14 Jul
2004
14 Jul
'04
4:03 p.m.
Andrei:
I had tried this suggestion once before without success. I just went
back and tried again only to discover that the fifo pointed to by the
sems.conf was the proxy fifo. Interestingly messages were being
recorded and delivered for some users while the fifo statements
were incorrect.
Anyway your suggestion worked. The system seems to behave as
expected now.
Thanks
Andrei Pelinescu-Onciul wrote:
On Jul 14, 2004 at 09:14, Steve Blair
<blairs(a)isc.upenn.edu> wrote:
--
ISC Network Engineering
The University of Pennsylvania
3401 Walnut Street, Suite 221A
Philadelphia, PA 19104
voice: 215-573-8396
215-746-7903
fax: 215-898-9348
sip:blairs@upenn.edu
Hello:
I have a second instance of SER running on the same box as the
first instance. The first instance is our proxy server the second
exists only to integrate SEMS with the failure_route block. It
seems that each instance of SER and possibly SEMS too must
be started in a specific sequence. Has anyone looked into this?
What I'm seeing is that if the 2nd instance of SER is started
first then administrators using serctl experience problems accessing
certain functions. Specifically I am seeing a 'ul_dump' does not
exist error when issuing the serctl ul show command.
The problem is you start both ser instances with the same fifo, so the
ser started the last will always delete the first ser fifo and you will
be able to access only the second ser via serctl.
Set fifo=/tmp/some_other_file in one of your ser.cfgs and use
SER_FIFO=fifo_name serctl ul_dump to distinguish between the 2 sers.
Andrei