COPY/FTP error

[gunners]

sorry i meant sending 'server' as in singular

[Volker Halle]

So the sending and receiving servers do not seem to have a problem with autonegotiation settings, both are set to AUTO. And I assume, that there were no 'possible duplex mismatch' messages from the LAN drivers as shown at the bottom of the LANCP SHOW DEV/INT output.

But how about JUMBO frames ? Are the system using JUMBO frames ? If so, are all the network components in the path between those system able to forward jumbo frames ?

What happens, if you try to copy a very small file (1 block)  with COPY/FTP ?

Volker.

[gunners]

Hey Volker ,

ok , no mismatches , i did the lan command to an output file on both and searched both.

I tried a copy/ft of a small file as you suggested and it hangs and times out with 'I/O error on network device' , Device Timeout.

I tried a copy without /ftp and it copied across fine.

Hmmm , Is it possible it could be a problem on the actual network switch , might need to get them to check the settings - is there such a thing as 'autonegoutiate' on the port AS WELL AS the server card (which we have verified is ok)

[Volker Halle]

The switch ports must also be set to auto-negotiate and their current settings should be the SAME as the current settings of the LAN interfaces in your OpenVMS servers.

But if TELNET and DECnet-copy work and FTP copy fails (did you try COPY/FTP x.x localhost::... on the receiving and sending server to make sure the FTP servers are o.k. ?), I guess this might be some problem with a firewall in the path between those servers or a problem with TCP buffer sizes (i.e. the end-to-end buffer size negotiation comes up with a larger buffer size than the intermediate system can handle).

You could run $ TCPTRACE remote-node-IP and/or tcpdump and check the IP packets sent from the local to the remote server.

Volker.

[gunners]

Hi Volker ,

Something interesting - I have another vms server which works fine and is in the same location as the 'receiving server' , when I run the LANCP command at the very end it says

426251871 Packets transmitted (64 bytes)

11034028 Packets transmitted (65-127 bytes)

4253762 Packets transmitted (128-255 bytes)

646907 Packets transmitted (256-511 bytes)

37635 Packets transmitted (512-1023 bytes)

937475 Packets transmitted (1024... bytes)

188557 Multicast packets transmitted

7309565 Broadcast packets transmitted

--- Driver Messages ---

25-OCT-2010 07:24:37.68 Link up: 1000 mbit, full duplex, flow control (receive only)

However when I run the command on both the receiving and sending nodes that we have been looking at the problem on - there is no final 'Driver messages' , all that comes up is

0:00:10.00 Link uptime period to nullify blocking

0:01:00.00 Maximum time to block a link check

--- Fork Delay (after scheduled) ---

--- Transmit Time ---

--- Receive completion time ---

--- One second timer time ---

11 10..19 milliseconds

23 30..39 milliseconds

11 40..49 milliseconds

1 >150 milliseconds

--- Statistics Block ---

10010 Transmits with no carrier sense

$

May not be relevent but thought Id just mention it having grasped at straws and re checking everything

[Volker Halle]

OpenVMS Versions and architectures of those 3 servers ?

Does copying a file with COPY/FTP TO the 'good server' work FROM both IBID90 and IBID91 ?

Does COPY/FTP TO IBID90 and IBID91 work FROM the 'good server' ?

Volker.

[Hoff]

This:

10010 Transmits with no carrier sense

is a problem with the cable or with the host controller or with the switch port.

Usual IP debugging rules apply here: 

• Trust what the networking folks tell you, but always, always, verify what you're told.
• if the networking folks tell you that the switch port or cable is "OK", definitely verify it.
• try a different switch port. 
• try a different cable.
• try a different NIC in the box.
• always verify the settings on both ends of the connection match.

ftp tends to show errors more than other protocols as it's a glaringly stupid protocol, wildly insecure, and incompatible with inexpensive firewalls.  It's also ancient.  Given the option, sftp (with or without certificates) is a far better choice.

And in general, using ftp to transfer BACKUP savesets around is asking for trouble.  It's one of the most common causes for corrupt metadata.  It's better to use zip "-V" (and yes, you need the -V, and yes, you need to quote the -V switch as "-V") to transfer files around, as that preserves the RMS metadata, and most tools can correctly default a zip archive file extension.

[gunners]

Hey Volker ,

unfortunately we dont have decnet configured between the live servers (which was the one I sent the extract from) and the test ones (which we are having the issue on) :(

I have a call out to the network people to check the port settings for me and verify all ok

[Volker Halle]

COPY/FTP is not DECnet, it's TCPIP. So you can test with this command between those 3 servers...

Do it systematically and report the results.

Volker.

[gunners · Accepted solution]

Something has just become apparent - we have been using the 'hostname' for decnet copies , and the IP address for reflection or keaterm connections - the darn DNS hasnt been updated yet.

I just tried a copy/ftp to the ip address instead , and its working away , sigh....

Thanks everyone for all your help on this issue as always :)