I am still working on these error. It seems the problem not only for the load balance but also with some bugs in SRSS3.1.
One of Notes from explorer we've ran "TCBDaemon: packet receive error". I've checked on sun solution, and this is a bug (6240056). It said it is occasionally happen, but it happen quite a lot. Any ide guys?

I can send you the explorer but it takes 3 MB. Can I send personally to someone who might interested?
Thanks a lot and Warm Regards

Fitra

Bob Doolittle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Also, are these logged in sessions, or only login-greeter
sessions? utwho -c would be interesting to see. The
difference between utwho -c and utwho -ac is that the
latter one counts login-greeter sessions, whereas the
first form is just logged in sessions.

What is your policy (output of utpolicy)?

-Bob

ottomeister wrote:

>On 3/27/06, fitra budi anggoro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>>I've got 80 clients connected to 2 x [EMAIL PROTECTED] USIV 32 GB. What really strange
>>is 75 clients connected to Server A and only 5 connected to Server B.
>>Shouldn't SRSS 3.1 have Load Balance Capabilities? It should have right.
>>
>>
>
>SRSS tries to balance system load, not number of DTUs, but even so
>that seems like a very skewed distribution.
>
>What do 'utgstatus' and 'uptime' show on each of these machines?
>
>If one of the users on Server A logs out, does he then get offered a
>login on Server B?
>
>OttoM.


How low will we go? Check out Yahoo! Messenger’s low PC-to-Phone call rates.
_______________________________________________
SunRay-Users mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.filibeto.org/mailman/listinfo/sunray-users

Reply via email to