;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
: 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
, 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
, 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
]
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
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
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
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
[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
- 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
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
: 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
: 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
: 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
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
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
[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
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
- 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
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
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
]
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
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
. 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
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
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
]
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
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
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
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
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
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
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:
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
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
, 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
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
: 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
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
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
]
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
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-
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
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
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
45 matches
Mail list logo
