Oh, well, I don't know whether this deserves opening an APAR. The message is indeed quite misleading, but the thing is that once the line in the section PORT of TCPIP's profile was corrected to match the actual procedure name (that is, removing the leading "1"), SYSLOG started successfully and stopped complaining that was already active.
On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 7:32 AM, Hunkeler Peter (KIUP 4) <[email protected]> wrote: >>Just one more clarifying comment: the cause was really in a line like >>"514 UDP SYSLOGT1" in the "PORT" section of TCPIP's profile. Removing >>the leading "1" (SYSLOGT is the procedure name) made it work. So that >>leading "1" was the cause. This is probably a reminiscence when SYSLOG >>used to fork, if it used to. > > In your initial post, you showed the message you're getting: > BPXF024I (USRFWKT) Oct 8 11:27:08 BOLSAWBD/USRFWKT SYSLOGT syslogd: > FSUM1229 syslogd is already active > > TFM explains FSUM1229 as follows: > Explanation: Another instance of syslogd, or possibly some other > program, is already > processing the syslogd AF_UNIX socket. The > syslogd AF_UNIX socket is > /dev/log, or a different one specified with > the -p command-line parameter. > > This does not correlate to the cause you've found. syslogd should write > a message > telling it could not open port 514 with the corresponding reason. > > APAR time? > > -- > Peter Hunkeler > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, > send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
