Re: [c-nsp] EEM Execution Time
The default maxrun is 20 seconds. After that expires the script would terminate. You need to set maxrun to a higher value on the event registration statement. Look for maxrun here: http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/ios/netmgmt/configuration/guide/12_2sx/nm_12_2sx_book/nm_eem_policy_tcl.html Tnx, Arie On Apr 22, 2015 2:29 AM, M K gunner_...@live.com wrote: Am trying to run EEM script , but the log message below appears eem_server[190]: %HA-HA_EM-6-FMS_POLICY_TIMEOUT : Policy 'mssk.tcl' has hit its maximum execution time of 20.0 seconds, and so has been halted How Can i increase execution time? ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/ ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
Re: [c-nsp] EEM Execution Time
Lukas Tribus Sent: 22 April 2015 11:00 Are you kidding me? RTFM! It takes 3 to 5 seconds to find the response to your question in google. Stop abusing this list because of your laziness. Gert Doering Sent: 22 April 2015 21:46 Your mails are painful on so many levels, that it *does* bother people here. Hold your horses folks, since when do we have this IETF/NANOG temper around here : ) ? Some of us are passionate about what we do some of us... well not so much. But my personal opinion is that mails in here are not work tasks so if you don't find a particular topic worth your time you might as well leave it unanswered right? Though this kind of temper might discourage other folks to post questions which is not vital for the list. adam --- This email has been scanned for email related threats and delivered safely by Mimecast. For more information please visit http://www.mimecast.com --- ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
Re: [c-nsp] EEM Execution Time
Hi, On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 02:17:51PM +, Adam Vitkovsky wrote: Though this kind of temper might discourage other folks to post questions which is not vital for the list. If this sort of exchange discourages people from posting stuff to the list that could instead be answered by two minutes of googling - yes, this is intentional. If too much useless noise hits the list, those people that provide *answers* will eventually decide that the list value has deteriorated enough to unsubscribe - and then what? I consider my human life time too valuable to try to read mails from people that just can't be bothered to learn to quote, put a real name in their mail client, or learn too google. gert -- USENET is *not* the non-clickable part of WWW! //www.muc.de/~gert/ Gert Doering - Munich, Germany g...@greenie.muc.de fax: +49-89-35655025g...@net.informatik.tu-muenchen.de pgpGCG7qyDn_I.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
Re: [c-nsp] EEM Execution Time
On Thu, 2015-04-23 at 14:17 +, Adam Vitkovsky wrote: ... this kind of temper might discourage other folks to post questions which is not vital for the list. On Thu, 2015-04-23 at 11:04 -0700, Pete Templin wrote: There's a difference between an overall temper and a simple pointer that someone's just not at the right level. Adams' is the voice of reason and list members should of course neither scare away newbies nor forget that written communication between many people of many languages can be tricky. But... For certain questions, this thread's beginning included, one is IMHO not really helping the person asking the question by giving out a simple and easy answer. The inability to figure out this problem by oneself probably means that designing EEM scripts to on core routers is a bad idea. When asking a question one must remember that they're asking probably thousands (I don't know the number for c-nsp) of people across the world. If one person could spend two minutes with his/her favourite search engine to find a solution then that would be much more effective than a thousand persons each spending even just one second reading the question. Similarly with formatting and spelling; it doesn't have to be perfect, but showing that you care enough to spend a few minutes proof reading and making things look nice will attract more potential answerers. It's easy-ish to ignore these questions, or so I find. But that's arguably more rude than actually saying out loud what Lukas said, which was honestly what I was thinking too. :-) Let's hope this thread doesn't devolve to something NANOG-ish! -- Peter ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
Re: [c-nsp] EEM Execution Time
On 23/04/2015 15:17, Adam Vitkovsky wrote: Hold your horses folks, since when do we have this IETF/NANOG temper around here : ) ? cisco-nsp is for cisco operators in network service provider environments. Everyone on the mailing list is ok about occasional basic questions and people are nearly always extremely polite and helpful towards the people who ask them. MK consistently and regularly uses the list as a first-line support desk for extremely basic questions, most of which could be answered by spending a couple of minutes on google, and some of which are completely unrelated to cisco kit. It's also clear that many of the questions relate to synthetic lab setups, student configuration or are otherwise unrelated to NSP service environments. This is abusive and disrespectful towards the good will of the people on the mailing list and frankly it's a waste of their time. It has politely suggested to MK on many occasions that she/he stop doing this, as well as other things like email formatting which destroys fixed-width quotations, which makes it really troublesome to figure out what's going on. These polite requests have either been ignored or in the case of simply and easily fixing the quotation problem, been replied to with no. I agree it would be better to ignore the emails, but people have become pissed off to the point that they are now being rude. Jared, as the list owner, could you consider applying a cluebat please? Nick ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
Re: [c-nsp] EEM Execution Time
There's a difference between an overall temper and a simple pointer that someone's just not at the right level. This particular individual brings a lot of completely unresearched questions to the list...things where they'd be better served by hiring a consultant, or in some cases where they'd be better served by doing their own homework (I mean this literally: I've seen this person post a CCIE RS lab question verbatim, looking for the entire solution to be handed to them). Unfortunately, the laziness never seems to end...so finally one or more of us crack. I consider it fully justified and welcomed, IMHO. On 4/23/2015 7:17 AM, Adam Vitkovsky wrote: Hold your horses folks, since when do we have this IETF/NANOG temper around here : ) ? Some of us are passionate about what we do some of us... well not so much. But my personal opinion is that mails in here are not work tasks so if you don't find a particular topic worth your time you might as well leave it unanswered right? Though this kind of temper might discourage other folks to post questions which is not vital for the list. ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
Re: [c-nsp] EEM Execution Time
Hi, On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 03:04:23PM +0300, M K wrote: Am not trying to bother anyone In that case, pleas learn a) to use google, and b) to quote, and c) configure your e-mail client to display a proper name. Your mails are painful on so many levels, that it *does* bother people here. gert -- USENET is *not* the non-clickable part of WWW! //www.muc.de/~gert/ Gert Doering - Munich, Germany g...@greenie.muc.de fax: +49-89-35655025g...@net.informatik.tu-muenchen.de pgpV7qmYJiQBo.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
Re: [c-nsp] EEM Execution Time
Am trying to run EEM script , but the log message below appears eem_server[190]: %HA-HA_EM-6-FMS_POLICY_TIMEOUT : Policy 'mssk.tcl' has hit its maximum execution time of 20.0 seconds, and so has been halted How Can i increase execution time? Are you kidding me? RTFM! It takes 3 to 5 seconds to find the response to your question in google. Stop abusing this list because of your laziness. ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
Re: [c-nsp] EEM Execution Time
Am not trying to bother anyone , behave urself From: luky...@hotmail.com To: gunner_...@live.com; cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net Subject: RE: [c-nsp] EEM Execution Time Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2015 11:59:45 +0200 Am trying to run EEM script , but the log message below appears eem_server[190]: %HA-HA_EM-6-FMS_POLICY_TIMEOUT : Policy 'mssk.tcl' has hit its maximum execution time of 20.0 seconds, and so has been halted How Can i increase execution time? Are you kidding me? RTFM! It takes 3 to 5 seconds to find the response to your question in google. Stop abusing this list because of your laziness. ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
