Repeat of the same issue during IPL.
Paul
-----Original Message-----
From: MIDRANGE-L [mailto:midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Rob Berendt
Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2017 4:44 PM
To: Midrange Systems Technical Discussion
Subject: RE: TCP9106 - No response received from NTP server since 7/6 IPL - (2) QTOTNTP server jobs active causing the issue
Apparently that's a common practice.
IBM i 7.3:
Job . . : QTCPWRK User . . : QSYS Number . . . : 379697
Job 379697/QSYS/QTCPWRK started on 07/25/17 at 11:13:08 in subsystem *NONE ...
Job 379830/QTCP/QTCPSTSVRS submitted to job queue QSYSNOMAX ...
Job 379998/QTCP/QTCPSTSVRS submitted to job queue QSYSNOMAX ...
But the second QTCPSTSVRS should receive
TCP9194 - Time Protocol services are already running.
And only the first job should get
Job 379945/QNTP/QTOTNTP submitted to job queue QSYSNOMAX in library QSYS.
TCP9139 - NTP service starting.
Maybe you just need a faster server? :-) Or a newer version of the OS? :-)
Rob Berendt
--
IBM Certified System Administrator - IBM i 6.1 Group Dekko Dept 1600 Mail to: 2505 Dekko Drive
Garrett, IN 46738
Ship to: Dock 108
6928N 400E
Kendallville, IN 46755
http://www.dekko.com
From: "Steinmetz, Paul" <PSteinmetz@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: "'Midrange Systems Technical Discussion'"
<midrange-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: 07/26/2017 04:32 PM
Subject: RE: TCP9106 - No response received from NTP server since
7/6 IPL - (2) QTOTNTP server jobs active causing the issue
Sent by: "MIDRANGE-L" <midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Bob,
Submitted from two different QTCPSTSVRS jobs, 879367 and 879342
CPI1125 Information 00 07/06/17 00:33:12.460124 QWTPCRJA
QSYS 0110 *EXT
Message . . . . : Job
879597/QNTP/QTOTNTP submitted.
Cause . . . . . : Job
879597/QNTP/QTOTNTP submitted to job queue QSYSNOMAX
in QSYS from job
879367/QTCP/QTCPSTSVRS. Job 879597/QNTP/QTOTNTP was started
CPI1125 Information 00 07/06/17 00:33:12.507332 QWTPCRJA
QSYS 0110 *EXT
Message . . . . : Job
879598/QNTP/QTOTNTP submitted.
Cause . . . . . : Job
879598/QNTP/QTOTNTP submitted to job queue QSYSNOMAX
in QSYS from job
879342/QTCP/QTCPSTSVRS. Job 879598/QNTP/QTOTNTP was started
So this could the problem.
Why were there two QTCPSTSVRS jobs started during the IPL, 879367 and
879342
These were both submitted by the same QTCPWRK job, 879278
CPI1125 Information 00 07/06/17 00:33:00.193086 QWTPCRJA
QSYS 0110 *EXT
Message . . . . : Job
879367/QTCP/QTCPSTSVRS submitted.
Cause . . . . . : Job
879367/QTCP/QTCPSTSVRS submitted to job queue
QSYSNOMAX in QSYS from job
879278/QSYS/QTCPWRK. Job 879367/QTCP/QTCPSTSVRS
CPI1125 Information 00 07/06/17 00:32:59.715996 QWTPCRJA
QSYS 0110 *EXT
Message . . . . : Job
879342/QTCP/QTCPSTSVRS submitted.
Cause . . . . . : Job
879342/QTCP/QTCPSTSVRS submitted to job queue
QSYSNOMAX in QSYS from job
879278/QSYS/QTCPWRK. Job 879342/QTCP/QTCPSTSVRS
Paul
-----Original Message-----
From: MIDRANGE-L [mailto:midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Rob
Berendt
Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2017 4:19 PM
To: Midrange Systems Technical Discussion
Subject: RE: TCP9106 - No response received from NTP server since 7/6 IPL
- (2) QTOTNTP server jobs active causing the issue
Do they both have:
Message . . . . : Job 565283/QNTP/QTOTNTP submitted.
Cause . . . . . : Job 565283/QNTP/QTOTNTP submitted to job queue
QSYSNOMAX
in QSYS from job 565090/QTCP/QTCPSTSVRS.
Or were they started from different jobs (check the job number also)?
Rob Berendt
--
IBM Certified System Administrator - IBM i 6.1 Group Dekko Dept 1600 Mail
to: 2505 Dekko Drive
Garrett, IN 46738
Ship to: Dock 108
6928N 400E
Kendallville, IN 46755
http://www.dekko.com
From: "Steinmetz, Paul" <PSteinmetz@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: "'Midrange Systems Technical Discussion'"
<midrange-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: 07/26/2017 04:01 PM
Subject: RE: TCP9106 - No response received from NTP server since
7/6 IPL - (2) QTOTNTP server jobs active causing the issue
Sent by: "MIDRANGE-L" <midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Rob,
Nope, I checked that.
If server and client both checked, that could explain the 2nd instance.
Paul
-----Original Message-----
From: MIDRANGE-L [mailto:midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Rob
Berendt
Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2017 3:59 PM
To: Midrange Systems Technical Discussion
Subject: RE: TCP9106 - No response received from NTP server since 7/6 IPL
- (2) QTOTNTP server jobs active causing the issue
Do you, by chance, have both the client, and the server, configured to
start at IPL?
I suspect more people have just the client start and do not use their IBM
i as a time server.
Rob Berendt
--
IBM Certified System Administrator - IBM i 6.1 Group Dekko Dept 1600 Mail
to: 2505 Dekko Drive
Garrett, IN 46738
Ship to: Dock 108
6928N 400E
Kendallville, IN 46755
http://www.dekko.com
From: "Steinmetz, Paul" <PSteinmetz@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: "'Midrange Systems Technical Discussion'"
<midrange-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: 07/26/2017 02:38 PM
Subject: RE: TCP9106 - No response received from NTP server since
7/6 IPL - (2) QTOTNTP server jobs active causing the issue
Sent by: "MIDRANGE-L" <midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Rob,
They were both started during the IPL process, set to start when TCP/IP
starts.
Job 879597/QNTP/QTOTNTP started on 07/06/17 at 00:33:12 in subsystem
QSYSWRK
Job 879598/QNTP/QTOTNTP started on 07/06/17 at 00:33:12 in subsystem
QSYSWRK
Paul
-----Original Message-----
From: MIDRANGE-L [mailto:midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Rob
Berendt
Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2017 5:57 PM
To: Midrange Systems Technical Discussion
Subject: Re: TCP9106 - No response received from NTP server since 7/6 IPL
- (2) QTOTNTP server jobs active causing the issue
If the jobs still exist then I would check both of their joblogs to see if
they started the same way.
If they do not exist then you're down to DSPLOG for that job.
TCP has changed how many things autostart. For example an autostart job
entry on one subsystem to another autostart job entry on another
subsystem. If you are in the habit of restoring a subsystem from backup
after an upgrade that could have some stuff start from multiple places.
For example VERY EARLY on in (like back on AS/400's) we used to do this
for fear of an upgrade removing our hundreds of job queue entries on a
subsystem description. However IBM does a good job of not losing these
during an upgrade. But, if you've been doing so for so long that the
subsystem description goes back to V1 or V2 then it cannot update the
subsystem description during an upgrade (there's some little attribute
there which puts a halt to it). We had to recreate it and stop restoring
it after an upgrade and it's no longer been a concern.
Rob Berendt
--
IBM Certified System Administrator - IBM i 6.1 Group Dekko Dept 1600 Mail
to: 2505 Dekko Drive
Garrett, IN 46738
Ship to: Dock 108
6928N 400E
Kendallville, IN 46755
http://www.dekko.com
From: "Steinmetz, Paul" <PSteinmetz@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: "'midrange-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx'" <midrange-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: 07/25/2017 03:40 PM
Subject: TCP9106 - No response received from NTP server since 7/6
IPL - (2) QTOTNTP server jobs active causing the issue
Sent by: "MIDRANGE-L" <midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
V7R1, Latest CUM and groups.
TCP9106 - No response received from NTP server has been occurring every 3
to 4 hours since 7/6 IPL.
The SNTP (Simple Network Time Protocol Service) is running.
This is only occurring on Production LPAR.
R&D LPAR is fine.
Both LPARS configured equally, both pointed to same remote systems.
Remote system . . . . . . . . . 'us.pool.ntp.org'
+ for more values '198.60.73.8'
When checking the Production LPAR, I found that there were (2) QTOTNTP
server jobs active.
I stopped both, started one new QTOTNTP server job.
Issue resolved.
Why would an IPL have started (2) QTOTNTP server jobs?
Any thoughts from the group.
Thank You
_____
Paul Steinmetz
IBM i Systems Administrator
Pencor Services, Inc.
462 Delaware Ave
Palmerton Pa 18071
610-826-9117 work
610-826-9188 fax
610-349-0913 cell
610-377-6012 home
psteinmetz@xxxxxxxxxx
http://www.pencor.com/
midrange.com
