Remote print slow after patching

[Phil Daws_3]

We have a remote print queue on a NT4 server and since applying the following patch set :

GOLDAPPS11i B.11.11.0212.4 Gold Applications Patches for HP-UX 11i, December 2002
GOLDBASE11i B.11.11.0212.4 Gold Base Patches for HP-UX 11i, December 2002

Prints are taking ~70 seconds to be spooled over to the NT server. On other 11i servers that dont have this installed they take ~2 seconds to send to the same remote server.

I thought the problem may be due to IPv6 being installed but I have applied the latest patch :

PHNE_28089

Any ideas why it could be taking so long? I have run 'tusc' on lpsched to try and trace it but to no joy.

[Andreas Kruth]

Hi Phil,

some thoughts on this issue.

~70 seconds you say, sounds like a timeout.
Did you verify proper 'nslookup' of hostname in both directions?

Try an "lpstat -t". Does it also hang?
The lpstat should gather the status of the remote printer.
If yes, take a network trace and look for port 515 on the destination host.
Remote printing uses TCP Port 515 on the print server.
You can use hp-ux nettl for this task or other sniffer tools like tcpdump or ethereal.
Is the request send after a couple of seconds or waiting long time for response, the problem is related to the network. Then you have to check the gateways (do you use port forwarding or anything else?).

But if the request is sent w/o significant delay and the response is also not delayed this is a host based problem.
A tusc output should be helpful (e.g. tusc lp -d file)

Andreas

[Phil Daws_3]

Hi thanks for the reply. Got some useful info from 'tusc' as I saw it trying to use /dev/ip6. Ended up downloading a demo of a lpd driver for WindowsXP. Setup a queue on both windows and unix and the prints fired through. My understanding is that WindowsXP has a basic IPv6 stack but you have to install the whole software to get the full functionality. I found that the IPv6 package was installed on the UX server so I backed that out and low and behold it all works fine now. Definately a compatability problem with Windows NT4!