Do you have a lot of Perfmon checks in your configuration? Jim Ferrell EDS - Allison Transmission 4700 W 10th St Mail Code 462-470-H04 Indianapolis, IN 46222
* phone: +01-317-242-0034 (8-252) * mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Cell phone: 317-716-4541 -----Original Message----- From: Servers Alive Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2006 11:35 AM To: Servers Alive Discussion List Subject: RE: [SA-list] Checks fail due to lack of resources locally I have a nack for causing confusion! :-) All of the checks that fail do so with a message "Lack of resources"... The XP system running SA is completely unresponsive and cannot even be managed from the KVM. The remote systems were all just fine. -R > Now I'm loosing you :-) > > The remote systems don't respond, and you have to reboot the XP? > So the remote systems are the XPs? > > > > > Dirk Bulinckx. > -----Original Message----- > From: Servers Alive Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2006 5:16 PM > To: Servers Alive Discussion List > Subject: RE: [SA-list] Checks fail due to lack of resources locally > > No, when all of the check start failing, the remote system won't even > respond on the Dell IP based KVM. XP is seriously frozen and requires > a physical power recycle. > > I have kicked around the idea of doing some local perfmon checks to > log and graph with RRD which would help watch memory consumption for > example. > > -R > >> Can you do a NET VIEW towards those remote system from your XP system >> and from other systems? >> >> >> Dirk Bulinckx. >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Servers Alive Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On >> Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2006 5:01 PM >> To: Servers Alive Discussion List >> Subject: RE: [SA-list] Checks fail due to lack of resources locally >> >> The remote side of the checks are almost exclusively on Windows 2000 >> Pro and Server. With some hitting 2003 server. I am not checking any >> systems that are running XP. >> >>> Are those checks on the WinXP system or on a remote system? >>> >>> >>> >>> Dirk Bulinckx. >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Servers Alive Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On >>> Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2006 4:41 PM >>> To: Servers Alive Discussion List >>> Subject: [SA-list] Checks fail due to lack of resources locally >>> >>> I am having a troubling condition with Servers Alive running on >>> Windows XP Professional. After running for a period of time (this >>> time it has been up for 4 days), all of the complex checks like >>> Windows Process checks, file checks, print spoolers, cpu and >>> pagespace, etc. fail with a message similar >>> to: >>> >>> Clframe1 % CPU (DOWN) 100% CPU check (running at Not enough >>> resources are available to complete this operation. %, check time: >>> 187 ms) >>> >>> So my first question is, Should I be using something other than >>> Windows XP (i.e. Windows 2000 or 2003)? My SA v4 never had this >>> issue, though I have added a lot more perfmon based checks and com >>> based checks, and RRD logging and graphing. I am stumped and hate >>> the thought that the fix is a daily reboot of the servers alive system. >>> >>> Thanks in advance! >>> >>> Rob Petty >>> >>> To unsubscribe send a message with UNSUBSCRIBE as subject to >>> [email protected] If you use auto-responders (like >>> out-of-the-office messages), then make sure that they are not send >>> to the list nor to the individual members of the list that send a >>> message. Doing this will get you removed from the list. >>> >>> To unsubscribe send a message with UNSUBSCRIBE as subject to >>> [email protected] If you use auto-responders (like >>> out-of-the-office messages), then make sure that they are not send >>> to the list nor to the individual members of the list that send a >>> message. Doing this will get you removed from the list. >>> >> >> To unsubscribe send a message with UNSUBSCRIBE as subject to >> [email protected] If you use auto-responders (like >> out-of-the-office messages), then make sure that they are not send to >> the list nor to the individual members of the list that send a >> message. Doing this will get you removed from the list. >> >> To unsubscribe send a message with UNSUBSCRIBE as subject to >> [email protected] If you use auto-responders (like >> out-of-the-office messages), then make sure that they are not send to >> the list nor to the individual members of the list that send a >> message. Doing this will get you removed from the list. >> > > To unsubscribe send a message with UNSUBSCRIBE as subject to > [email protected] If you use auto-responders (like out-of-the-office > messages), then make sure that they are not send to the list nor to > the individual members of the list that send a message. Doing this > will get you removed from the list. > > To unsubscribe send a message with UNSUBSCRIBE as subject to > [email protected] If you use auto-responders (like out-of-the-office > messages), then make sure that they are not send to the list nor to > the individual members of the list that send a message. Doing this > will get you removed from the list. > To unsubscribe send a message with UNSUBSCRIBE as subject to [email protected] If you use auto-responders (like out-of-the-office messages), then make sure that they are not send to the list nor to the individual members of the list that send a message. Doing this will get you removed from the list. To unsubscribe send a message with UNSUBSCRIBE as subject to [email protected] If you use auto-responders (like out-of-the-office messages), then make sure that they are not send to the list nor to the individual members of the list that send a message. Doing this will get you removed from the list.
