to do such things as stop and start just the command server with strmqcsv and endmqcsv. We noticed that the maximum queue depth is being reached on the SYSTEM.ADMIN.COMMAND.QUEUE.
Therefore I guess I have two specific questions but if anybody has had any similar problems with the command server, please let me know.
1) Why would we get a AMQ8101 when trying to stop the command server?
2) Why would the command messages not be removed from the SYSTEM.ADMIN.COMMAND.QUEUE?
I would think the answer to number 1 is because number 2 is happening, but any help would be appreciated. These queue managers are in production so we can't just restart them this frequently.
Thanks,
Brian
PS, It doesn't look like any FDC or errors are being generated. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| mqonnet |
| Posted: Tue Jul 23, 2002 5:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Master
Joined: 18 Feb 2002
Posts: 1114
Location: Boston, Ma, Usa.
|
Well, the first question to ask (even though sound silly) is to check if your command server is running. If it is, has it kept the SYSTEM.ADMIN.COMMAND.QUEUE open. Meaning, is it processing something. If not, then you might want to see whats the problem with the command server.
Not sure why you are getting errors running endmqcsv.
Since it is a prod system i am a bit hesitant of the following approach, but you can try it, if you wish.
Try killing the command server process and restart it using strmqcsv. This only if you think that there is something wrong with the command server process.
The other hard alternative would be to try and reproduce this problem in a test/dev env and track it down. This, using the same executables as the prod, though.
Cheers.
Kumar
_________________
IBM Certified WebSphere MQ V5.3 Developer
IBM Certified WebSphere MQ V5.3 Solution Designer
IBM Certified WebSphere MQ V5.3 System Administrator |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| bower5932 |
| Posted: Tue Jul 23, 2002 9:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Knight
Joined: 27 Aug 2001
Posts: 3023
Location: Dallas, TX, USA
|
| I checked out an internal database, and I couldn't find anything that looked like your problem. Are you getting any FDCs with the error? If so, post the top of it here. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| bmccarty |
| Posted: Wed Jul 24, 2002 3:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Apprentice
Joined: 18 Dec 2001
Posts: 43
|
Hi guys,
Actually I probably should have clarified a little more. When I go to check out the command server, it says that it is running when checking from the command line, dspmqscv. However, when checking from MQ Explorer I recieve a message that the max queue depth has been reached.
Being curious to why I go back to runmqsc and check the queue depth of the SYSTEM.ADMIN.COMMAND.QUEUE. It is at max depth. I then issue the endmqcsv command but it times out so I give it the -i and it stops.
When trying to start it back up again with strmqcsv it gives me the error that I posted before.
The only way I can seem to recover is to re-start the queue manager, not something that production likes to do.
I don't think that any FDC's are produced HOWEVER, we are using BMC Patrol and I can see from amqsbcg on the SYSTEM.ADMIN.COMMAND.QUEUE that most of the messages were sent by BMC because the user is PATROL.
Ofcourse BMC could be causing this problem, but I would like to look at all the possiblilites.
Thanks for the help!
Brian |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| mqonnet |
| Posted: Thu Jul 25, 2002 4:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Master
Joined: 18 Feb 2002
Posts: 1114
Location: Boston, Ma, Usa.
|
One of the reasons could be that BMC is putting messages faster than your command server can process. In a prod env you usually come accross such instances. Just curious though, is your command server doing anything, meaning processing any messages at all or just sitting there.
What happens if you increase the maxdepth and say double it.
Cheers.
Kumar
_________________
IBM Certified WebSphere MQ V5.3 Developer
IBM Certified WebSphere MQ V5.3 Solution Designer
IBM Certified WebSphere MQ V5.3 System Administrator |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| bmccarty |
| Posted: Thu Jul 25, 2002 6:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
Apprentice
Joined: 18 Dec 2001
Posts: 43
|
When we increased the maxdepth to see if it would start processing, the depth of messages started to increase very slowly. I don't know if the we were having a high rate in inqueue and a lower rate of dequeues, or if we were just having a slow inqueue rate and no dequeue's.
I feeling is that it is not dequeing any messages at all, but I will try to find out for sure.
Is there anyway to speed up the command server?
Thanks,
Brian |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| bower5932 |
| Posted: Thu Jul 25, 2002 6:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Knight
Joined: 27 Aug 2001
Posts: 3023
Location: Dallas, TX, USA
|
| You could always use the Windows Task manager to increase the priority of the process. Have you looked at the messages with amqsbcg to see if you can figure out what they are and why they are being sent? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| mrlinux |
| Posted: Thu Jul 25, 2002 7:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Master
Joined: 14 Feb 2002
Posts: 1261
Location: Detroit,MI USA
|
From the description in the MQSeries Message Manual
The message should also display a code (&1) with it, does it display a code ??? This might help troubleshoot.
AMQ8101 Unexpected error (&1).
Explanation: An unexpected reason code with hexadecimal value &1 was received from the WebSphere MQ queue manager during command processing. (Note that hexadecimal values in the range X'07D1'-X'0BB7' correspond to MQI reason codes 2001-2999.) More information might be available in the log. If the reason code value indicates that the error was associated with a particular parameter, the parameter concerned is &4.
User Response: Correct the error and then try the command again.
_________________
Jeff
IBM Certified Developer MQSeries
IBM Certified Specialist MQSeries
IBM Certified Solutions Expert MQSeries |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| bower5932 |
| Posted: Thu Jul 25, 2002 2:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Knight
Joined: 27 Aug 2001
Posts: 3023
Location: Dallas, TX, USA
|
| The code is in the subject of the thread: 10806020 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| bmccarty |
| Posted: Mon Jul 29, 2002 5:38 am Post subject: Haven't been able to recreate... |
|
|
Apprentice
Joined: 18 Dec 2001
Posts: 43
|
Well I am trying to figure out if the code means something but I can't recreate the problem and I cleared all of the messags in the command queue some I can't see what they were trying to do.
I will check on seeing if I can increase the priority of the command server process.
Does anybody know what the process name of the command server is? If not I probably can figure it out. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| mrlinux |
| Posted: Mon Jul 29, 2002 7:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Master
Joined: 14 Feb 2002
Posts: 1261
Location: Detroit,MI USA
|
amqpcsea
_________________
Jeff
IBM Certified Developer MQSeries
IBM Certified Specialist MQSeries
IBM Certified Solutions Expert MQSeries |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| cserrano |
| Posted: Mon Jul 29, 2002 11:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
Newbie
Joined: 27 Jun 2001
Posts: 3
|
Brian,
haven't come across the SYSTEM.ADMIN.COMMAND.QUEUE filling up before. You said that you browsed the queue for the msgs and the user was Patrol. I'd be interested to know what the msgs said. Typical s/w house reply, but the versions of PMQO are pretty recent are they ?
Cheers,
Claudio |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| bmccarty |
| Posted: Mon Jul 29, 2002 5:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Apprentice
Joined: 18 Dec 2001
Posts: 43
|
We should be at the latest level for Patrol, it is a brand new tool for us.
I am going to check with BMC if it happens again, but since I don't have the messages anymore it would be hard to say what the response would be.
Thanks for the process name and I will update this thread if it happens again.
B |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
