Ascend Archive
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: (ASCEND) MAX 4048 + 5.0Ap38 oddity
EVERYONE PLEASE READ if you're using 5.0Ap38
On Wed, 14 Jan 1998, Kevin A. Smith wrote:
> Do we know for sure the last version which did NOT see this problem?
5.0Ap24 was the last release I had that I never had a SINGLE problem with.
I never loaded 5.0Ap36.
5.0Ap24 was God-like for me. I went to 5.0Ap38 to load the new Rockwell
code. Tomorrow I'm making a special trip to one of my remote sites to
downgrade to 5.0Ap24. We're receiving a MILLION calls from bitchy
customers who are getting connected, but are having two major problems:
With 5.0Ap38...
Users have extremely slow throughput when the max is loaded, up to 48
calls per box.
Users get kicked off for no reason when the max is loaded up to 48 calls,
but sometimes with as few as 30 calls.
I'm wondering if 5.0Ap38 has a bug or some weird loop that's slowing the
processor down and causing it to not route data efficiently, and causing
the users to get kicked off.
OPERATOR RESET: Index: 99 Load: tik.m40 Revision: 5.0Ap24
Date: 09/21/1997. Time: 08:17:12
DEBUG Reset from unknown in security profile 1.
SYSTEM IS UP: Index: 100 Load: tik.m40 Revision: 5.0Ap38
Date: 12/19/1997. Time: 10:36:32
I hope this helps... like I said... 5.0Ap24 was Godlike. With 5.0Ap38
we're receiving a LOT of calls, and it's all happened within the last two
weeks, and growing worse. It's almost like the machine's ram is dwindling
and took three weeks to get this bad.
Whatever the case, tomorrow i'm moving back to 5.0Ap24. If the problems
go away, then there's something bad in 5.0Ap38.
--
/
/ o Jason Buchanan
o Digistar Microsystems
/ jsb@digistar.com
o http://www.digistar.com/
++ Ascend Users Mailing List ++
To unsubscribe: send unsubscribe to ascend-users-request@bungi.com
To get FAQ'd: <http://www.nealis.net/ascend/faq>
Follow-Ups:
References: