We had trouble when we converted from version 4 to version 5. We found that there was a pretty severe handle leak in the perfdata OCX. Our system would lock up after a few hours of operation. We had a lot of perfmon checks.
I worked with Woodstone and we now have a fairly stable version. You may want to check into that. Jim Ferrell EDS - Allison Transmission 4700 W 10th St Mail Code 462-470-H04 Indianapolis, IN 46222 * phone: +01-317-242-0034 (8-252) * mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Cell phone: 317-716-4541 -----Original Message----- From: Servers Alive Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2006 4:25 PM To: Servers Alive Discussion List Subject: RE: [SA-list] Checks fail due to lack of resources locally Between the perfmon and windows diskspace checks, it is running around 55 of the 101 configured checks. > Do you have a lot of Perfmon checks in your configuration? > > Jim Ferrell > EDS - Allison Transmission > 4700 W 10th St > Mail Code 462-470-H04 > Indianapolis, IN 46222 > > * phone: +01-317-242-0034 (8-252) > * mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Cell phone: 317-716-4541 > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Servers Alive Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2006 11:35 AM > To: Servers Alive Discussion List > Subject: RE: [SA-list] Checks fail due to lack of resources locally > > I have a nack for causing confusion! :-) > > All of the checks that fail do so with a message "Lack of resources"... > > The XP system running SA is completely unresponsive and cannot even be > managed from the KVM. > > The remote systems were all just fine. > > -R > >> Now I'm loosing you :-) >> >> The remote systems don't respond, and you have to reboot the XP? >> So the remote systems are the XPs? >> >> >> >> >> Dirk Bulinckx. >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Servers Alive Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On >> Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2006 5:16 PM >> To: Servers Alive Discussion List >> Subject: RE: [SA-list] Checks fail due to lack of resources locally >> >> No, when all of the check start failing, the remote system won't even >> respond on the Dell IP based KVM. XP is seriously frozen and requires >> a physical power recycle. >> >> I have kicked around the idea of doing some local perfmon checks to >> log and graph with RRD which would help watch memory consumption for >> example. >> >> -R >> >>> Can you do a NET VIEW towards those remote system from your XP >>> system > >>> and from other systems? >>> >>> >>> Dirk Bulinckx. >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Servers Alive Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On >>> Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2006 5:01 PM >>> To: Servers Alive Discussion List >>> Subject: RE: [SA-list] Checks fail due to lack of resources locally >>> >>> The remote side of the checks are almost exclusively on Windows 2000 >>> Pro and Server. With some hitting 2003 server. I am not checking >>> any > >>> systems that are running XP. >>> >>>> Are those checks on the WinXP system or on a remote system? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Dirk Bulinckx. >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Servers Alive Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On >>>> Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>> Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2006 4:41 PM >>>> To: Servers Alive Discussion List >>>> Subject: [SA-list] Checks fail due to lack of resources locally >>>> >>>> I am having a troubling condition with Servers Alive running on >>>> Windows XP Professional. After running for a period of time (this >>>> time it has been up for 4 days), all of the complex checks like >>>> Windows Process checks, file checks, print spoolers, cpu and >>>> pagespace, etc. fail with a message similar >>>> to: >>>> >>>> Clframe1 % CPU (DOWN) 100% CPU check (running at Not enough >>>> resources are available to complete this operation. %, check time: >>>> 187 ms) >>>> >>>> So my first question is, Should I be using something other than >>>> Windows XP (i.e. Windows 2000 or 2003)? My SA v4 never had this >>>> issue, though I have added a lot more perfmon based checks and com >>>> based checks, and RRD logging and graphing. I am stumped and hate >>>> the thought that the fix is a daily reboot of the servers alive > system. >>>> >>>> Thanks in advance! >>>> >>>> Rob Petty >>>> >>>> To unsubscribe send a message with UNSUBSCRIBE as subject to >>>> salive@woodstone.nu If you use auto-responders (like >>>> out-of-the-office messages), then make sure that they are not send >>>> to the list nor to the individual members of the list that send a >>>> message. Doing this will get you removed from the list. >>>> >>>> To unsubscribe send a message with UNSUBSCRIBE as subject to >>>> salive@woodstone.nu If you use auto-responders (like >>>> out-of-the-office messages), then make sure that they are not send >>>> to the list nor to the individual members of the list that send a >>>> message. Doing this will get you removed from the list. >>>> >>> >>> To unsubscribe send a message with UNSUBSCRIBE as subject to >>> salive@woodstone.nu If you use auto-responders (like >>> out-of-the-office messages), then make sure that they are not send >>> to > >>> the list nor to the individual members of the list that send a >>> message. Doing this will get you removed from the list. >>> >>> To unsubscribe send a message with UNSUBSCRIBE as subject to >>> salive@woodstone.nu If you use auto-responders (like >>> out-of-the-office messages), then make sure that they are not send >>> to > >>> the list nor to the individual members of the list that send a >>> message. Doing this will get you removed from the list. >>> >> >> To unsubscribe send a message with UNSUBSCRIBE as subject to >> salive@woodstone.nu If you use auto-responders (like >> out-of-the-office > >> messages), then make sure that they are not send to the list nor to >> the individual members of the list that send a message. Doing this >> will get you removed from the list. >> >> To unsubscribe send a message with UNSUBSCRIBE as subject to >> salive@woodstone.nu If you use auto-responders (like >> out-of-the-office > >> messages), then make sure that they are not send to the list nor to >> the individual members of the list that send a message. Doing this >> will get you removed from the list. >> > > To unsubscribe send a message with UNSUBSCRIBE as subject to > salive@woodstone.nu If you use auto-responders (like out-of-the-office > messages), then make sure that they are not send to the list nor to > the individual members of the list that send a message. Doing this > will get you removed from the list. > > To unsubscribe send a message with UNSUBSCRIBE as subject to > salive@woodstone.nu If you use auto-responders (like out-of-the-office > messages), then make sure that they are not send to the list nor to > the individual members of the list that send a message. Doing this > will get you removed from the list. > To unsubscribe send a message with UNSUBSCRIBE as subject to salive@woodstone.nu If you use auto-responders (like out-of-the-office messages), then make sure that they are not send to the list nor to the individual members of the list that send a message. Doing this will get you removed from the list. To unsubscribe send a message with UNSUBSCRIBE as subject to salive@woodstone.nu If you use auto-responders (like out-of-the-office messages), then make sure that they are not send to the list nor to the individual members of the list that send a message. Doing this will get you removed from the list.
