Yes they do. They quit working after running through the weekend.
> Do all of your checks work after a fresh reboot? > > Jim > > -----Original Message----- > From: Servers Alive Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, June 28, 2006 12:10 PM > To: Servers Alive Discussion List > Subject: RE: [SA-list] Checks fail due to lack of resources locally > > Thanks Jim, I will contact Dirk and see if he can help me identify the > good one and I'll make sure it's what is installed. > > -Rob > >> 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. >> > > 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.
