RE: X.400 issues
Now we have the picture... You either need a consultant or a new resume. At this point, the consultant is the better choice. Seriously - this gets into the big ugly of how Exchange 5.5 routes mail, and goes back to what I said the other day about connector cost being one of the last used factors in routing mail. Since you're routing across organizations, your x.400 connectors have some very specific address space entries, and I'll bet that you messed one of those up. And that's way to hard to figure out in this kind of forum. Personally, I'd either go for the consultant, or go call PSS and spend the money to get them to walk you though the fixes. -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA -Original Message- From: Bennett, Joshua [mailto:jbennett;cotelligent.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2002 12:07 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: X.400 issues This is where things get really complicated. These 2 servers are not in the same ORG as all the other servers. They are, however (through some procedure that I am have no knowledge of that was done 2 years before I took this over) faked into thinking that they are in the same ORG. I have no idea how any of this was done, again before my time. I may want to just delete the old X.400 between SD and Irvine and force a re-calculation of the routing table. I am grasping a straws at this point. -Original Message- From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:roger.seielstad;inovis.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2002 8:35 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: X.400 issues G-d do you need a consulting engagement! I know someone in San Diego who could spend a couple days with you on this if you really need the help. Anyway, let me see if I can sort this out: EC -x400- Irvine (cost 1) EC -x400- SD (cost 1) Irvine -x400- SD (cost 100) EC -IMC (cost 1?) Irvine -IMC (Cost 99) Now, a few things to keep in mind. In the grand scheme of Ex5.5 routing, cost is the 7th (of 7) factors used for routing decisions, and therefore doesn't play as much of a role in routing as it should. However, make sure that you've set the cost correctly at both ends, and make sure that you're not setting the option to only use least cost routes. Now - another question. You bought this company. Did you migrate them to the same Org as your company, or are they set up as a separate org name? If they are different orgs, what are the address space entries on your x.400 and IMS with regards to the other company's domains? -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA -Original Message- From: Bennett, Joshua [mailto:jbennett;cotelligent.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2002 3:36 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: X.400 issues Not really an option. The scenario is this: The one remote server is in San Diego that used to be connected to the other remote server in Irvine, CA by an X.400 connector over a T1. The only server that was connected to the hub server on the E. Coast was the one in Irvine. There was an X.400 connector between SD and Irvine, then an X.400connector to the EC. There is now an separate X.400 connector from SD and Irvine to the hub server. The Irvine server has an IMC that was used by the old company (that was bought by us). The cost on the connectors to the hub server from each site is set to 1. The old connector from SD to Irvine has a cost of 100. The IMC on Irvine is set to 99. I would like to remove the old connector from SD-Irvine but, the connectors from each remote site to the hub server is sooo erratic that I have mail that routes from SD-Irvine-out the IMC in Irvine then back to the hub server on the E. Coast through the corporate IMC. There is the jist of what I am going through. It is driving me nuts trying to troubleshoot this. Please help. Josh -Original Message- From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:roger.seielstad;inovis.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2002 10:36 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: X.400 issues What is it about your routing table that is causing the looping messages? Is it possible for you to remove redundant routes, even just one or two, to see what happens? -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA -Original Message- From: Bennett, Joshua [mailto:jbennett;cotelligent.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2002 9:56 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: X.400
RE: X.400 issues
G-d do you need a consulting engagement! I know someone in San Diego who could spend a couple days with you on this if you really need the help. Anyway, let me see if I can sort this out: EC -x400- Irvine (cost 1) EC -x400- SD (cost 1) Irvine -x400- SD (cost 100) EC -IMC (cost 1?) Irvine -IMC (Cost 99) Now, a few things to keep in mind. In the grand scheme of Ex5.5 routing, cost is the 7th (of 7) factors used for routing decisions, and therefore doesn't play as much of a role in routing as it should. However, make sure that you've set the cost correctly at both ends, and make sure that you're not setting the option to only use least cost routes. Now - another question. You bought this company. Did you migrate them to the same Org as your company, or are they set up as a separate org name? If they are different orgs, what are the address space entries on your x.400 and IMS with regards to the other company's domains? -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA -Original Message- From: Bennett, Joshua [mailto:jbennett;cotelligent.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2002 3:36 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: X.400 issues Not really an option. The scenario is this: The one remote server is in San Diego that used to be connected to the other remote server in Irvine,CA by an X.400 connector over a T1. The only server that was connected to the hub server on the E.Coast was the one in Irvine. There was an X.400 connector between SD and Irvine, then an X.400 connector to the EC. There is now an separate X.400 connector from SD and Irvine to the hub server. The Irvine server has an IMC that was used by the old company (that was bought by us). The cost on the connectors to the hub server from each site is set to 1. The old connector from SD to Irvine has a cost of 100. The IMC on Irvine is set to 99. I would like to remove the old connector from SD-Irvine but, the connectors from each remote site to the hub server is sooo erratic that I have mail that routes from SD-Irvine-out the IMC in Irvine then back to the hub server on the E. Coast through the corporate IMC. There is the jist of what I am going through. It is driving me nuts trying to troubleshoot this. Please help. Josh -Original Message- From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:roger.seielstad;inovis.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2002 10:36 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: X.400 issues What is it about your routing table that is causing the looping messages? Is it possible for you to remove redundant routes, even just one or two, to see what happens? -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA -Original Message- From: Bennett, Joshua [mailto:jbennett;cotelligent.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2002 9:56 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: X.400 issues Yes, the queues back up for an hour or so then flush clean in a 2 minute span once the X.400 connection is successful. However, due to the way the routing table is, I have messages flowing in a roundabout fashion. -Original Message- From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:roger.seielstad;inovis.com] Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 6:35 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: X.400 issues IIRC, you're getting exceeded the maximum number of associations which usually indicates that the total number of connections and associations, which I believe is 9 associations and 10 connects per association. Are you sure there aren't any looping messages, or a butload of public folder replication traffic? Is there anything in the MTA queue? -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA -Original Message- From: Bennett, Joshua [mailto:jbennett;cotelligent.com] Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 3:11 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: X.400 issues I've adjusted the number of control blocks the MTA has available and again, it did not correct the situation. -Original Message- From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:roger.seielstad;inovis.com] Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 1:47 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: X.400 issues The previous suggestion about tuning the MTA stack is where I'd start. The best reference is Managing Exchange 5.5 by Paul Robichaux, if you have that handy. If not, the parameter I think you're looking for is called control blocks. -- Roger D
RE: X.400 issues
This is where things get really complicated. These 2 servers are not in the same ORG as all the other servers. They are, however (through some procedure that I am have no knowledge of that was done 2 years before I took this over) faked into thinking that they are in the same ORG. I have no idea how any of this was done, again before my time. I may want to just delete the old X.400 between SD and Irvine and force a re-calculation of the routing table. I am grasping a straws at this point. -Original Message- From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:roger.seielstad;inovis.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2002 8:35 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: X.400 issues G-d do you need a consulting engagement! I know someone in San Diego who could spend a couple days with you on this if you really need the help. Anyway, let me see if I can sort this out: EC -x400- Irvine (cost 1) EC -x400- SD (cost 1) Irvine -x400- SD (cost 100) EC -IMC (cost 1?) Irvine -IMC (Cost 99) Now, a few things to keep in mind. In the grand scheme of Ex5.5 routing, cost is the 7th (of 7) factors used for routing decisions, and therefore doesn't play as much of a role in routing as it should. However, make sure that you've set the cost correctly at both ends, and make sure that you're not setting the option to only use least cost routes. Now - another question. You bought this company. Did you migrate them to the same Org as your company, or are they set up as a separate org name? If they are different orgs, what are the address space entries on your x.400 and IMS with regards to the other company's domains? -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA -Original Message- From: Bennett, Joshua [mailto:jbennett;cotelligent.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2002 3:36 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: X.400 issues Not really an option. The scenario is this: The one remote server is in San Diego that used to be connected to the other remote server in Irvine,CA by an X.400 connector over a T1. The only server that was connected to the hub server on the E.Coast was the one in Irvine. There was an X.400 connector between SD and Irvine, then an X.400 connector to the EC. There is now an separate X.400 connector from SD and Irvine to the hub server. The Irvine server has an IMC that was used by the old company (that was bought by us). The cost on the connectors to the hub server from each site is set to 1. The old connector from SD to Irvine has a cost of 100. The IMC on Irvine is set to 99. I would like to remove the old connector from SD-Irvine but, the connectors from each remote site to the hub server is sooo erratic that I have mail that routes from SD-Irvine-out the IMC in Irvine then back to the hub server on the E. Coast through the corporate IMC. There is the jist of what I am going through. It is driving me nuts trying to troubleshoot this. Please help. Josh -Original Message- From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:roger.seielstad;inovis.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2002 10:36 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: X.400 issues What is it about your routing table that is causing the looping messages? Is it possible for you to remove redundant routes, even just one or two, to see what happens? -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA -Original Message- From: Bennett, Joshua [mailto:jbennett;cotelligent.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2002 9:56 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: X.400 issues Yes, the queues back up for an hour or so then flush clean in a 2 minute span once the X.400 connection is successful. However, due to the way the routing table is, I have messages flowing in a roundabout fashion. -Original Message- From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:roger.seielstad;inovis.com] Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 6:35 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: X.400 issues IIRC, you're getting exceeded the maximum number of associations which usually indicates that the total number of connections and associations, which I believe is 9 associations and 10 connects per association. Are you sure there aren't any looping messages, or a butload of public folder replication traffic? Is there anything in the MTA queue? -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA -Original Message- From: Bennett, Joshua [mailto:jbennett;cotelligent.com] Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 3:11 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: X.400
RE: X.400 issues
No, not really. Should I be overly concerned that I am seeing these errors if all this turns out to be a a bandwidth issue? My concern is that this is the beginning of a larger Exchange issue. -Original Message- From: Chris Scharff [mailto:chris_scharff;messageone.com] Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 5:54 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: X.400 issues So, it continues to sound more like a bandwidth or network problem. Did we ever determine what 'too long' of a delivery time meant? -Original Message- From: Bennett, Joshua [mailto:jbennett;cotelligent.com] Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 2:11 PM To: Exchange Discussions I've adjusted the number of control blocks the MTA has available and again, it did not correct the situation. -Original Message- From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:roger.seielstad;inovis.com] Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 1:47 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: X.400 issues The previous suggestion about tuning the MTA stack is where I'd start. The best reference is Managing Exchange 5.5 by Paul Robichaux, if you have that handy. If not, the parameter I think you're looking for is called control blocks. -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA -Original Message- From: Bennett, Joshua [mailto:jbennett;cotelligent.com] Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 1:24 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: X.400 issues I use supposed to be due to the issue at hand that is driving me insane. -Original Message- From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:roger.seielstad;inovis.com] Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 1:02 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: X.400 issues Replace supposed to be with definitely are -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA -Original Message- From: Bennett, Joshua [mailto:jbennett;cotelligent.com] Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 12:27 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: X.400 issues These servers are all connected by WAN links and X.400 connectors are supposed to be more resilient to network interruptions. -Original Message- From: Tony Hlabse [mailto:thlabse;hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 11:19 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: X.400 issues Curious as to why you are using X400 instead of Site Connectors. Yes x400 are more efficient just curious. - Original Message - From: Darcy Adams [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 11:06 AM Subject: RE: X.400 issues I'd think twice about that one - if you have a multi-site organization, any directory replication connectors that depend on those X400 connectors will have to be either pointed to another connector in the same site, or deleted before you can delete the connector. And, if you delete the dirrep connector, be prepared to rebuild any cross-site distribution lists after you recreate the connectors (X400 and dirrep). Darcy -Original Message- From: Bennett, Joshua [mailto:jbennett;cotelligent.com] Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 6:24 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: X.400 issues I have tried everything that you have described and to no avail. I received a suggestion to remove the connectors and rebuild the TCP stack in Exchange to clear this up. Any opinions on this idea... -Original Message- From: Daniel Chenault [mailto:danielc;dc-resources.net] Sent: Saturday, November 02, 2002 10:02 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: X.400 issues 57: the other MTA has a limit on the number of available connections 289: because of that limit, a connection to that MTA could not be opened 1290: somewhat a repeat of 289, but more info 9202: low-level diagnostic on the connection failure In general this sequence of events can be ignored if mail otherwise flows. It's a temporary condition. If it keeps happening over and over and the queue to that MTA keeps backing up then you'll need to actually troubleshoot what is wrong (i.e. raise the number of connections on the other MTA if you have control over it). Precht, do you ever add anything of value? -Original Message- From: David N. Precht [mailto:discussions;entrysecurity.com] Sent: Saturday, November 02, 2002 1:45 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: X.400 issues www.eventid.net -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED
RE: X.400 issues
Yes, the queues back up for an hour or so then flush clean in a 2 minute span once the X.400 connection is successful. However, due to the way the routing table is, I have messages flowing in a roundabout fashion. -Original Message- From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:roger.seielstad;inovis.com] Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 6:35 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: X.400 issues IIRC, you're getting exceeded the maximum number of associations which usually indicates that the total number of connections and associations, which I believe is 9 associations and 10 connects per association. Are you sure there aren't any looping messages, or a butload of public folder replication traffic? Is there anything in the MTA queue? -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA -Original Message- From: Bennett, Joshua [mailto:jbennett;cotelligent.com] Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 3:11 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: X.400 issues I've adjusted the number of control blocks the MTA has available and again, it did not correct the situation. -Original Message- From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:roger.seielstad;inovis.com] Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 1:47 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: X.400 issues The previous suggestion about tuning the MTA stack is where I'd start. The best reference is Managing Exchange 5.5 by Paul Robichaux, if you have that handy. If not, the parameter I think you're looking for is called control blocks. -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA -Original Message- From: Bennett, Joshua [mailto:jbennett;cotelligent.com] Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 1:24 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: X.400 issues I use supposed to be due to the issue at hand that is driving me insane. -Original Message- From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:roger.seielstad;inovis.com] Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 1:02 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: X.400 issues Replace supposed to be with definitely are -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA -Original Message- From: Bennett, Joshua [mailto:jbennett;cotelligent.com] Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 12:27 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: X.400 issues These servers are all connected by WAN links and X.400 connectors are supposed to be more resilient to network interruptions. -Original Message- From: Tony Hlabse [mailto:thlabse;hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 11:19 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: X.400 issues Curious as to why you are using X400 instead of Site Connectors. Yes x400 are more efficient just curious. - Original Message - From: Darcy Adams [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 11:06 AM Subject: RE: X.400 issues I'd think twice about that one - if you have a multi-site organization, any directory replication connectors that depend on those X400 connectors will have to be either pointed to another connector in the same site, or deleted before you can delete the connector. And, if you delete the dirrep connector, be prepared to rebuild any cross-site distribution lists after you recreate the connectors (X400 and dirrep). Darcy -Original Message- From: Bennett, Joshua [mailto:jbennett;cotelligent.com] Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 6:24 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: X.400 issues I have tried everything that you have described and to no avail. I received a suggestion to remove the connectors and rebuild the TCP stack in Exchange to clear this up. Any opinions on this idea... -Original Message- From: Daniel Chenault [mailto:danielc;dc-resources.net] Sent: Saturday, November 02, 2002 10:02 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: X.400 issues 57: the other MTA has a limit on the number of available connections 289: because of that limit, a connection to that MTA could not be opened 1290: somewhat a repeat of 289, but more info 9202: low-level diagnostic on the connection failure In general this sequence of events can be ignored if mail otherwise flows. It's a temporary condition. If it keeps happening over and over and the queue to that MTA keeps backing up then you'll need to actually troubleshoot what is wrong (i.e. raise
RE: X.400 issues
Both way's -Original Message- From: Daniel Chenault [mailto:danielc;dc-resources.net] Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 8:43 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: X.400 issues On which MTA? The sending or receiving one? - Original Message - From: Bennett, Joshua [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 2:10 PM Subject: RE: X.400 issues I've adjusted the number of control blocks the MTA has available and again, it did not correct the situation. -Original Message- From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:roger.seielstad;inovis.com] Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 1:47 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: X.400 issues The previous suggestion about tuning the MTA stack is where I'd start. The best reference is Managing Exchange 5.5 by Paul Robichaux, if you have that handy. If not, the parameter I think you're looking for is called control blocks. -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA -Original Message- From: Bennett, Joshua [mailto:jbennett;cotelligent.com] Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 1:24 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: X.400 issues I use supposed to be due to the issue at hand that is driving me insane. -Original Message- From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:roger.seielstad;inovis.com] Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 1:02 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: X.400 issues Replace supposed to be with definitely are -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA -Original Message- From: Bennett, Joshua [mailto:jbennett;cotelligent.com] Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 12:27 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: X.400 issues These servers are all connected by WAN links and X.400 connectors are supposed to be more resilient to network interruptions. -Original Message- From: Tony Hlabse [mailto:thlabse;hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 11:19 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: X.400 issues Curious as to why you are using X400 instead of Site Connectors. Yes x400 are more efficient just curious. - Original Message - From: Darcy Adams [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 11:06 AM Subject: RE: X.400 issues I'd think twice about that one - if you have a multi-site organization, any directory replication connectors that depend on those X400 connectors will have to be either pointed to another connector in the same site, or deleted before you can delete the connector. And, if you delete the dirrep connector, be prepared to rebuild any cross-site distribution lists after you recreate the connectors (X400 and dirrep). Darcy -Original Message- From: Bennett, Joshua [mailto:jbennett;cotelligent.com] Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 6:24 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: X.400 issues I have tried everything that you have described and to no avail. I received a suggestion to remove the connectors and rebuild the TCP stack in Exchange to clear this up. Any opinions on this idea... -Original Message- From: Daniel Chenault [mailto:danielc;dc-resources.net] Sent: Saturday, November 02, 2002 10:02 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: X.400 issues 57: the other MTA has a limit on the number of available connections 289: because of that limit, a connection to that MTA could not be opened 1290: somewhat a repeat of 289, but more info 9202: low-level diagnostic on the connection failure In general this sequence of events can be ignored if mail otherwise flows. It's a temporary condition. If it keeps happening over and over and the queue to that MTA keeps backing up then you'll need to actually troubleshoot what is wrong (i.e. raise the number of connections on the other MTA if you have control over it). Precht, do you ever add anything of value? -Original Message- From: David N. Precht [mailto:discussions;entrysecurity.com] Sent: Saturday, November 02, 2002 1:45 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: X.400 issues www.eventid.net -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:bounce-exchange-224131;ls.swynk.com] On Behalf Of Bennett, Joshua Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 11:05 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: X.400 issues Event ID 57: Source: MSExchangeMTA Type: Warning Category
RE: X.400 issues
What is it about your routing table that is causing the looping messages? Is it possible for you to remove redundant routes, even just one or two, to see what happens? -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA -Original Message- From: Bennett, Joshua [mailto:jbennett;cotelligent.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2002 9:56 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: X.400 issues Yes, the queues back up for an hour or so then flush clean in a 2 minute span once the X.400 connection is successful. However, due to the way the routing table is, I have messages flowing in a roundabout fashion. -Original Message- From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:roger.seielstad;inovis.com] Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 6:35 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: X.400 issues IIRC, you're getting exceeded the maximum number of associations which usually indicates that the total number of connections and associations, which I believe is 9 associations and 10 connects per association. Are you sure there aren't any looping messages, or a butload of public folder replication traffic? Is there anything in the MTA queue? -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA -Original Message- From: Bennett, Joshua [mailto:jbennett;cotelligent.com] Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 3:11 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: X.400 issues I've adjusted the number of control blocks the MTA has available and again, it did not correct the situation. -Original Message- From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:roger.seielstad;inovis.com] Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 1:47 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: X.400 issues The previous suggestion about tuning the MTA stack is where I'd start. The best reference is Managing Exchange 5.5 by Paul Robichaux, if you have that handy. If not, the parameter I think you're looking for is called control blocks. -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA -Original Message- From: Bennett, Joshua [mailto:jbennett;cotelligent.com] Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 1:24 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: X.400 issues I use supposed to be due to the issue at hand that is driving me insane. -Original Message- From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:roger.seielstad;inovis.com] Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 1:02 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: X.400 issues Replace supposed to be with definitely are -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA -Original Message- From: Bennett, Joshua [mailto:jbennett;cotelligent.com] Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 12:27 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: X.400 issues These servers are all connected by WAN links and X.400 connectors are supposed to be more resilient to network interruptions. -Original Message- From: Tony Hlabse [mailto:thlabse;hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 11:19 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: X.400 issues Curious as to why you are using X400 instead of Site Connectors. Yes x400 are more efficient just curious. - Original Message - From: Darcy Adams [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 11:06 AM Subject: RE: X.400 issues I'd think twice about that one - if you have a multi-site organization, any directory replication connectors that depend on those X400 connectors will have to be either pointed to another connector in the same site, or deleted before you can delete the connector. And, if you delete the dirrep connector, be prepared to rebuild any cross-site distribution lists after you recreate the connectors (X400 and dirrep). Darcy -Original Message- From: Bennett, Joshua [mailto:jbennett;cotelligent.com] Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 6:24 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: X.400 issues I have tried everything that you have described and to no avail. I received a suggestion to remove the connectors and rebuild the TCP stack in Exchange to clear this up. Any opinions on this idea... -Original Message- From: Daniel Chenault [mailto:danielc;dc
Re: X.400 issues
This is something I have seen/heard about before. I just can't remember what the heck it was. Should someone shed light on this fly in your ointment let me know. Of course if the light bulb goes off I let you know. - Original Message - From: Bennett, Joshua [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2002 9:55 AM Subject: RE: X.400 issues Yes, the queues back up for an hour or so then flush clean in a 2 minute span once the X.400 connection is successful. However, due to the way the routing table is, I have messages flowing in a roundabout fashion. -Original Message- From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:roger.seielstad;inovis.com] Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 6:35 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: X.400 issues IIRC, you're getting exceeded the maximum number of associations which usually indicates that the total number of connections and associations, which I believe is 9 associations and 10 connects per association. Are you sure there aren't any looping messages, or a butload of public folder replication traffic? Is there anything in the MTA queue? -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA -Original Message- From: Bennett, Joshua [mailto:jbennett;cotelligent.com] Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 3:11 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: X.400 issues I've adjusted the number of control blocks the MTA has available and again, it did not correct the situation. -Original Message- From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:roger.seielstad;inovis.com] Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 1:47 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: X.400 issues The previous suggestion about tuning the MTA stack is where I'd start. The best reference is Managing Exchange 5.5 by Paul Robichaux, if you have that handy. If not, the parameter I think you're looking for is called control blocks. -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA -Original Message- From: Bennett, Joshua [mailto:jbennett;cotelligent.com] Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 1:24 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: X.400 issues I use supposed to be due to the issue at hand that is driving me insane. -Original Message- From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:roger.seielstad;inovis.com] Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 1:02 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: X.400 issues Replace supposed to be with definitely are -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA -Original Message- From: Bennett, Joshua [mailto:jbennett;cotelligent.com] Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 12:27 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: X.400 issues These servers are all connected by WAN links and X.400 connectors are supposed to be more resilient to network interruptions. -Original Message- From: Tony Hlabse [mailto:thlabse;hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 11:19 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: X.400 issues Curious as to why you are using X400 instead of Site Connectors. Yes x400 are more efficient just curious. - Original Message - From: Darcy Adams [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 11:06 AM Subject: RE: X.400 issues I'd think twice about that one - if you have a multi-site organization, any directory replication connectors that depend on those X400 connectors will have to be either pointed to another connector in the same site, or deleted before you can delete the connector. And, if you delete the dirrep connector, be prepared to rebuild any cross-site distribution lists after you recreate the connectors (X400 and dirrep). Darcy -Original Message- From: Bennett, Joshua [mailto:jbennett;cotelligent.com] Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 6:24 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: X.400 issues I have tried everything that you have described and to no avail. I received a suggestion to remove the connectors and rebuild the TCP stack in Exchange to clear this up. Any opinions on this idea... -Original Message- From: Daniel Chenault [mailto:danielc;dc-resources.net] Sent: Saturday, November 02, 2002 10:02 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: X.400 issues 57: the other MTA has
RE: X.400 issues
Not really an option. The scenario is this: The one remote server is in San Diego that used to be connected to the other remote server in Irvine, CA by an X.400 connector over a T1. The only server that was connected to the hub server on the E. Coast was the one in Irvine. There was an X.400 connector between SD and Irvine, then an X.400connector to the EC. There is now an separate X.400 connector from SD and Irvine to the hub server. The Irvine server has an IMC that was used by the old company (that was bought by us). The cost on the connectors to the hub server from each site is set to 1. The old connector from SD to Irvine has a cost of 100. The IMC on Irvine is set to 99. I would like to remove the old connector from SD-Irvine but, the connectors from each remote site to the hub server is sooo erratic that I have mail that routes from SD-Irvine-out the IMC in Irvine then back to the hub server on the E. Coast through the corporate IMC. There is the jist of what I am going through. It is driving me nuts trying to troubleshoot this. Please help. Josh -Original Message- From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:roger.seielstad;inovis.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2002 10:36 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: X.400 issues What is it about your routing table that is causing the looping messages? Is it possible for you to remove redundant routes, even just one or two, to see what happens? -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA -Original Message- From: Bennett, Joshua [mailto:jbennett;cotelligent.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2002 9:56 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: X.400 issues Yes, the queues back up for an hour or so then flush clean in a 2 minute span once the X.400 connection is successful. However, due to the way the routing table is, I have messages flowing in a roundabout fashion. -Original Message- From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:roger.seielstad;inovis.com] Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 6:35 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: X.400 issues IIRC, you're getting exceeded the maximum number of associations which usually indicates that the total number of connections and associations, which I believe is 9 associations and 10 connects per association. Are you sure there aren't any looping messages, or a butload of public folder replication traffic? Is there anything in the MTA queue? -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA -Original Message- From: Bennett, Joshua [mailto:jbennett;cotelligent.com] Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 3:11 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: X.400 issues I've adjusted the number of control blocks the MTA has available and again, it did not correct the situation. -Original Message- From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:roger.seielstad;inovis.com] Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 1:47 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: X.400 issues The previous suggestion about tuning the MTA stack is where I'd start. The best reference is Managing Exchange 5.5 by Paul Robichaux, if you have that handy. If not, the parameter I think you're looking for is called control blocks. -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA -Original Message- From: Bennett, Joshua [mailto:jbennett;cotelligent.com] Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 1:24 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: X.400 issues I use supposed to be due to the issue at hand that is driving me insane. -Original Message- From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:roger.seielstad;inovis.com] Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 1:02 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: X.400 issues Replace supposed to be with definitely are -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA -Original Message- From: Bennett, Joshua [mailto:jbennett;cotelligent.com] Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 12:27 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: X.400 issues These servers are all connected by WAN links and X.400 connectors are supposed to be more resilient to network interruptions. -Original Message- From: Tony Hlabse [mailto:thlabse;hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 11:19 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: X.400 issues Curious as to why you are using
Re: X.400 issues
- Original Message - From: Bennett, Joshua [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2002 3:36 PM Subject: RE: X.400 issues Not really an option. The scenario is this: The one remote server is in San Diego that used to be connected to the other remote server in Irvine, CA by an X.400 connector over a T1. The only server that was connected to the hub server on the E. Coast was the one in Irvine. There was an X.400 connector between SD and Irvine, then an X.400 connector to the EC. There is now an separate X.400 connector from SD and Irvine to the hub server. The Irvine server has an IMC that was used by the old company (that was bought by us). The cost on the connectors to the hub server from each site is set to 1. The old connector from SD to Irvine has a cost of 100. The IMC on Irvine is set to 99. I would like to remove the old connector from SD-Irvine but, the connectors from each remote site to the hub server is sooo erratic that I have mail that routes from SD-Irvine-out the IMC in Irvine then back to the hub server on the E. Coast through the corporate IMC. There is the jist of what I am going through. It is driving me nuts trying to troubleshoot this. Please help. Josh -Original Message- From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:roger.seielstad;inovis.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2002 10:36 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: X.400 issues What is it about your routing table that is causing the looping messages? Is it possible for you to remove redundant routes, even just one or two, to see what happens? -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA -Original Message- From: Bennett, Joshua [mailto:jbennett;cotelligent.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2002 9:56 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: X.400 issues Yes, the queues back up for an hour or so then flush clean in a 2 minute span once the X.400 connection is successful. However, due to the way the routing table is, I have messages flowing in a roundabout fashion. -Original Message- From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:roger.seielstad;inovis.com] Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 6:35 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: X.400 issues IIRC, you're getting exceeded the maximum number of associations which usually indicates that the total number of connections and associations, which I believe is 9 associations and 10 connects per association. Are you sure there aren't any looping messages, or a butload of public folder replication traffic? Is there anything in the MTA queue? -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA -Original Message- From: Bennett, Joshua [mailto:jbennett;cotelligent.com] Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 3:11 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: X.400 issues I've adjusted the number of control blocks the MTA has available and again, it did not correct the situation. -Original Message- From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:roger.seielstad;inovis.com] Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 1:47 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: X.400 issues The previous suggestion about tuning the MTA stack is where I'd start. The best reference is Managing Exchange 5.5 by Paul Robichaux, if you have that handy. If not, the parameter I think you're looking for is called control blocks. -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA -Original Message- From: Bennett, Joshua [mailto:jbennett;cotelligent.com] Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 1:24 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: X.400 issues I use supposed to be due to the issue at hand that is driving me insane. -Original Message- From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:roger.seielstad;inovis.com] Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 1:02 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: X.400 issues Replace supposed to be with definitely are -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA -Original Message- From: Bennett, Joshua [mailto:jbennett;cotelligent.com] Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 12:27 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: X.400 issues These servers are all connected by WAN links and X.400 connectors are supposed to be more resilient to network interruptions
Re: X.400 issues
What does usage on task manager look like when the server's MTA gets backed up. Maybe it's the box itself. - Original Message - From: Bennett, Joshua [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2002 3:36 PM Subject: RE: X.400 issues Not really an option. The scenario is this: The one remote server is in San Diego that used to be connected to the other remote server in Irvine, CA by an X.400 connector over a T1. The only server that was connected to the hub server on the E. Coast was the one in Irvine. There was an X.400 connector between SD and Irvine, then an X.400 connector to the EC. There is now an separate X.400 connector from SD and Irvine to the hub server. The Irvine server has an IMC that was used by the old company (that was bought by us). The cost on the connectors to the hub server from each site is set to 1. The old connector from SD to Irvine has a cost of 100. The IMC on Irvine is set to 99. I would like to remove the old connector from SD-Irvine but, the connectors from each remote site to the hub server is sooo erratic that I have mail that routes from SD-Irvine-out the IMC in Irvine then back to the hub server on the E. Coast through the corporate IMC. There is the jist of what I am going through. It is driving me nuts trying to troubleshoot this. Please help. Josh -Original Message- From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:roger.seielstad;inovis.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2002 10:36 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: X.400 issues What is it about your routing table that is causing the looping messages? Is it possible for you to remove redundant routes, even just one or two, to see what happens? -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA -Original Message- From: Bennett, Joshua [mailto:jbennett;cotelligent.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2002 9:56 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: X.400 issues Yes, the queues back up for an hour or so then flush clean in a 2 minute span once the X.400 connection is successful. However, due to the way the routing table is, I have messages flowing in a roundabout fashion. -Original Message- From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:roger.seielstad;inovis.com] Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 6:35 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: X.400 issues IIRC, you're getting exceeded the maximum number of associations which usually indicates that the total number of connections and associations, which I believe is 9 associations and 10 connects per association. Are you sure there aren't any looping messages, or a butload of public folder replication traffic? Is there anything in the MTA queue? -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA -Original Message- From: Bennett, Joshua [mailto:jbennett;cotelligent.com] Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 3:11 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: X.400 issues I've adjusted the number of control blocks the MTA has available and again, it did not correct the situation. -Original Message- From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:roger.seielstad;inovis.com] Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 1:47 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: X.400 issues The previous suggestion about tuning the MTA stack is where I'd start. The best reference is Managing Exchange 5.5 by Paul Robichaux, if you have that handy. If not, the parameter I think you're looking for is called control blocks. -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA -Original Message- From: Bennett, Joshua [mailto:jbennett;cotelligent.com] Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 1:24 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: X.400 issues I use supposed to be due to the issue at hand that is driving me insane. -Original Message- From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:roger.seielstad;inovis.com] Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 1:02 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: X.400 issues Replace supposed to be with definitely are -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA -Original Message- From: Bennett, Joshua [mailto:jbennett;cotelligent.com] Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 12:27 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: X.400 issues These servers are all connected
RE: X.400 issues
I have tried everything that you have described and to no avail. I received a suggestion to remove the connectors and rebuild the TCP stack in Exchange to clear this up. Any opinions on this idea... -Original Message- From: Daniel Chenault [mailto:danielc;dc-resources.net] Sent: Saturday, November 02, 2002 10:02 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: X.400 issues 57: the other MTA has a limit on the number of available connections 289: because of that limit, a connection to that MTA could not be opened 1290: somewhat a repeat of 289, but more info 9202: low-level diagnostic on the connection failure In general this sequence of events can be ignored if mail otherwise flows. It's a temporary condition. If it keeps happening over and over and the queue to that MTA keeps backing up then you'll need to actually troubleshoot what is wrong (i.e. raise the number of connections on the other MTA if you have control over it). Precht, do you ever add anything of value? -Original Message- From: David N. Precht [mailto:discussions;entrysecurity.com] Sent: Saturday, November 02, 2002 1:45 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: X.400 issues www.eventid.net -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:bounce-exchange-224131;ls.swynk.com] On Behalf Of Bennett, Joshua Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 11:05 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: X.400 issues Event ID 57: Source: MSExchangeMTA Type: Warning Category: X.400 Service The limit on the number of associations allowed to and from entity (X.400 address) has been reached. The limit is 9. [MTA XFER-IN 19 34](12) Event ID 289: Source: MSExchangeMTA Type: Warning Category: X.400 Service A connection to (X.400 address) could not be opened [MTA XFER-IN 19 26](12) Event ID 1290: Source: MSExchagneMTA Type: Warning Category: X.400 Service A locally initiated association to (X.400 address) was refused. The failure reason provider was 0 and the reason was 0. Control block index 6. Type 1. [PLATFORM KERNEL 25 130](12) Event ID 9202: Source: MSExchangeMTA Type: Warning Category: Operating System A sockets error 10061 on an accept[] call was detected. The MTA will attempt to recover the sockets connection. Control block index: /. [BASE IL TCP/IP DRVR 8 256](12) These are the Event ID's that continually pop up on the one remote server with the same symptoms, the other server just produces the 289 event id only. Thanks, Josh -Original Message- From: Chris Scharff [mailto:chris_scharff;messageone.com] Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 10:53 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: X.400 issues Admission: I'm entirely too lazy to go look up the random odd event ID or guestimate what too long[1] means. It there any chance you (the collective you) could include the Event ID source and description in addition to the number? And that you could provide an example of sent/ received times which constitute a too long delivery time. [1] When I worked at $vbc we initially had an MS Mail PO config which routinely resulted in 8 hour delivery times of mail from the US to Indonesia. If a user called and said it'd been six hours and the mail wasn't delivered, we didn't troubleshoot it. -Original Message- From: Bennett, Joshua [mailto:jbennett;cotelligent.com] Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 8:55 AM To: Exchange Discussions Hello all, I have an incredibly annoying situation going on that I can't seem to get a grip on. I am not sure of the magnitude of the errors I am seeing due to the fact that mail is still flowing. Here is my setup: I am running WNT4.0 SP6 / EX 5.5 EE SP4 all hotfixes on all these servers. I have a hub and spoke configuration within my EX org. All my remote servers connect (through X.400 connectors) to a central EX server that serves as my IMS to the internet. All the spoke servers are BDC's in NT domains. The hub server is a member server in a central domain that all other domains have 2-way trusts to. All the remote servers (scattered across the US) are connected to the hub server by full T1 lines. My issue is this: The MTA on the hub server backs up and an Event ID: 289 is written to the App log then the queue flushes clear and all mail is delivered without incident. This seems to occur about every 10 minutes or so during the day. There does not appear to be, at least on the surface, any connectivity issues. Should I just ignore these errors, as the mail is being delivered? Or is this just the beginning of a major issue about to explode in my lap? Please help, I have dug around MS site and Google and come up with little to no help. Thanks, Josh Bennett Exchange Admin\Systems Engineer Cotelligent, Inc. 401 Parkway Drive Broomall, PA. 19008 610-359-5929 www.cotelligent.com _ List posting
RE: X.400 issues
How many X.400 connectors do you have defined on the central machine? (And maybe on remote ones as well). If you have too many: you will need to increase the number of Control Blocks being used. Take a search through MS KB for TCPIP Control Blocks. These are set in the Registry at HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Services\MSExchangeMTA\Parameter s\ There are other parameters that may need to be modified at the same time. Cheers, Chris -Original Message- From: Bennett, Joshua [mailto:jbennett;cotelligent.com] Sent: 01 November 2002 16:05 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: X.400 issues Event ID 57: Source: MSExchangeMTA Type: Warning Category: X.400 Service The limit on the number of associations allowed to and from entity (X.400 address) has been reached. The limit is 9. [MTA XFER-IN 19 34](12) Event ID 289: Source: MSExchangeMTA Type: Warning Category: X.400 Service A connection to (X.400 address) could not be opened [MTA XFER-IN 19 26](12) Event ID 1290: Source: MSExchagneMTA Type: Warning Category: X.400 Service A locally initiated association to (X.400 address) was refused. The failure reason provider was 0 and the reason was 0. Control block index 6. Type 1. [PLATFORM KERNEL 25 130](12) Event ID 9202: Source: MSExchangeMTA Type: Warning Category: Operating System A sockets error 10061 on an accept[] call was detected. The MTA will attempt to recover the sockets connection. Control block index: /. [BASE IL TCP/IP DRVR 8 256](12) These are the Event ID's that continually pop up on the one remote server with the same symptoms, the other server just produces the 289 event id only. Thanks, Josh -Original Message- From: Chris Scharff [mailto:chris_scharff;messageone.com] Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 10:53 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: X.400 issues Admission: I'm entirely too lazy to go look up the random odd event ID or guestimate what too long[1] means. It there any chance you (the collective you) could include the Event ID source and description in addition to the number? And that you could provide an example of sent/ received times which constitute a too long delivery time. [1] When I worked at $vbc we initially had an MS Mail PO config which routinely resulted in 8 hour delivery times of mail from the US to Indonesia. If a user called and said it'd been six hours and the mail wasn't delivered, we didn't troubleshoot it. -Original Message- From: Bennett, Joshua [mailto:jbennett;cotelligent.com] Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 8:55 AM To: Exchange Discussions Hello all, I have an incredibly annoying situation going on that I can't seem to get a grip on. I am not sure of the magnitude of the errors I am seeing due to the fact that mail is still flowing. Here is my setup: I am running WNT4.0 SP6 / EX 5.5 EE SP4 all hotfixes on all these servers. I have a hub and spoke configuration within my EX org. All my remote servers connect (through X.400 connectors) to a central EX server that serves as my IMS to the internet. All the spoke servers are BDC's in NT domains. The hub server is a member server in a central domain that all other domains have 2-way trusts to. All the remote servers (scattered across the US) are connected to the hub server by full T1 lines. My issue is this: The MTA on the hub server backs up and an Event ID: 289 is written to the App log then the queue flushes clear and all mail is delivered without incident. This seems to occur about every 10 minutes or so during the day. There does not appear to be, at least on the surface, any connectivity issues. Should I just ignore these errors, as the mail is being delivered? Or is this just the beginning of a major issue about to explode in my lap? Please help, I have dug around MS site and Google and come up with little to no help. Thanks, Josh Bennett Exchange Admin\Systems Engineer Cotelligent, Inc. 401 Parkway Drive Broomall, PA. 19008 610-359-5929 www.cotelligent.com _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange;ls.swynk.com Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange;ls.swynk.com Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange;ls.swynk.com
RE: X.400 issues
I'd think twice about that one - if you have a multi-site organization, any directory replication connectors that depend on those X400 connectors will have to be either pointed to another connector in the same site, or deleted before you can delete the connector. And, if you delete the dirrep connector, be prepared to rebuild any cross-site distribution lists after you recreate the connectors (X400 and dirrep). Darcy -Original Message- From: Bennett, Joshua [mailto:jbennett;cotelligent.com] Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 6:24 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: X.400 issues I have tried everything that you have described and to no avail. I received a suggestion to remove the connectors and rebuild the TCP stack in Exchange to clear this up. Any opinions on this idea... -Original Message- From: Daniel Chenault [mailto:danielc;dc-resources.net] Sent: Saturday, November 02, 2002 10:02 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: X.400 issues 57: the other MTA has a limit on the number of available connections 289: because of that limit, a connection to that MTA could not be opened 1290: somewhat a repeat of 289, but more info 9202: low-level diagnostic on the connection failure In general this sequence of events can be ignored if mail otherwise flows. It's a temporary condition. If it keeps happening over and over and the queue to that MTA keeps backing up then you'll need to actually troubleshoot what is wrong (i.e. raise the number of connections on the other MTA if you have control over it). Precht, do you ever add anything of value? -Original Message- From: David N. Precht [mailto:discussions;entrysecurity.com] Sent: Saturday, November 02, 2002 1:45 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: X.400 issues www.eventid.net -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:bounce-exchange-224131;ls.swynk.com] On Behalf Of Bennett, Joshua Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 11:05 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: X.400 issues Event ID 57: Source: MSExchangeMTA Type: Warning Category: X.400 Service The limit on the number of associations allowed to and from entity (X.400 address) has been reached. The limit is 9. [MTA XFER-IN 19 34](12) Event ID 289: Source: MSExchangeMTA Type: Warning Category: X.400 Service A connection to (X.400 address) could not be opened [MTA XFER-IN 19 26](12) Event ID 1290: Source: MSExchagneMTA Type: Warning Category: X.400 Service A locally initiated association to (X.400 address) was refused. The failure reason provider was 0 and the reason was 0. Control block index 6. Type 1. [PLATFORM KERNEL 25 130](12) Event ID 9202: Source: MSExchangeMTA Type: Warning Category: Operating System A sockets error 10061 on an accept[] call was detected. The MTA will attempt to recover the sockets connection. Control block index: /. [BASE IL TCP/IP DRVR 8 256](12) These are the Event ID's that continually pop up on the one remote server with the same symptoms, the other server just produces the 289 event id only. Thanks, Josh -Original Message- From: Chris Scharff [mailto:chris_scharff;messageone.com] Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 10:53 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: X.400 issues Admission: I'm entirely too lazy to go look up the random odd event ID or guestimate what too long[1] means. It there any chance you (the collective you) could include the Event ID source and description in addition to the number? And that you could provide an example of sent/ received times which constitute a too long delivery time. [1] When I worked at $vbc we initially had an MS Mail PO config which routinely resulted in 8 hour delivery times of mail from the US to Indonesia. If a user called and said it'd been six hours and the mail wasn't delivered, we didn't troubleshoot it. -Original Message- From: Bennett, Joshua [mailto:jbennett;cotelligent.com] Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 8:55 AM To: Exchange Discussions Hello all, I have an incredibly annoying situation going on that I can't seem to get a grip on. I am not sure of the magnitude of the errors I am seeing due to the fact that mail is still flowing. Here is my setup: I am running WNT4.0 SP6 / EX 5.5 EE SP4 all hotfixes on all these servers. I have a hub and spoke configuration within my EX org. All my remote servers connect (through X.400 connectors) to a central EX server that serves as my IMS to the internet. All the spoke servers are BDC's in NT domains. The hub server is a member server in a central domain that all other domains have 2-way trusts to. All the remote servers (scattered across the US) are connected to the hub server by full T1 lines. My issue is this: The MTA on the hub server backs up and an Event ID: 289 is written to the App log then the queue flushes clear and all mail is delivered without incident. This seems
RE: X.400 issues
I only have 9 connectors, including IMC, on the hub server. I have already looked into the reg hack that MSKB refers to and it did nothing to relief the situation. Thanks, Josh -Original Message- From: Chris Jordan [mailto:Chris.Jordan;cmg.com] Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 10:25 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: X.400 issues How many X.400 connectors do you have defined on the central machine? (And maybe on remote ones as well). If you have too many: you will need to increase the number of Control Blocks being used. Take a search through MS KB for TCPIP Control Blocks. These are set in the Registry at HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Services\MSExchangeMTA\Parameter s\ There are other parameters that may need to be modified at the same time. Cheers, Chris -Original Message- From: Bennett, Joshua [mailto:jbennett;cotelligent.com] Sent: 01 November 2002 16:05 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: X.400 issues Event ID 57: Source: MSExchangeMTA Type: Warning Category: X.400 Service The limit on the number of associations allowed to and from entity (X.400 address) has been reached. The limit is 9. [MTA XFER-IN 19 34](12) Event ID 289: Source: MSExchangeMTA Type: Warning Category: X.400 Service A connection to (X.400 address) could not be opened [MTA XFER-IN 19 26](12) Event ID 1290: Source: MSExchagneMTA Type: Warning Category: X.400 Service A locally initiated association to (X.400 address) was refused. The failure reason provider was 0 and the reason was 0. Control block index 6. Type 1. [PLATFORM KERNEL 25 130](12) Event ID 9202: Source: MSExchangeMTA Type: Warning Category: Operating System A sockets error 10061 on an accept[] call was detected. The MTA will attempt to recover the sockets connection. Control block index: /. [BASE IL TCP/IP DRVR 8 256](12) These are the Event ID's that continually pop up on the one remote server with the same symptoms, the other server just produces the 289 event id only. Thanks, Josh -Original Message- From: Chris Scharff [mailto:chris_scharff;messageone.com] Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 10:53 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: X.400 issues Admission: I'm entirely too lazy to go look up the random odd event ID or guestimate what too long[1] means. It there any chance you (the collective you) could include the Event ID source and description in addition to the number? And that you could provide an example of sent/ received times which constitute a too long delivery time. [1] When I worked at $vbc we initially had an MS Mail PO config which routinely resulted in 8 hour delivery times of mail from the US to Indonesia. If a user called and said it'd been six hours and the mail wasn't delivered, we didn't troubleshoot it. -Original Message- From: Bennett, Joshua [mailto:jbennett;cotelligent.com] Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 8:55 AM To: Exchange Discussions Hello all, I have an incredibly annoying situation going on that I can't seem to get a grip on. I am not sure of the magnitude of the errors I am seeing due to the fact that mail is still flowing. Here is my setup: I am running WNT4.0 SP6 / EX 5.5 EE SP4 all hotfixes on all these servers. I have a hub and spoke configuration within my EX org. All my remote servers connect (through X.400 connectors) to a central EX server that serves as my IMS to the internet. All the spoke servers are BDC's in NT domains. The hub server is a member server in a central domain that all other domains have 2-way trusts to. All the remote servers (scattered across the US) are connected to the hub server by full T1 lines. My issue is this: The MTA on the hub server backs up and an Event ID: 289 is written to the App log then the queue flushes clear and all mail is delivered without incident. This seems to occur about every 10 minutes or so during the day. There does not appear to be, at least on the surface, any connectivity issues. Should I just ignore these errors, as the mail is being delivered? Or is this just the beginning of a major issue about to explode in my lap? Please help, I have dug around MS site and Google and come up with little to no help. Thanks, Josh Bennett Exchange Admin\Systems Engineer Cotelligent, Inc. 401 Parkway Drive Broomall, PA. 19008 610-359-5929 www.cotelligent.com _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange;ls.swynk.com Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe
Re: X.400 issues
Curious as to why you are using X400 instead of Site Connectors. Yes x400 are more efficient just curious. - Original Message - From: Darcy Adams [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 11:06 AM Subject: RE: X.400 issues I'd think twice about that one - if you have a multi-site organization, any directory replication connectors that depend on those X400 connectors will have to be either pointed to another connector in the same site, or deleted before you can delete the connector. And, if you delete the dirrep connector, be prepared to rebuild any cross-site distribution lists after you recreate the connectors (X400 and dirrep). Darcy -Original Message- From: Bennett, Joshua [mailto:jbennett;cotelligent.com] Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 6:24 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: X.400 issues I have tried everything that you have described and to no avail. I received a suggestion to remove the connectors and rebuild the TCP stack in Exchange to clear this up. Any opinions on this idea... -Original Message- From: Daniel Chenault [mailto:danielc;dc-resources.net] Sent: Saturday, November 02, 2002 10:02 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: X.400 issues 57: the other MTA has a limit on the number of available connections 289: because of that limit, a connection to that MTA could not be opened 1290: somewhat a repeat of 289, but more info 9202: low-level diagnostic on the connection failure In general this sequence of events can be ignored if mail otherwise flows. It's a temporary condition. If it keeps happening over and over and the queue to that MTA keeps backing up then you'll need to actually troubleshoot what is wrong (i.e. raise the number of connections on the other MTA if you have control over it). Precht, do you ever add anything of value? -Original Message- From: David N. Precht [mailto:discussions;entrysecurity.com] Sent: Saturday, November 02, 2002 1:45 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: X.400 issues www.eventid.net -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:bounce-exchange-224131;ls.swynk.com] On Behalf Of Bennett, Joshua Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 11:05 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: X.400 issues Event ID 57: Source: MSExchangeMTA Type: Warning Category: X.400 Service The limit on the number of associations allowed to and from entity (X.400 address) has been reached. The limit is 9. [MTA XFER-IN 19 34](12) Event ID 289: Source: MSExchangeMTA Type: Warning Category: X.400 Service A connection to (X.400 address) could not be opened [MTA XFER-IN 19 26](12) Event ID 1290: Source: MSExchagneMTA Type: Warning Category: X.400 Service A locally initiated association to (X.400 address) was refused. The failure reason provider was 0 and the reason was 0. Control block index 6. Type 1. [PLATFORM KERNEL 25 130](12) Event ID 9202: Source: MSExchangeMTA Type: Warning Category: Operating System A sockets error 10061 on an accept[] call was detected. The MTA will attempt to recover the sockets connection. Control block index: /. [BASE IL TCP/IP DRVR 8 256](12) These are the Event ID's that continually pop up on the one remote server with the same symptoms, the other server just produces the 289 event id only. Thanks, Josh -Original Message- From: Chris Scharff [mailto:chris_scharff;messageone.com] Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 10:53 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: X.400 issues Admission: I'm entirely too lazy to go look up the random odd event ID or guestimate what too long[1] means. It there any chance you (the collective you) could include the Event ID source and description in addition to the number? And that you could provide an example of sent/ received times which constitute a too long delivery time. [1] When I worked at $vbc we initially had an MS Mail PO config which routinely resulted in 8 hour delivery times of mail from the US to Indonesia. If a user called and said it'd been six hours and the mail wasn't delivered, we didn't troubleshoot it. -Original Message- From: Bennett, Joshua [mailto:jbennett;cotelligent.com] Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 8:55 AM To: Exchange Discussions Hello all, I have an incredibly annoying situation going on that I can't seem to get a grip on. I am not sure of the magnitude of the errors I am seeing due to the fact that mail is still flowing. Here is my setup: I am running WNT4.0 SP6 / EX 5.5 EE SP4 all hotfixes on all these servers. I have a hub and spoke configuration within my EX org. All my remote servers connect (through X.400 connectors) to a central EX server that serves as my IMS to the internet. All the spoke servers are BDC's in NT domains. The hub server is a member server in a central domain that all other domains have 2-way trusts to. All
RE: X.400 issues
Cuz Site Connectors stink? They rarely work well across sub-LAN speed connections. -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA -Original Message- From: Tony Hlabse [mailto:thlabse;hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 11:19 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: X.400 issues Curious as to why you are using X400 instead of Site Connectors. Yes x400 are more efficient just curious. - Original Message - From: Darcy Adams [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 11:06 AM Subject: RE: X.400 issues I'd think twice about that one - if you have a multi-site organization, any directory replication connectors that depend on those X400 connectors will have to be either pointed to another connector in the same site, or deleted before you can delete the connector. And, if you delete the dirrep connector, be prepared to rebuild any cross-site distribution lists after you recreate the connectors (X400 and dirrep). Darcy -Original Message- From: Bennett, Joshua [mailto:jbennett;cotelligent.com] Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 6:24 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: X.400 issues I have tried everything that you have described and to no avail. I received a suggestion to remove the connectors and rebuild the TCP stack in Exchange to clear this up. Any opinions on this idea... -Original Message- From: Daniel Chenault [mailto:danielc;dc-resources.net] Sent: Saturday, November 02, 2002 10:02 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: X.400 issues 57: the other MTA has a limit on the number of available connections 289: because of that limit, a connection to that MTA could not be opened 1290: somewhat a repeat of 289, but more info 9202: low-level diagnostic on the connection failure In general this sequence of events can be ignored if mail otherwise flows. It's a temporary condition. If it keeps happening over and over and the queue to that MTA keeps backing up then you'll need to actually troubleshoot what is wrong (i.e. raise the number of connections on the other MTA if you have control over it). Precht, do you ever add anything of value? -Original Message- From: David N. Precht [mailto:discussions;entrysecurity.com] Sent: Saturday, November 02, 2002 1:45 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: X.400 issues www.eventid.net -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:bounce-exchange-224131;ls.swynk.com] On Behalf Of Bennett, Joshua Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 11:05 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: X.400 issues Event ID 57: Source: MSExchangeMTA Type: Warning Category: X.400 Service The limit on the number of associations allowed to and from entity (X.400 address) has been reached. The limit is 9. [MTA XFER-IN 19 34](12) Event ID 289: Source: MSExchangeMTA Type: Warning Category: X.400 Service A connection to (X.400 address) could not be opened [MTA XFER-IN 19 26](12) Event ID 1290: Source: MSExchagneMTA Type: Warning Category: X.400 Service A locally initiated association to (X.400 address) was refused. The failure reason provider was 0 and the reason was 0. Control block index 6. Type 1. [PLATFORM KERNEL 25 130](12) Event ID 9202: Source: MSExchangeMTA Type: Warning Category: Operating System A sockets error 10061 on an accept[] call was detected. The MTA will attempt to recover the sockets connection. Control block index: /. [BASE IL TCP/IP DRVR 8 256](12) These are the Event ID's that continually pop up on the one remote server with the same symptoms, the other server just produces the 289 event id only. Thanks, Josh -Original Message- From: Chris Scharff [mailto:chris_scharff;messageone.com] Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 10:53 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: X.400 issues Admission: I'm entirely too lazy to go look up the random odd event ID or guestimate what too long[1] means. It there any chance you (the collective you) could include the Event ID source and description in addition to the number? And that you could provide an example of sent/ received times which constitute a too long delivery time. [1] When I worked at $vbc we initially had an MS Mail PO config which routinely resulted in 8 hour delivery times of mail from the US to Indonesia. If a user called and said it'd been six hours and the mail wasn't delivered, we didn't troubleshoot it. -Original Message- From: Bennett, Joshua [mailto:jbennett;cotelligent.com] Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 8:55 AM To: Exchange Discussions Hello all, I have an incredibly annoying
Re: X.400 issues
I thought he said he had T1's across his network though. If not then I agree X400 much more efficient. - Original Message - From: Roger Seielstad [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 11:35 AM Subject: RE: X.400 issues Cuz Site Connectors stink? They rarely work well across sub-LAN speed connections. -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA -Original Message- From: Tony Hlabse [mailto:thlabse;hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 11:19 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: X.400 issues Curious as to why you are using X400 instead of Site Connectors. Yes x400 are more efficient just curious. - Original Message - From: Darcy Adams [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 11:06 AM Subject: RE: X.400 issues I'd think twice about that one - if you have a multi-site organization, any directory replication connectors that depend on those X400 connectors will have to be either pointed to another connector in the same site, or deleted before you can delete the connector. And, if you delete the dirrep connector, be prepared to rebuild any cross-site distribution lists after you recreate the connectors (X400 and dirrep). Darcy -Original Message- From: Bennett, Joshua [mailto:jbennett;cotelligent.com] Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 6:24 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: X.400 issues I have tried everything that you have described and to no avail. I received a suggestion to remove the connectors and rebuild the TCP stack in Exchange to clear this up. Any opinions on this idea... -Original Message- From: Daniel Chenault [mailto:danielc;dc-resources.net] Sent: Saturday, November 02, 2002 10:02 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: X.400 issues 57: the other MTA has a limit on the number of available connections 289: because of that limit, a connection to that MTA could not be opened 1290: somewhat a repeat of 289, but more info 9202: low-level diagnostic on the connection failure In general this sequence of events can be ignored if mail otherwise flows. It's a temporary condition. If it keeps happening over and over and the queue to that MTA keeps backing up then you'll need to actually troubleshoot what is wrong (i.e. raise the number of connections on the other MTA if you have control over it). Precht, do you ever add anything of value? -Original Message- From: David N. Precht [mailto:discussions;entrysecurity.com] Sent: Saturday, November 02, 2002 1:45 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: X.400 issues www.eventid.net -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:bounce-exchange-224131;ls.swynk.com] On Behalf Of Bennett, Joshua Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 11:05 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: X.400 issues Event ID 57: Source: MSExchangeMTA Type: Warning Category: X.400 Service The limit on the number of associations allowed to and from entity (X.400 address) has been reached. The limit is 9. [MTA XFER-IN 19 34](12) Event ID 289: Source: MSExchangeMTA Type: Warning Category: X.400 Service A connection to (X.400 address) could not be opened [MTA XFER-IN 19 26](12) Event ID 1290: Source: MSExchagneMTA Type: Warning Category: X.400 Service A locally initiated association to (X.400 address) was refused. The failure reason provider was 0 and the reason was 0. Control block index 6. Type 1. [PLATFORM KERNEL 25 130](12) Event ID 9202: Source: MSExchangeMTA Type: Warning Category: Operating System A sockets error 10061 on an accept[] call was detected. The MTA will attempt to recover the sockets connection. Control block index: /. [BASE IL TCP/IP DRVR 8 256](12) These are the Event ID's that continually pop up on the one remote server with the same symptoms, the other server just produces the 289 event id only. Thanks, Josh -Original Message- From: Chris Scharff [mailto:chris_scharff;messageone.com] Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 10:53 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: X.400 issues Admission: I'm entirely too lazy to go look up the random odd event ID or guestimate what too long[1] means. It there any chance you (the collective you) could include the Event ID source and description in addition to the number? And that you could provide an example of sent/ received times which constitute a too long delivery time. [1] When I worked at $vbc we initially had an MS Mail PO config
RE: X.400 issues
So what? I'm running 3MB pipes and I'm still using X400. The results of packet loss and network bursts on RPC communications made me swear off the Site Connectors permanently. -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA -Original Message- From: Tony Hlabse [mailto:thlabse;hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 11:36 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: X.400 issues I thought he said he had T1's across his network though. If not then I agree X400 much more efficient. - Original Message - From: Roger Seielstad [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 11:35 AM Subject: RE: X.400 issues Cuz Site Connectors stink? They rarely work well across sub-LAN speed connections. -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA -Original Message- From: Tony Hlabse [mailto:thlabse;hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 11:19 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: X.400 issues Curious as to why you are using X400 instead of Site Connectors. Yes x400 are more efficient just curious. - Original Message - From: Darcy Adams [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 11:06 AM Subject: RE: X.400 issues I'd think twice about that one - if you have a multi-site organization, any directory replication connectors that depend on those X400 connectors will have to be either pointed to another connector in the same site, or deleted before you can delete the connector. And, if you delete the dirrep connector, be prepared to rebuild any cross-site distribution lists after you recreate the connectors (X400 and dirrep). Darcy -Original Message- From: Bennett, Joshua [mailto:jbennett;cotelligent.com] Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 6:24 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: X.400 issues I have tried everything that you have described and to no avail. I received a suggestion to remove the connectors and rebuild the TCP stack in Exchange to clear this up. Any opinions on this idea... -Original Message- From: Daniel Chenault [mailto:danielc;dc-resources.net] Sent: Saturday, November 02, 2002 10:02 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: X.400 issues 57: the other MTA has a limit on the number of available connections 289: because of that limit, a connection to that MTA could not be opened 1290: somewhat a repeat of 289, but more info 9202: low-level diagnostic on the connection failure In general this sequence of events can be ignored if mail otherwise flows. It's a temporary condition. If it keeps happening over and over and the queue to that MTA keeps backing up then you'll need to actually troubleshoot what is wrong (i.e. raise the number of connections on the other MTA if you have control over it). Precht, do you ever add anything of value? -Original Message- From: David N. Precht [mailto:discussions;entrysecurity.com] Sent: Saturday, November 02, 2002 1:45 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: X.400 issues www.eventid.net -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:bounce-exchange-224131;ls.swynk.com] On Behalf Of Bennett, Joshua Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 11:05 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: X.400 issues Event ID 57: Source: MSExchangeMTA Type: Warning Category: X.400 Service The limit on the number of associations allowed to and from entity (X.400 address) has been reached. The limit is 9. [MTA XFER-IN 19 34](12) Event ID 289: Source: MSExchangeMTA Type: Warning Category: X.400 Service A connection to (X.400 address) could not be opened [MTA XFER-IN 19 26](12) Event ID 1290: Source: MSExchagneMTA Type: Warning Category: X.400 Service A locally initiated association to (X.400 address) was refused. The failure reason provider was 0 and the reason was 0. Control block index 6. Type 1. [PLATFORM KERNEL 25 130](12) Event ID 9202: Source: MSExchangeMTA Type: Warning Category: Operating System A sockets error 10061 on an accept[] call was detected. The MTA will attempt to recover the sockets connection. Control block index: /. [BASE IL TCP/IP DRVR 8 256](12) These are the Event ID's that continually pop up on the one remote server with the same symptoms, the other server just
RE: X.400 issues
These servers are all connected by WAN links and X.400 connectors are supposed to be more resilient to network interruptions. -Original Message- From: Tony Hlabse [mailto:thlabse;hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 11:19 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: X.400 issues Curious as to why you are using X400 instead of Site Connectors. Yes x400 are more efficient just curious. - Original Message - From: Darcy Adams [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 11:06 AM Subject: RE: X.400 issues I'd think twice about that one - if you have a multi-site organization, any directory replication connectors that depend on those X400 connectors will have to be either pointed to another connector in the same site, or deleted before you can delete the connector. And, if you delete the dirrep connector, be prepared to rebuild any cross-site distribution lists after you recreate the connectors (X400 and dirrep). Darcy -Original Message- From: Bennett, Joshua [mailto:jbennett;cotelligent.com] Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 6:24 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: X.400 issues I have tried everything that you have described and to no avail. I received a suggestion to remove the connectors and rebuild the TCP stack in Exchange to clear this up. Any opinions on this idea... -Original Message- From: Daniel Chenault [mailto:danielc;dc-resources.net] Sent: Saturday, November 02, 2002 10:02 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: X.400 issues 57: the other MTA has a limit on the number of available connections 289: because of that limit, a connection to that MTA could not be opened 1290: somewhat a repeat of 289, but more info 9202: low-level diagnostic on the connection failure In general this sequence of events can be ignored if mail otherwise flows. It's a temporary condition. If it keeps happening over and over and the queue to that MTA keeps backing up then you'll need to actually troubleshoot what is wrong (i.e. raise the number of connections on the other MTA if you have control over it). Precht, do you ever add anything of value? -Original Message- From: David N. Precht [mailto:discussions;entrysecurity.com] Sent: Saturday, November 02, 2002 1:45 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: X.400 issues www.eventid.net -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:bounce-exchange-224131;ls.swynk.com] On Behalf Of Bennett, Joshua Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 11:05 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: X.400 issues Event ID 57: Source: MSExchangeMTA Type: Warning Category: X.400 Service The limit on the number of associations allowed to and from entity (X.400 address) has been reached. The limit is 9. [MTA XFER-IN 19 34](12) Event ID 289: Source: MSExchangeMTA Type: Warning Category: X.400 Service A connection to (X.400 address) could not be opened [MTA XFER-IN 19 26](12) Event ID 1290: Source: MSExchagneMTA Type: Warning Category: X.400 Service A locally initiated association to (X.400 address) was refused. The failure reason provider was 0 and the reason was 0. Control block index 6. Type 1. [PLATFORM KERNEL 25 130](12) Event ID 9202: Source: MSExchangeMTA Type: Warning Category: Operating System A sockets error 10061 on an accept[] call was detected. The MTA will attempt to recover the sockets connection. Control block index: /. [BASE IL TCP/IP DRVR 8 256](12) These are the Event ID's that continually pop up on the one remote server with the same symptoms, the other server just produces the 289 event id only. Thanks, Josh -Original Message- From: Chris Scharff [mailto:chris_scharff;messageone.com] Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 10:53 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: X.400 issues Admission: I'm entirely too lazy to go look up the random odd event ID or guestimate what too long[1] means. It there any chance you (the collective you) could include the Event ID source and description in addition to the number? And that you could provide an example of sent/ received times which constitute a too long delivery time. [1] When I worked at $vbc we initially had an MS Mail PO config which routinely resulted in 8 hour delivery times of mail from the US to Indonesia. If a user called and said it'd been six hours and the mail wasn't delivered, we didn't troubleshoot it. -Original Message- From: Bennett, Joshua [mailto:jbennett;cotelligent.com] Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 8:55 AM To: Exchange Discussions Hello all, I have an incredibly annoying situation going on that I can't seem to get a grip on. I am not sure of the magnitude of the errors I am seeing due to the fact that mail is still flowing. Here is my setup: I am running WNT4.0 SP6 / EX 5.5 EE SP4 all hotfixes on all these servers. I have
RE: X.400 issues
Generally sounds like a bad one. -Original Message- From: Bennett, Joshua To: Exchange Discussions Sent: 11/4/2002 8:23 AM Subject: RE: X.400 issues I have tried everything that you have described and to no avail. I received a suggestion to remove the connectors and rebuild the TCP stack in Exchange to clear this up. Any opinions on this idea... -Original Message- From: Daniel Chenault [mailto:danielc;dc-resources.net] Sent: Saturday, November 02, 2002 10:02 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: X.400 issues 57: the other MTA has a limit on the number of available connections 289: because of that limit, a connection to that MTA could not be opened 1290: somewhat a repeat of 289, but more info 9202: low-level diagnostic on the connection failure In general this sequence of events can be ignored if mail otherwise flows. It's a temporary condition. If it keeps happening over and over and the queue to that MTA keeps backing up then you'll need to actually troubleshoot what is wrong (i.e. raise the number of connections on the other MTA if you have control over it). Precht, do you ever add anything of value? -Original Message- From: David N. Precht [mailto:discussions;entrysecurity.com] Sent: Saturday, November 02, 2002 1:45 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: X.400 issues www.eventid.net -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:bounce-exchange-224131;ls.swynk.com] On Behalf Of Bennett, Joshua Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 11:05 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: X.400 issues Event ID 57: Source: MSExchangeMTA Type: Warning Category: X.400 Service The limit on the number of associations allowed to and from entity (X.400 address) has been reached. The limit is 9. [MTA XFER-IN 19 34](12) Event ID 289: Source: MSExchangeMTA Type: Warning Category: X.400 Service A connection to (X.400 address) could not be opened [MTA XFER-IN 19 26](12) Event ID 1290: Source: MSExchagneMTA Type: Warning Category: X.400 Service A locally initiated association to (X.400 address) was refused. The failure reason provider was 0 and the reason was 0. Control block index 6. Type 1. [PLATFORM KERNEL 25 130](12) Event ID 9202: Source: MSExchangeMTA Type: Warning Category: Operating System A sockets error 10061 on an accept[] call was detected. The MTA will attempt to recover the sockets connection. Control block index: /. [BASE IL TCP/IP DRVR 8 256](12) These are the Event ID's that continually pop up on the one remote server with the same symptoms, the other server just produces the 289 event id only. Thanks, Josh -Original Message- From: Chris Scharff [mailto:chris_scharff;messageone.com] Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 10:53 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: X.400 issues Admission: I'm entirely too lazy to go look up the random odd event ID or guestimate what too long[1] means. It there any chance you (the collective you) could include the Event ID source and description in addition to the number? And that you could provide an example of sent/ received times which constitute a too long delivery time. [1] When I worked at $vbc we initially had an MS Mail PO config which routinely resulted in 8 hour delivery times of mail from the US to Indonesia. If a user called and said it'd been six hours and the mail wasn't delivered, we didn't troubleshoot it. -Original Message- From: Bennett, Joshua [mailto:jbennett;cotelligent.com] Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 8:55 AM To: Exchange Discussions Hello all, I have an incredibly annoying situation going on that I can't seem to get a grip on. I am not sure of the magnitude of the errors I am seeing due to the fact that mail is still flowing. Here is my setup: I am running WNT4.0 SP6 / EX 5.5 EE SP4 all hotfixes on all these servers. I have a hub and spoke configuration within my EX org. All my remote servers connect (through X.400 connectors) to a central EX server that serves as my IMS to the internet. All the spoke servers are BDC's in NT domains. The hub server is a member server in a central domain that all other domains have 2-way trusts to. All the remote servers (scattered across the US) are connected to the hub server by full T1 lines. My issue is this: The MTA on the hub server backs up and an Event ID: 289 is written to the App log then the queue flushes clear and all mail is delivered without incident. This seems to occur about every 10 minutes or so during the day. There does not appear to be, at least on the surface, any connectivity issues. Should I just ignore these errors, as the mail is being delivered? Or is this just the beginning of a major issue about to explode in my lap? Please help, I have dug around MS site and Google and come up with little to no help. Thanks, Josh Bennett Exchange Admin\Systems Engineer Cotelligent, Inc
RE: X.400 issues
Replace supposed to be with definitely are -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA -Original Message- From: Bennett, Joshua [mailto:jbennett;cotelligent.com] Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 12:27 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: X.400 issues These servers are all connected by WAN links and X.400 connectors are supposed to be more resilient to network interruptions. -Original Message- From: Tony Hlabse [mailto:thlabse;hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 11:19 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: X.400 issues Curious as to why you are using X400 instead of Site Connectors. Yes x400 are more efficient just curious. - Original Message - From: Darcy Adams [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 11:06 AM Subject: RE: X.400 issues I'd think twice about that one - if you have a multi-site organization, any directory replication connectors that depend on those X400 connectors will have to be either pointed to another connector in the same site, or deleted before you can delete the connector. And, if you delete the dirrep connector, be prepared to rebuild any cross-site distribution lists after you recreate the connectors (X400 and dirrep). Darcy -Original Message- From: Bennett, Joshua [mailto:jbennett;cotelligent.com] Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 6:24 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: X.400 issues I have tried everything that you have described and to no avail. I received a suggestion to remove the connectors and rebuild the TCP stack in Exchange to clear this up. Any opinions on this idea... -Original Message- From: Daniel Chenault [mailto:danielc;dc-resources.net] Sent: Saturday, November 02, 2002 10:02 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: X.400 issues 57: the other MTA has a limit on the number of available connections 289: because of that limit, a connection to that MTA could not be opened 1290: somewhat a repeat of 289, but more info 9202: low-level diagnostic on the connection failure In general this sequence of events can be ignored if mail otherwise flows. It's a temporary condition. If it keeps happening over and over and the queue to that MTA keeps backing up then you'll need to actually troubleshoot what is wrong (i.e. raise the number of connections on the other MTA if you have control over it). Precht, do you ever add anything of value? -Original Message- From: David N. Precht [mailto:discussions;entrysecurity.com] Sent: Saturday, November 02, 2002 1:45 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: X.400 issues www.eventid.net -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:bounce-exchange-224131;ls.swynk.com] On Behalf Of Bennett, Joshua Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 11:05 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: X.400 issues Event ID 57: Source: MSExchangeMTA Type: Warning Category: X.400 Service The limit on the number of associations allowed to and from entity (X.400 address) has been reached. The limit is 9. [MTA XFER-IN 19 34](12) Event ID 289: Source: MSExchangeMTA Type: Warning Category: X.400 Service A connection to (X.400 address) could not be opened [MTA XFER-IN 19 26](12) Event ID 1290: Source: MSExchagneMTA Type: Warning Category: X.400 Service A locally initiated association to (X.400 address) was refused. The failure reason provider was 0 and the reason was 0. Control block index 6. Type 1. [PLATFORM KERNEL 25 130](12) Event ID 9202: Source: MSExchangeMTA Type: Warning Category: Operating System A sockets error 10061 on an accept[] call was detected. The MTA will attempt to recover the sockets connection. Control block index: /. [BASE IL TCP/IP DRVR 8 256](12) These are the Event ID's that continually pop up on the one remote server with the same symptoms, the other server just produces the 289 event id only. Thanks, Josh -Original Message- From: Chris Scharff [mailto:chris_scharff;messageone.com] Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 10:53 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: X.400 issues Admission: I'm entirely too lazy to go look up the random odd event ID or guestimate what too long[1] means. It there any chance you (the collective you) could include the Event ID source and description in addition to the number? And that you could provide an example of sent/ received times which constitute a too long delivery time. [1] When I worked at $vbc we initially had an MS Mail PO config which routinely resulted in 8 hour delivery times of mail from the US to Indonesia. If a user called and said it'd been six
RE: X.400 issues
I use supposed to be due to the issue at hand that is driving me insane. -Original Message- From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:roger.seielstad;inovis.com] Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 1:02 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: X.400 issues Replace supposed to be with definitely are -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA -Original Message- From: Bennett, Joshua [mailto:jbennett;cotelligent.com] Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 12:27 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: X.400 issues These servers are all connected by WAN links and X.400 connectors are supposed to be more resilient to network interruptions. -Original Message- From: Tony Hlabse [mailto:thlabse;hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 11:19 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: X.400 issues Curious as to why you are using X400 instead of Site Connectors. Yes x400 are more efficient just curious. - Original Message - From: Darcy Adams [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 11:06 AM Subject: RE: X.400 issues I'd think twice about that one - if you have a multi-site organization, any directory replication connectors that depend on those X400 connectors will have to be either pointed to another connector in the same site, or deleted before you can delete the connector. And, if you delete the dirrep connector, be prepared to rebuild any cross-site distribution lists after you recreate the connectors (X400 and dirrep). Darcy -Original Message- From: Bennett, Joshua [mailto:jbennett;cotelligent.com] Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 6:24 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: X.400 issues I have tried everything that you have described and to no avail. I received a suggestion to remove the connectors and rebuild the TCP stack in Exchange to clear this up. Any opinions on this idea... -Original Message- From: Daniel Chenault [mailto:danielc;dc-resources.net] Sent: Saturday, November 02, 2002 10:02 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: X.400 issues 57: the other MTA has a limit on the number of available connections 289: because of that limit, a connection to that MTA could not be opened 1290: somewhat a repeat of 289, but more info 9202: low-level diagnostic on the connection failure In general this sequence of events can be ignored if mail otherwise flows. It's a temporary condition. If it keeps happening over and over and the queue to that MTA keeps backing up then you'll need to actually troubleshoot what is wrong (i.e. raise the number of connections on the other MTA if you have control over it). Precht, do you ever add anything of value? -Original Message- From: David N. Precht [mailto:discussions;entrysecurity.com] Sent: Saturday, November 02, 2002 1:45 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: X.400 issues www.eventid.net -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:bounce-exchange-224131;ls.swynk.com] On Behalf Of Bennett, Joshua Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 11:05 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: X.400 issues Event ID 57: Source: MSExchangeMTA Type: Warning Category: X.400 Service The limit on the number of associations allowed to and from entity (X.400 address) has been reached. The limit is 9. [MTA XFER-IN 19 34](12) Event ID 289: Source: MSExchangeMTA Type: Warning Category: X.400 Service A connection to (X.400 address) could not be opened [MTA XFER-IN 19 26](12) Event ID 1290: Source: MSExchagneMTA Type: Warning Category: X.400 Service A locally initiated association to (X.400 address) was refused. The failure reason provider was 0 and the reason was 0. Control block index 6. Type 1. [PLATFORM KERNEL 25 130](12) Event ID 9202: Source: MSExchangeMTA Type: Warning Category: Operating System A sockets error 10061 on an accept[] call was detected. The MTA will attempt to recover the sockets connection. Control block index: /. [BASE IL TCP/IP DRVR 8 256](12) These are the Event ID's that continually pop up on the one remote server with the same symptoms, the other server just produces the 289 event id only. Thanks, Josh -Original Message- From: Chris Scharff [mailto:chris_scharff;messageone.com] Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 10:53 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: X.400 issues Admission: I'm entirely too lazy to go look up the random odd event ID or guestimate what too long[1] means. It there any chance you (the collective you) could include the Event ID source and description in addition to the number? And that you could provide an example of sent/ received times which
RE: X.400 issues
The previous suggestion about tuning the MTA stack is where I'd start. The best reference is Managing Exchange 5.5 by Paul Robichaux, if you have that handy. If not, the parameter I think you're looking for is called control blocks. -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA -Original Message- From: Bennett, Joshua [mailto:jbennett;cotelligent.com] Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 1:24 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: X.400 issues I use supposed to be due to the issue at hand that is driving me insane. -Original Message- From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:roger.seielstad;inovis.com] Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 1:02 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: X.400 issues Replace supposed to be with definitely are -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA -Original Message- From: Bennett, Joshua [mailto:jbennett;cotelligent.com] Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 12:27 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: X.400 issues These servers are all connected by WAN links and X.400 connectors are supposed to be more resilient to network interruptions. -Original Message- From: Tony Hlabse [mailto:thlabse;hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 11:19 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: X.400 issues Curious as to why you are using X400 instead of Site Connectors. Yes x400 are more efficient just curious. - Original Message - From: Darcy Adams [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 11:06 AM Subject: RE: X.400 issues I'd think twice about that one - if you have a multi-site organization, any directory replication connectors that depend on those X400 connectors will have to be either pointed to another connector in the same site, or deleted before you can delete the connector. And, if you delete the dirrep connector, be prepared to rebuild any cross-site distribution lists after you recreate the connectors (X400 and dirrep). Darcy -Original Message- From: Bennett, Joshua [mailto:jbennett;cotelligent.com] Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 6:24 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: X.400 issues I have tried everything that you have described and to no avail. I received a suggestion to remove the connectors and rebuild the TCP stack in Exchange to clear this up. Any opinions on this idea... -Original Message- From: Daniel Chenault [mailto:danielc;dc-resources.net] Sent: Saturday, November 02, 2002 10:02 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: X.400 issues 57: the other MTA has a limit on the number of available connections 289: because of that limit, a connection to that MTA could not be opened 1290: somewhat a repeat of 289, but more info 9202: low-level diagnostic on the connection failure In general this sequence of events can be ignored if mail otherwise flows. It's a temporary condition. If it keeps happening over and over and the queue to that MTA keeps backing up then you'll need to actually troubleshoot what is wrong (i.e. raise the number of connections on the other MTA if you have control over it). Precht, do you ever add anything of value? -Original Message- From: David N. Precht [mailto:discussions;entrysecurity.com] Sent: Saturday, November 02, 2002 1:45 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: X.400 issues www.eventid.net -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:bounce-exchange-224131;ls.swynk.com] On Behalf Of Bennett, Joshua Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 11:05 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: X.400 issues Event ID 57: Source: MSExchangeMTA Type: Warning Category: X.400 Service The limit on the number of associations allowed to and from entity (X.400 address) has been reached. The limit is 9. [MTA XFER-IN 19 34](12) Event ID 289: Source: MSExchangeMTA Type: Warning Category: X.400 Service A connection to (X.400 address) could not be opened [MTA XFER-IN 19 26](12) Event ID 1290: Source: MSExchagneMTA Type: Warning Category: X.400 Service A locally initiated association to (X.400 address) was refused. The failure reason provider was 0 and the reason was 0. Control block index 6. Type 1. [PLATFORM KERNEL 25 130](12) Event ID 9202: Source: MSExchangeMTA Type: Warning Category: Operating System A sockets error 10061 on an accept[] call was detected. The MTA will attempt to recover the sockets connection. Control block
RE: X.400 issues
I've adjusted the number of control blocks the MTA has available and again, it did not correct the situation. -Original Message- From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:roger.seielstad;inovis.com] Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 1:47 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: X.400 issues The previous suggestion about tuning the MTA stack is where I'd start. The best reference is Managing Exchange 5.5 by Paul Robichaux, if you have that handy. If not, the parameter I think you're looking for is called control blocks. -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA -Original Message- From: Bennett, Joshua [mailto:jbennett;cotelligent.com] Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 1:24 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: X.400 issues I use supposed to be due to the issue at hand that is driving me insane. -Original Message- From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:roger.seielstad;inovis.com] Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 1:02 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: X.400 issues Replace supposed to be with definitely are -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA -Original Message- From: Bennett, Joshua [mailto:jbennett;cotelligent.com] Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 12:27 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: X.400 issues These servers are all connected by WAN links and X.400 connectors are supposed to be more resilient to network interruptions. -Original Message- From: Tony Hlabse [mailto:thlabse;hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 11:19 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: X.400 issues Curious as to why you are using X400 instead of Site Connectors. Yes x400 are more efficient just curious. - Original Message - From: Darcy Adams [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 11:06 AM Subject: RE: X.400 issues I'd think twice about that one - if you have a multi-site organization, any directory replication connectors that depend on those X400 connectors will have to be either pointed to another connector in the same site, or deleted before you can delete the connector. And, if you delete the dirrep connector, be prepared to rebuild any cross-site distribution lists after you recreate the connectors (X400 and dirrep). Darcy -Original Message- From: Bennett, Joshua [mailto:jbennett;cotelligent.com] Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 6:24 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: X.400 issues I have tried everything that you have described and to no avail. I received a suggestion to remove the connectors and rebuild the TCP stack in Exchange to clear this up. Any opinions on this idea... -Original Message- From: Daniel Chenault [mailto:danielc;dc-resources.net] Sent: Saturday, November 02, 2002 10:02 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: X.400 issues 57: the other MTA has a limit on the number of available connections 289: because of that limit, a connection to that MTA could not be opened 1290: somewhat a repeat of 289, but more info 9202: low-level diagnostic on the connection failure In general this sequence of events can be ignored if mail otherwise flows. It's a temporary condition. If it keeps happening over and over and the queue to that MTA keeps backing up then you'll need to actually troubleshoot what is wrong (i.e. raise the number of connections on the other MTA if you have control over it). Precht, do you ever add anything of value? -Original Message- From: David N. Precht [mailto:discussions;entrysecurity.com] Sent: Saturday, November 02, 2002 1:45 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: X.400 issues www.eventid.net -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:bounce-exchange-224131;ls.swynk.com] On Behalf Of Bennett, Joshua Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 11:05 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: X.400 issues Event ID 57: Source: MSExchangeMTA Type: Warning Category: X.400 Service The limit on the number of associations allowed to and from entity (X.400 address) has been reached. The limit is 9. [MTA XFER-IN 19 34](12) Event ID 289: Source: MSExchangeMTA Type: Warning Category: X.400 Service A connection to (X.400 address) could not be opened [MTA XFER-IN 19 26](12) Event ID 1290: Source: MSExchagneMTA Type: Warning Category: X.400 Service A locally initiated association to (X.400 address) was refused. The failure reason provider was 0 and the reason was 0
RE: X.400 issues
So, it continues to sound more like a bandwidth or network problem. Did we ever determine what 'too long' of a delivery time meant? -Original Message- From: Bennett, Joshua [mailto:jbennett;cotelligent.com] Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 2:11 PM To: Exchange Discussions I've adjusted the number of control blocks the MTA has available and again, it did not correct the situation. -Original Message- From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:roger.seielstad;inovis.com] Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 1:47 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: X.400 issues The previous suggestion about tuning the MTA stack is where I'd start. The best reference is Managing Exchange 5.5 by Paul Robichaux, if you have that handy. If not, the parameter I think you're looking for is called control blocks. -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA -Original Message- From: Bennett, Joshua [mailto:jbennett;cotelligent.com] Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 1:24 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: X.400 issues I use supposed to be due to the issue at hand that is driving me insane. -Original Message- From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:roger.seielstad;inovis.com] Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 1:02 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: X.400 issues Replace supposed to be with definitely are -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA -Original Message- From: Bennett, Joshua [mailto:jbennett;cotelligent.com] Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 12:27 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: X.400 issues These servers are all connected by WAN links and X.400 connectors are supposed to be more resilient to network interruptions. -Original Message- From: Tony Hlabse [mailto:thlabse;hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 11:19 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: X.400 issues Curious as to why you are using X400 instead of Site Connectors. Yes x400 are more efficient just curious. - Original Message - From: Darcy Adams [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 11:06 AM Subject: RE: X.400 issues I'd think twice about that one - if you have a multi-site organization, any directory replication connectors that depend on those X400 connectors will have to be either pointed to another connector in the same site, or deleted before you can delete the connector. And, if you delete the dirrep connector, be prepared to rebuild any cross-site distribution lists after you recreate the connectors (X400 and dirrep). Darcy -Original Message- From: Bennett, Joshua [mailto:jbennett;cotelligent.com] Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 6:24 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: X.400 issues I have tried everything that you have described and to no avail. I received a suggestion to remove the connectors and rebuild the TCP stack in Exchange to clear this up. Any opinions on this idea... -Original Message- From: Daniel Chenault [mailto:danielc;dc-resources.net] Sent: Saturday, November 02, 2002 10:02 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: X.400 issues 57: the other MTA has a limit on the number of available connections 289: because of that limit, a connection to that MTA could not be opened 1290: somewhat a repeat of 289, but more info 9202: low-level diagnostic on the connection failure In general this sequence of events can be ignored if mail otherwise flows. It's a temporary condition. If it keeps happening over and over and the queue to that MTA keeps backing up then you'll need to actually troubleshoot what is wrong (i.e. raise the number of connections on the other MTA if you have control over it). Precht, do you ever add anything of value? -Original Message- From: David N. Precht [mailto:discussions;entrysecurity.com] Sent: Saturday, November 02, 2002 1:45 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: X.400 issues www.eventid.net -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:bounce-exchange-224131;ls.swynk.com] On Behalf Of Bennett, Joshua Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 11:05 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: X.400 issues Event ID 57: Source: MSExchangeMTA Type: Warning Category: X.400 Service The limit on the number of associations allowed to and from entity (X.400 address) has been reached. The limit
RE: X.400 issues
IIRC, you're getting exceeded the maximum number of associations which usually indicates that the total number of connections and associations, which I believe is 9 associations and 10 connects per association. Are you sure there aren't any looping messages, or a butload of public folder replication traffic? Is there anything in the MTA queue? -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA -Original Message- From: Bennett, Joshua [mailto:jbennett;cotelligent.com] Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 3:11 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: X.400 issues I've adjusted the number of control blocks the MTA has available and again, it did not correct the situation. -Original Message- From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:roger.seielstad;inovis.com] Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 1:47 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: X.400 issues The previous suggestion about tuning the MTA stack is where I'd start. The best reference is Managing Exchange 5.5 by Paul Robichaux, if you have that handy. If not, the parameter I think you're looking for is called control blocks. -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA -Original Message- From: Bennett, Joshua [mailto:jbennett;cotelligent.com] Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 1:24 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: X.400 issues I use supposed to be due to the issue at hand that is driving me insane. -Original Message- From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:roger.seielstad;inovis.com] Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 1:02 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: X.400 issues Replace supposed to be with definitely are -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA -Original Message- From: Bennett, Joshua [mailto:jbennett;cotelligent.com] Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 12:27 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: X.400 issues These servers are all connected by WAN links and X.400 connectors are supposed to be more resilient to network interruptions. -Original Message- From: Tony Hlabse [mailto:thlabse;hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 11:19 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: X.400 issues Curious as to why you are using X400 instead of Site Connectors. Yes x400 are more efficient just curious. - Original Message - From: Darcy Adams [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 11:06 AM Subject: RE: X.400 issues I'd think twice about that one - if you have a multi-site organization, any directory replication connectors that depend on those X400 connectors will have to be either pointed to another connector in the same site, or deleted before you can delete the connector. And, if you delete the dirrep connector, be prepared to rebuild any cross-site distribution lists after you recreate the connectors (X400 and dirrep). Darcy -Original Message- From: Bennett, Joshua [mailto:jbennett;cotelligent.com] Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 6:24 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: X.400 issues I have tried everything that you have described and to no avail. I received a suggestion to remove the connectors and rebuild the TCP stack in Exchange to clear this up. Any opinions on this idea... -Original Message- From: Daniel Chenault [mailto:danielc;dc-resources.net] Sent: Saturday, November 02, 2002 10:02 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: X.400 issues 57: the other MTA has a limit on the number of available connections 289: because of that limit, a connection to that MTA could not be opened 1290: somewhat a repeat of 289, but more info 9202: low-level diagnostic on the connection failure In general this sequence of events can be ignored if mail otherwise flows. It's a temporary condition. If it keeps happening over and over and the queue to that MTA keeps backing up then you'll need to actually troubleshoot what is wrong (i.e. raise the number of connections on the other MTA if you have control over it). Precht, do you ever add anything of value? -Original Message- From: David N. Precht [mailto:discussions;entrysecurity.com] Sent: Saturday, November 02, 2002 1:45 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: X.400 issues www.eventid.net
Re: X.400 issues
On which MTA? The sending or receiving one? - Original Message - From: Bennett, Joshua [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 2:10 PM Subject: RE: X.400 issues I've adjusted the number of control blocks the MTA has available and again, it did not correct the situation. -Original Message- From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:roger.seielstad;inovis.com] Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 1:47 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: X.400 issues The previous suggestion about tuning the MTA stack is where I'd start. The best reference is Managing Exchange 5.5 by Paul Robichaux, if you have that handy. If not, the parameter I think you're looking for is called control blocks. -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA -Original Message- From: Bennett, Joshua [mailto:jbennett;cotelligent.com] Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 1:24 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: X.400 issues I use supposed to be due to the issue at hand that is driving me insane. -Original Message- From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:roger.seielstad;inovis.com] Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 1:02 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: X.400 issues Replace supposed to be with definitely are -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA -Original Message- From: Bennett, Joshua [mailto:jbennett;cotelligent.com] Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 12:27 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: X.400 issues These servers are all connected by WAN links and X.400 connectors are supposed to be more resilient to network interruptions. -Original Message- From: Tony Hlabse [mailto:thlabse;hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 11:19 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: X.400 issues Curious as to why you are using X400 instead of Site Connectors. Yes x400 are more efficient just curious. - Original Message - From: Darcy Adams [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 11:06 AM Subject: RE: X.400 issues I'd think twice about that one - if you have a multi-site organization, any directory replication connectors that depend on those X400 connectors will have to be either pointed to another connector in the same site, or deleted before you can delete the connector. And, if you delete the dirrep connector, be prepared to rebuild any cross-site distribution lists after you recreate the connectors (X400 and dirrep). Darcy -Original Message- From: Bennett, Joshua [mailto:jbennett;cotelligent.com] Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 6:24 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: X.400 issues I have tried everything that you have described and to no avail. I received a suggestion to remove the connectors and rebuild the TCP stack in Exchange to clear this up. Any opinions on this idea... -Original Message- From: Daniel Chenault [mailto:danielc;dc-resources.net] Sent: Saturday, November 02, 2002 10:02 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: X.400 issues 57: the other MTA has a limit on the number of available connections 289: because of that limit, a connection to that MTA could not be opened 1290: somewhat a repeat of 289, but more info 9202: low-level diagnostic on the connection failure In general this sequence of events can be ignored if mail otherwise flows. It's a temporary condition. If it keeps happening over and over and the queue to that MTA keeps backing up then you'll need to actually troubleshoot what is wrong (i.e. raise the number of connections on the other MTA if you have control over it). Precht, do you ever add anything of value? -Original Message- From: David N. Precht [mailto:discussions;entrysecurity.com] Sent: Saturday, November 02, 2002 1:45 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: X.400 issues www.eventid.net -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:bounce-exchange-224131;ls.swynk.com] On Behalf Of Bennett, Joshua Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 11:05 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: X.400 issues Event ID 57: Source: MSExchangeMTA Type: Warning Category: X.400 Service The limit on the number of associations allowed to and from entity (X.400 address) has been reached. The limit is 9. [MTA XFER-IN 19 34](12) Event ID 289: Source
RE: X.400 issues
www.eventid.net -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:bounce-exchange-224131;ls.swynk.com] On Behalf Of Bennett, Joshua Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 11:05 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: X.400 issues Event ID 57: Source: MSExchangeMTA Type: Warning Category: X.400 Service The limit on the number of associations allowed to and from entity (X.400 address) has been reached. The limit is 9. [MTA XFER-IN 19 34](12) Event ID 289: Source: MSExchangeMTA Type: Warning Category: X.400 Service A connection to (X.400 address) could not be opened [MTA XFER-IN 19 26](12) Event ID 1290: Source: MSExchagneMTA Type: Warning Category: X.400 Service A locally initiated association to (X.400 address) was refused. The failure reason provider was 0 and the reason was 0. Control block index 6. Type 1. [PLATFORM KERNEL 25 130](12) Event ID 9202: Source: MSExchangeMTA Type: Warning Category: Operating System A sockets error 10061 on an accept[] call was detected. The MTA will attempt to recover the sockets connection. Control block index: /. [BASE IL TCP/IP DRVR 8 256](12) These are the Event ID's that continually pop up on the one remote server with the same symptoms, the other server just produces the 289 event id only. Thanks, Josh -Original Message- From: Chris Scharff [mailto:chris_scharff;messageone.com] Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 10:53 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: X.400 issues Admission: I'm entirely too lazy to go look up the random odd event ID or guestimate what too long[1] means. It there any chance you (the collective you) could include the Event ID source and description in addition to the number? And that you could provide an example of sent/ received times which constitute a too long delivery time. [1] When I worked at $vbc we initially had an MS Mail PO config which routinely resulted in 8 hour delivery times of mail from the US to Indonesia. If a user called and said it'd been six hours and the mail wasn't delivered, we didn't troubleshoot it. -Original Message- From: Bennett, Joshua [mailto:jbennett;cotelligent.com] Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 8:55 AM To: Exchange Discussions Hello all, I have an incredibly annoying situation going on that I can't seem to get a grip on. I am not sure of the magnitude of the errors I am seeing due to the fact that mail is still flowing. Here is my setup: I am running WNT4.0 SP6 / EX 5.5 EE SP4 all hotfixes on all these servers. I have a hub and spoke configuration within my EX org. All my remote servers connect (through X.400 connectors) to a central EX server that serves as my IMS to the internet. All the spoke servers are BDC's in NT domains. The hub server is a member server in a central domain that all other domains have 2-way trusts to. All the remote servers (scattered across the US) are connected to the hub server by full T1 lines. My issue is this: The MTA on the hub server backs up and an Event ID: 289 is written to the App log then the queue flushes clear and all mail is delivered without incident. This seems to occur about every 10 minutes or so during the day. There does not appear to be, at least on the surface, any connectivity issues. Should I just ignore these errors, as the mail is being delivered? Or is this just the beginning of a major issue about to explode in my lap? Please help, I have dug around MS site and Google and come up with little to no help. Thanks, Josh Bennett Exchange Admin\Systems Engineer Cotelligent, Inc. 401 Parkway Drive Broomall, PA. 19008 610-359-5929 www.cotelligent.com _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange;ls.swynk.com Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange;ls.swynk.com Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange;ls.swynk.com Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange;ls.swynk.com Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: X.400 issues
57: the other MTA has a limit on the number of available connections 289: because of that limit, a connection to that MTA could not be opened 1290: somewhat a repeat of 289, but more info 9202: low-level diagnostic on the connection failure In general this sequence of events can be ignored if mail otherwise flows. It's a temporary condition. If it keeps happening over and over and the queue to that MTA keeps backing up then you'll need to actually troubleshoot what is wrong (i.e. raise the number of connections on the other MTA if you have control over it). Precht, do you ever add anything of value? -Original Message- From: David N. Precht [mailto:discussions;entrysecurity.com] Sent: Saturday, November 02, 2002 1:45 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: X.400 issues www.eventid.net -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:bounce-exchange-224131;ls.swynk.com] On Behalf Of Bennett, Joshua Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 11:05 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: X.400 issues Event ID 57: Source: MSExchangeMTA Type: Warning Category: X.400 Service The limit on the number of associations allowed to and from entity (X.400 address) has been reached. The limit is 9. [MTA XFER-IN 19 34](12) Event ID 289: Source: MSExchangeMTA Type: Warning Category: X.400 Service A connection to (X.400 address) could not be opened [MTA XFER-IN 19 26](12) Event ID 1290: Source: MSExchagneMTA Type: Warning Category: X.400 Service A locally initiated association to (X.400 address) was refused. The failure reason provider was 0 and the reason was 0. Control block index 6. Type 1. [PLATFORM KERNEL 25 130](12) Event ID 9202: Source: MSExchangeMTA Type: Warning Category: Operating System A sockets error 10061 on an accept[] call was detected. The MTA will attempt to recover the sockets connection. Control block index: /. [BASE IL TCP/IP DRVR 8 256](12) These are the Event ID's that continually pop up on the one remote server with the same symptoms, the other server just produces the 289 event id only. Thanks, Josh -Original Message- From: Chris Scharff [mailto:chris_scharff;messageone.com] Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 10:53 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: X.400 issues Admission: I'm entirely too lazy to go look up the random odd event ID or guestimate what too long[1] means. It there any chance you (the collective you) could include the Event ID source and description in addition to the number? And that you could provide an example of sent/ received times which constitute a too long delivery time. [1] When I worked at $vbc we initially had an MS Mail PO config which routinely resulted in 8 hour delivery times of mail from the US to Indonesia. If a user called and said it'd been six hours and the mail wasn't delivered, we didn't troubleshoot it. -Original Message- From: Bennett, Joshua [mailto:jbennett;cotelligent.com] Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 8:55 AM To: Exchange Discussions Hello all, I have an incredibly annoying situation going on that I can't seem to get a grip on. I am not sure of the magnitude of the errors I am seeing due to the fact that mail is still flowing. Here is my setup: I am running WNT4.0 SP6 / EX 5.5 EE SP4 all hotfixes on all these servers. I have a hub and spoke configuration within my EX org. All my remote servers connect (through X.400 connectors) to a central EX server that serves as my IMS to the internet. All the spoke servers are BDC's in NT domains. The hub server is a member server in a central domain that all other domains have 2-way trusts to. All the remote servers (scattered across the US) are connected to the hub server by full T1 lines. My issue is this: The MTA on the hub server backs up and an Event ID: 289 is written to the App log then the queue flushes clear and all mail is delivered without incident. This seems to occur about every 10 minutes or so during the day. There does not appear to be, at least on the surface, any connectivity issues. Should I just ignore these errors, as the mail is being delivered? Or is this just the beginning of a major issue about to explode in my lap? Please help, I have dug around MS site and Google and come up with little to no help. Thanks, Josh Bennett Exchange Admin\Systems Engineer Cotelligent, Inc. 401 Parkway Drive Broomall, PA. 19008 610-359-5929 www.cotelligent.com _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange;ls.swynk.com Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives
Re: X.400 issues
I would investigate if your having any issues with the network itself. Has anyone complain they didn't get there mail sent? - Original Message - From: Bennett, Joshua [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 9:55 AM Subject: X.400 issues Hello all, I have an incredibly annoying situation going on that I can't seem to get a grip on. I am not sure of the magnitude of the errors I am seeing due to the fact that mail is still flowing. Here is my setup: I am running WNT4.0 SP6 / EX 5.5 EE SP4 all hotfixes on all these servers. I have a hub and spoke configuration within my EX org. All my remote servers connect (through X.400 connectors) to a central EX server that serves as my IMS to the internet. All the spoke servers are BDC's in NT domains. The hub server is a member server in a central domain that all other domains have 2-way trusts to. All the remote servers (scattered across the US) are connected to the hub server by full T1 lines. My issue is this: The MTA on the hub server backs up and an Event ID: 289 is written to the App log then the queue flushes clear and all mail is delivered without incident. This seems to occur about every 10 minutes or so during the day. There does not appear to be, at least on the surface, any connectivity issues. Should I just ignore these errors, as the mail is being delivered? Or is this just the beginning of a major issue about to explode in my lap? Please help, I have dug around MS site and Google and come up with little to no help. Thanks, Josh Bennett Exchange Admin\Systems Engineer Cotelligent, Inc. 401 Parkway Drive Broomall, PA. 19008 610-359-5929 www.cotelligent.com _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange;ls.swynk.com Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange;ls.swynk.com Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: X.400 issues
No, however I occasionally get complaints that it take too long. -Original Message- From: Tony Hlabse [mailto:thlabse;hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 10:10 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: X.400 issues I would investigate if your having any issues with the network itself. Has anyone complain they didn't get there mail sent? - Original Message - From: Bennett, Joshua [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 9:55 AM Subject: X.400 issues Hello all, I have an incredibly annoying situation going on that I can't seem to get a grip on. I am not sure of the magnitude of the errors I am seeing due to the fact that mail is still flowing. Here is my setup: I am running WNT4.0 SP6 / EX 5.5 EE SP4 all hotfixes on all these servers. I have a hub and spoke configuration within my EX org. All my remote servers connect (through X.400 connectors) to a central EX server that serves as my IMS to the internet. All the spoke servers are BDC's in NT domains. The hub server is a member server in a central domain that all other domains have 2-way trusts to. All the remote servers (scattered across the US) are connected to the hub server by full T1 lines. My issue is this: The MTA on the hub server backs up and an Event ID: 289 is written to the App log then the queue flushes clear and all mail is delivered without incident. This seems to occur about every 10 minutes or so during the day. There does not appear to be, at least on the surface, any connectivity issues. Should I just ignore these errors, as the mail is being delivered? Or is this just the beginning of a major issue about to explode in my lap? Please help, I have dug around MS site and Google and come up with little to no help. Thanks, Josh Bennett Exchange Admin\Systems Engineer Cotelligent, Inc. 401 Parkway Drive Broomall, PA. 19008 610-359-5929 www.cotelligent.com _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange;ls.swynk.com Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange;ls.swynk.com Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange;ls.swynk.com Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: X.400 issues
Any other events logged such as Event ID 57 ? No, however I occasionally get complaints that it take too long. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange;ls.swynk.com Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: X.400 issues
No, however I am getting a lot of 9202 errors on the remote server. -Original Message- From: Atkinson, Miles [mailto:miles.atkinson;bakerhughes.com] Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 10:37 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: X.400 issues Any other events logged such as Event ID 57 ? No, however I occasionally get complaints that it take too long. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange;ls.swynk.com Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange;ls.swynk.com Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: X.400 issues
Admission: I'm entirely too lazy to go look up the random odd event ID or guestimate what too long[1] means. It there any chance you (the collective you) could include the Event ID source and description in addition to the number? And that you could provide an example of sent/ received times which constitute a too long delivery time. [1] When I worked at $vbc we initially had an MS Mail PO config which routinely resulted in 8 hour delivery times of mail from the US to Indonesia. If a user called and said it'd been six hours and the mail wasn't delivered, we didn't troubleshoot it. -Original Message- From: Bennett, Joshua [mailto:jbennett;cotelligent.com] Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 8:55 AM To: Exchange Discussions Hello all, I have an incredibly annoying situation going on that I can't seem to get a grip on. I am not sure of the magnitude of the errors I am seeing due to the fact that mail is still flowing. Here is my setup: I am running WNT4.0 SP6 / EX 5.5 EE SP4 all hotfixes on all these servers. I have a hub and spoke configuration within my EX org. All my remote servers connect (through X.400 connectors) to a central EX server that serves as my IMS to the internet. All the spoke servers are BDC's in NT domains. The hub server is a member server in a central domain that all other domains have 2-way trusts to. All the remote servers (scattered across the US) are connected to the hub server by full T1 lines. My issue is this: The MTA on the hub server backs up and an Event ID: 289 is written to the App log then the queue flushes clear and all mail is delivered without incident. This seems to occur about every 10 minutes or so during the day. There does not appear to be, at least on the surface, any connectivity issues. Should I just ignore these errors, as the mail is being delivered? Or is this just the beginning of a major issue about to explode in my lap? Please help, I have dug around MS site and Google and come up with little to no help. Thanks, Josh Bennett Exchange Admin\Systems Engineer Cotelligent, Inc. 401 Parkway Drive Broomall, PA. 19008 610-359-5929 www.cotelligent.com _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange;ls.swynk.com Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange;ls.swynk.com Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: X.400 issues
I do get 57/289/1290/9202 on one of the other remote servers. FYI: these 2 servers that I am having all the issues with are both on the West Coast while the hub is on the East Coast. -Original Message- From: Bennett, Joshua [mailto:jbennett;cotelligent.com] Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 10:45 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: X.400 issues No, however I am getting a lot of 9202 errors on the remote server. -Original Message- From: Atkinson, Miles [mailto:miles.atkinson;bakerhughes.com] Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 10:37 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: X.400 issues Any other events logged such as Event ID 57 ? No, however I occasionally get complaints that it take too long. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange;ls.swynk.com Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange;ls.swynk.com Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange;ls.swynk.com Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: X.400 issues
Once it leaves the server you are at the mercy of the internet. Or are these internal emails. - Original Message - From: Bennett, Joshua [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 10:24 AM Subject: RE: X.400 issues No, however I occasionally get complaints that it take too long. -Original Message- From: Tony Hlabse [mailto:thlabse;hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 10:10 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: X.400 issues I would investigate if your having any issues with the network itself. Has anyone complain they didn't get there mail sent? - Original Message - From: Bennett, Joshua [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 9:55 AM Subject: X.400 issues Hello all, I have an incredibly annoying situation going on that I can't seem to get a grip on. I am not sure of the magnitude of the errors I am seeing due to the fact that mail is still flowing. Here is my setup: I am running WNT4.0 SP6 / EX 5.5 EE SP4 all hotfixes on all these servers. I have a hub and spoke configuration within my EX org. All my remote servers connect (through X.400 connectors) to a central EX server that serves as my IMS to the internet. All the spoke servers are BDC's in NT domains. The hub server is a member server in a central domain that all other domains have 2-way trusts to. All the remote servers (scattered across the US) are connected to the hub server by full T1 lines. My issue is this: The MTA on the hub server backs up and an Event ID: 289 is written to the App log then the queue flushes clear and all mail is delivered without incident. This seems to occur about every 10 minutes or so during the day. There does not appear to be, at least on the surface, any connectivity issues. Should I just ignore these errors, as the mail is being delivered? Or is this just the beginning of a major issue about to explode in my lap? Please help, I have dug around MS site and Google and come up with little to no help. Thanks, Josh Bennett Exchange Admin\Systems Engineer Cotelligent, Inc. 401 Parkway Drive Broomall, PA. 19008 610-359-5929 www.cotelligent.com _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange;ls.swynk.com Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange;ls.swynk.com Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange;ls.swynk.com Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange;ls.swynk.com Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: X.400 issues
Event ID 57: Source: MSExchangeMTA Type: Warning Category: X.400 Service The limit on the number of associations allowed to and from entity (X.400 address) has been reached. The limit is 9. [MTA XFER-IN 19 34](12) Event ID 289: Source: MSExchangeMTA Type: Warning Category: X.400 Service A connection to (X.400 address) could not be opened [MTA XFER-IN 19 26](12) Event ID 1290: Source: MSExchagneMTA Type: Warning Category: X.400 Service A locally initiated association to (X.400 address) was refused. The failure reason provider was 0 and the reason was 0. Control block index 6. Type 1. [PLATFORM KERNEL 25 130](12) Event ID 9202: Source: MSExchangeMTA Type: Warning Category: Operating System A sockets error 10061 on an accept[] call was detected. The MTA will attempt to recover the sockets connection. Control block index: /. [BASE IL TCP/IP DRVR 8 256](12) These are the Event ID's that continually pop up on the one remote server with the same symptoms, the other server just produces the 289 event id only. Thanks, Josh -Original Message- From: Chris Scharff [mailto:chris_scharff;messageone.com] Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 10:53 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: X.400 issues Admission: I'm entirely too lazy to go look up the random odd event ID or guestimate what too long[1] means. It there any chance you (the collective you) could include the Event ID source and description in addition to the number? And that you could provide an example of sent/ received times which constitute a too long delivery time. [1] When I worked at $vbc we initially had an MS Mail PO config which routinely resulted in 8 hour delivery times of mail from the US to Indonesia. If a user called and said it'd been six hours and the mail wasn't delivered, we didn't troubleshoot it. -Original Message- From: Bennett, Joshua [mailto:jbennett;cotelligent.com] Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 8:55 AM To: Exchange Discussions Hello all, I have an incredibly annoying situation going on that I can't seem to get a grip on. I am not sure of the magnitude of the errors I am seeing due to the fact that mail is still flowing. Here is my setup: I am running WNT4.0 SP6 / EX 5.5 EE SP4 all hotfixes on all these servers. I have a hub and spoke configuration within my EX org. All my remote servers connect (through X.400 connectors) to a central EX server that serves as my IMS to the internet. All the spoke servers are BDC's in NT domains. The hub server is a member server in a central domain that all other domains have 2-way trusts to. All the remote servers (scattered across the US) are connected to the hub server by full T1 lines. My issue is this: The MTA on the hub server backs up and an Event ID: 289 is written to the App log then the queue flushes clear and all mail is delivered without incident. This seems to occur about every 10 minutes or so during the day. There does not appear to be, at least on the surface, any connectivity issues. Should I just ignore these errors, as the mail is being delivered? Or is this just the beginning of a major issue about to explode in my lap? Please help, I have dug around MS site and Google and come up with little to no help. Thanks, Josh Bennett Exchange Admin\Systems Engineer Cotelligent, Inc. 401 Parkway Drive Broomall, PA. 19008 610-359-5929 www.cotelligent.com _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange;ls.swynk.com Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange;ls.swynk.com Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange;ls.swynk.com Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: X.400 issues
This is all internal. The MSKB articles point to a mis-configured firewall but there are no firewalls involved. Thus why I am so stumped. I've been banging on this for 2 weeks now. -Original Message- From: Tony Hlabse [mailto:thlabse;hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 11:03 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: X.400 issues Once it leaves the server you are at the mercy of the internet. Or are these internal emails. - Original Message - From: Bennett, Joshua [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 10:24 AM Subject: RE: X.400 issues No, however I occasionally get complaints that it take too long. -Original Message- From: Tony Hlabse [mailto:thlabse;hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 10:10 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: X.400 issues I would investigate if your having any issues with the network itself. Has anyone complain they didn't get there mail sent? - Original Message - From: Bennett, Joshua [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 9:55 AM Subject: X.400 issues Hello all, I have an incredibly annoying situation going on that I can't seem to get a grip on. I am not sure of the magnitude of the errors I am seeing due to the fact that mail is still flowing. Here is my setup: I am running WNT4.0 SP6 / EX 5.5 EE SP4 all hotfixes on all these servers. I have a hub and spoke configuration within my EX org. All my remote servers connect (through X.400 connectors) to a central EX server that serves as my IMS to the internet. All the spoke servers are BDC's in NT domains. The hub server is a member server in a central domain that all other domains have 2-way trusts to. All the remote servers (scattered across the US) are connected to the hub server by full T1 lines. My issue is this: The MTA on the hub server backs up and an Event ID: 289 is written to the App log then the queue flushes clear and all mail is delivered without incident. This seems to occur about every 10 minutes or so during the day. There does not appear to be, at least on the surface, any connectivity issues. Should I just ignore these errors, as the mail is being delivered? Or is this just the beginning of a major issue about to explode in my lap? Please help, I have dug around MS site and Google and come up with little to no help. Thanks, Josh Bennett Exchange Admin\Systems Engineer Cotelligent, Inc. 401 Parkway Drive Broomall, PA. 19008 610-359-5929 www.cotelligent.com _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange;ls.swynk.com Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange;ls.swynk.com Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange;ls.swynk.com Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange;ls.swynk.com Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange;ls.swynk.com Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: X.400 issues
When I had similar issues between the core Exchange servers in Houston and a remote one in Italy, that the queues in the MTAs would bunch up behind a large message. After extensive Exchange troubleshooting (in vain) it turned out we had a dirty WAN circuit - when that was replaced mail flow returned to normal. Strange thing was that it appeared fine, Terminal services to the remote box didn't bomb and pings were fine [1], although it transpired that the circuit was dropping a hell of a lot of packets. Concentrate on troubleshooting the network, I'd be surprised if it's an Exchange issue [1] Crude I know. Event ID 57: Source: MSExchangeMTA Type: Warning Category: X.400 Service The limit on the number of associations allowed to and from entity (X.400 address) has been reached. The limit is 9. [MTA XFER-IN 19 34](12) Event ID 289: Source: MSExchangeMTA Type: Warning Category: X.400 Service A connection to (X.400 address) could not be opened [MTA XFER-IN 19 26](12) Event ID 1290: Source: MSExchagneMTA Type: Warning Category: X.400 Service A locally initiated association to (X.400 address) was refused. The failure reason provider was 0 and the reason was 0. Control block index 6. Type 1. [PLATFORM KERNEL 25 130](12) Event ID 9202: Source: MSExchangeMTA Type: Warning Category: Operating System A sockets error 10061 on an accept[] call was detected. The MTA will attempt to recover the sockets connection. Control block index: /. [BASE IL TCP/IP DRVR 8 256](12) _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange;ls.swynk.com Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: X.400 issues
If you've taken the steps described in Q243632, then the next most likely issue is available bandwidth as mentioned in Q194589. -Original Message- From: Bennett, Joshua [mailto:jbennett;cotelligent.com] Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 10:05 AM To: Exchange Discussions Event ID 57: Source: MSExchangeMTA Type: Warning Category: X.400 Service The limit on the number of associations allowed to and from entity (X.400 address) has been reached. The limit is 9. [MTA XFER-IN 19 34](12) Event ID 289: Source: MSExchangeMTA Type: Warning Category: X.400 Service A connection to (X.400 address) could not be opened [MTA XFER-IN 19 26](12) Event ID 1290: Source: MSExchagneMTA Type: Warning Category: X.400 Service A locally initiated association to (X.400 address) was refused. The failure reason provider was 0 and the reason was 0. Control block index 6. Type 1. [PLATFORM KERNEL 25 130](12) Event ID 9202: Source: MSExchangeMTA Type: Warning Category: Operating System A sockets error 10061 on an accept[] call was detected. The MTA will attempt to recover the socketsconnection. Control block index: /. [BASE IL TCP/IP DRVR 8 256](12) These are the Event ID's that continually pop up on the one remote server with the same symptoms, the other server just produces the 289 event id only. Thanks, Josh -Original Message- From: Chris Scharff [mailto:chris_scharff;messageone.com] Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 10:53 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: X.400 issues Admission: I'm entirely too lazy to go look up the random odd event ID or guestimate what too long[1] means. It there any chance you (the collective you) could include the Event ID source and description in addition to the number? And that you could provide an example of sent/ received times which constitute a too long delivery time. [1] When I worked at $vbc we initially had an MS Mail PO config which routinely resulted in 8 hour delivery times of mail from the US to Indonesia. If a user called and said it'd been six hours and the mail wasn't delivered, we didn't troubleshoot it. -Original Message- From: Bennett, Joshua [mailto:jbennett;cotelligent.com] Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 8:55 AM To: Exchange Discussions Hello all, I have an incredibly annoying situation going on that I can't seem to get a grip on. I am not sure of the magnitude of the errors I am seeing due to the fact that mail is still flowing. Here is my setup: I am running WNT4.0 SP6 / EX 5.5 EE SP4 all hotfixes on all these servers. I have a hub and spoke configuration within my EX org. All my remote servers connect (through X.400 connectors) to a central EX server that serves as my IMS to the internet. All the spoke servers are BDC's in NT domains. The hub server is a member server in a central domain that all other domains have 2-way trusts to. All the remote servers (scattered across the US) are connected to the hub server by full T1 lines. My issue is this: The MTA on the hub server backs up and an Event ID: 289 is written to the App log then the queue flushes clear and all mail is delivered without incident. This seems to occur about every 10 minutes or so during the day. There does not appear to be, at least on the surface, any connectivity issues. Should I just ignore these errors, as the mail is being delivered? Or is this just the beginning of a major issue about to explode in my lap? Please help, I have dug around MS site and Google and come up with little to no help. Thanks, Josh Bennett Exchange Admin\Systems Engineer Cotelligent, Inc. 401 Parkway Drive Broomall, PA. 19008 610-359-5929 www.cotelligent.com _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange;ls.swynk.com Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange;ls.swynk.com Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange;ls.swynk.com Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe
RE: X.400 issues
In the X.400 connector definition are you identifying the remote server by host name? If so, change it to IP address and see if the problem goes away. Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I Tech Consultant hp Services Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:bounce-exchange-94760;ls.swynk.com] On Behalf Of Bennett, Joshua Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 6:55 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: X.400 issues Hello all, I have an incredibly annoying situation going on that I can't seem to get a grip on. I am not sure of the magnitude of the errors I am seeing due to the fact that mail is still flowing. Here is my setup: I am running WNT4.0 SP6 / EX 5.5 EE SP4 all hotfixes on all these servers. I have a hub and spoke configuration within my EX org. All my remote servers connect (through X.400 connectors) to a central EX server that serves as my IMS to the internet. All the spoke servers are BDC's in NT domains. The hub server is a member server in a central domain that all other domains have 2-way trusts to. All the remote servers (scattered across the US) are connected to the hub server by full T1 lines. My issue is this: The MTA on the hub server backs up and an Event ID: 289 is written to the App log then the queue flushes clear and all mail is delivered without incident. This seems to occur about every 10 minutes or so during the day. There does not appear to be, at least on the surface, any connectivity issues. Should I just ignore these errors, as the mail is being delivered? Or is this just the beginning of a major issue about to explode in my lap? Please help, I have dug around MS site and Google and come up with little to no help. Thanks, Josh Bennett Exchange Admin\Systems Engineer Cotelligent, Inc. 401 Parkway Drive Broomall, PA. 19008 610-359-5929 www.cotelligent.com _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange;ls.swynk.com Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange;ls.swynk.com Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: X.400 issues
I am actually using the IP address (probably should have stated that in the original post, sorry) -Original Message- From: Ed Crowley [mailto:curspice;pacbell.net] Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 12:55 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: X.400 issues In the X.400 connector definition are you identifying the remote server by host name? If so, change it to IP address and see if the problem goes away. Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I Tech Consultant hp Services Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:bounce-exchange-94760;ls.swynk.com] On Behalf Of Bennett, Joshua Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 6:55 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: X.400 issues Hello all, I have an incredibly annoying situation going on that I can't seem to get a grip on. I am not sure of the magnitude of the errors I am seeing due to the fact that mail is still flowing. Here is my setup: I am running WNT4.0 SP6 / EX 5.5 EE SP4 all hotfixes on all these servers. I have a hub and spoke configuration within my EX org. All my remote servers connect (through X.400 connectors) to a central EX server that serves as my IMS to the internet. All the spoke servers are BDC's in NT domains. The hub server is a member server in a central domain that all other domains have 2-way trusts to. All the remote servers (scattered across the US) are connected to the hub server by full T1 lines. My issue is this: The MTA on the hub server backs up and an Event ID: 289 is written to the App log then the queue flushes clear and all mail is delivered without incident. This seems to occur about every 10 minutes or so during the day. There does not appear to be, at least on the surface, any connectivity issues. Should I just ignore these errors, as the mail is being delivered? Or is this just the beginning of a major issue about to explode in my lap? Please help, I have dug around MS site and Google and come up with little to no help. Thanks, Josh Bennett Exchange Admin\Systems Engineer Cotelligent, Inc. 401 Parkway Drive Broomall, PA. 19008 610-359-5929 www.cotelligent.com _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange;ls.swynk.com Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange;ls.swynk.com Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange;ls.swynk.com Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: X.400 issues
Sounds like you need to put some type of monitor on your network to see if there is anything abnormal with it particularly the links. Maybe if traffic is that heavy maybe multiple X.400 connectors to the sites that are having this issue? - Original Message - From: Bennett, Joshua [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 12:59 PM Subject: RE: X.400 issues I am actually using the IP address (probably should have stated that in the original post, sorry) -Original Message- From: Ed Crowley [mailto:curspice;pacbell.net] Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 12:55 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: X.400 issues In the X.400 connector definition are you identifying the remote server by host name? If so, change it to IP address and see if the problem goes away. Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I Tech Consultant hp Services Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:bounce-exchange-94760;ls.swynk.com] On Behalf Of Bennett, Joshua Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 6:55 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: X.400 issues Hello all, I have an incredibly annoying situation going on that I can't seem to get a grip on. I am not sure of the magnitude of the errors I am seeing due to the fact that mail is still flowing. Here is my setup: I am running WNT4.0 SP6 / EX 5.5 EE SP4 all hotfixes on all these servers. I have a hub and spoke configuration within my EX org. All my remote servers connect (through X.400 connectors) to a central EX server that serves as my IMS to the internet. All the spoke servers are BDC's in NT domains. The hub server is a member server in a central domain that all other domains have 2-way trusts to. All the remote servers (scattered across the US) are connected to the hub server by full T1 lines. My issue is this: The MTA on the hub server backs up and an Event ID: 289 is written to the App log then the queue flushes clear and all mail is delivered without incident. This seems to occur about every 10 minutes or so during the day. There does not appear to be, at least on the surface, any connectivity issues. Should I just ignore these errors, as the mail is being delivered? Or is this just the beginning of a major issue about to explode in my lap? Please help, I have dug around MS site and Google and come up with little to no help. Thanks, Josh Bennett Exchange Admin\Systems Engineer Cotelligent, Inc. 401 Parkway Drive Broomall, PA. 19008 610-359-5929 www.cotelligent.com _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange;ls.swynk.com Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange;ls.swynk.com Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange;ls.swynk.com Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange;ls.swynk.com Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: X.400 issues
I am not so sure it is a network issue.I have other Ex servers in different sites on the other end of the same T1 that are fine and do not generate these errors. -Original Message- From: Tony Hlabse [mailto:thlabse;hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 1:04 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: X.400 issues Sounds like you need to put some type of monitor on your network to see if there is anything abnormal with it particularly the links. Maybe if traffic is that heavy maybe multiple X.400 connectors to the sites that are having this issue? - Original Message - From: Bennett, Joshua [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 12:59 PM Subject: RE: X.400 issues I am actually using the IP address (probably should have stated that in the original post, sorry) -Original Message- From: Ed Crowley [mailto:curspice;pacbell.net] Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 12:55 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: X.400 issues In the X.400 connector definition are you identifying the remote server by host name? If so, change it to IP address and see if the problem goes away. Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I Tech Consultant hp Services Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:bounce-exchange-94760;ls.swynk.com] On Behalf Of Bennett, Joshua Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 6:55 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: X.400 issues Hello all, I have an incredibly annoying situation going on that I can't seem to get a grip on. I am not sure of the magnitude of the errors I am seeing due to the fact that mail is still flowing. Here is my setup: I am running WNT4.0 SP6 / EX 5.5 EE SP4 all hotfixes on all these servers. I have a hub and spoke configuration within my EX org. All my remote servers connect (through X.400 connectors) to a central EX server that serves as my IMS to the internet. All the spoke servers are BDC's in NT domains. The hub server is a member server in a central domain that all other domains have 2-way trusts to. All the remote servers (scattered across the US) are connected to the hub server by full T1 lines. My issue is this: The MTA on the hub server backs up and an Event ID: 289 is written to the App log then the queue flushes clear and all mail is delivered without incident. This seems to occur about every 10 minutes or so during the day. There does not appear to be, at least on the surface, any connectivity issues. Should I just ignore these errors, as the mail is being delivered? Or is this just the beginning of a major issue about to explode in my lap? Please help, I have dug around MS site and Google and come up with little to no help. Thanks, Josh Bennett Exchange Admin\Systems Engineer Cotelligent, Inc. 401 Parkway Drive Broomall, PA. 19008 610-359-5929 www.cotelligent.com _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange;ls.swynk.com Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange;ls.swynk.com Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange;ls.swynk.com Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange;ls.swynk.com Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange;ls.swynk.com Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
