Operating System - OpenVMS
cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

ftp large files fail, small files succeed

 
SOLVED
Go to solution
Ron Kaledas
Advisor

ftp large files fail, small files succeed

Okay, I've searched for this, found a few matches, but nothing newer than 2006...(!) Those fixes didn't help/apply to my issue.

I'm into a client via vpn, though I don't think that should matter. (though once I get connected via vpn, I can't putty directly to the test system, I have to putty to the prod system and then telnet to the test system.)

Anyway, trying to ftp a large file from prod to test (both vms). I can ftp smaller files. for larger ones, I get the output below. it connects enough to get the filesize, and allocates that space on the test system disk. but, the file size remains 0.

Does anyone still hang out here? :) any thoughts? some type of firewall/network switch setup issue that I'd have no access to? (I did ask them to verify fixed full on the ports.)

Thanks!
Ron


FTP> bin
200 TYPE set to IMAGE.
FTP> get openvms_alpha_8_3.zip
200 PORT command successful.
150 Opening data connection for SYS$COMMON:[SYSMGR.WEB.83]openvms_alpha_8_3.zip; (10.252.16.75,49183) (209548312 bytes)
HNATST::_TNA8: 14:39:12 TCPIP$FTP CPU=00:00:00.72 PF=1386 IO=2374 MEM=349
GET (VMS+) 0 bytes 00:00:04.98 elapsed (0.00 KB/S)
Local: LAB2:[000000]OPENVMS_ALPHA_8_3.ZIP;1
Remote: openvms_alpha_8_3.zip
HNATST::_TNA8: 14:39:22 TCPIP$FTP CPU=00:00:00.72 PF=1386 IO=2378 MEM=349
GET (VMS+) 0 bytes 00:00:15.14 elapsed (0.00 KB/S)
Local: LAB2:[000000]OPENVMS_ALPHA_8_3.ZIP;1
Remote: openvms_alpha_8_3.zip
HNATST::_TNA8: 14:45:59 TCPIP$FTP CPU=00:00:00.72 PF=1386 IO=2382 MEM=349
GET (VMS+) 0 bytes 00:06:51.61 elapsed (0.00 KB/S)
Local: LAB2:[000000]OPENVMS_ALPHA_8_3.ZIP;1
Remote: openvms_alpha_8_3.zip
%SYSTEM-F-CONNECFAIL, connect to network object timed-out or failed
43 REPLIES 43
Andy Bustamante
Honored Contributor
Solution

Re: ftp large files fail, small files succeed

Ron,

I'd start with looking at the network. Make sure both VMS systems and switches are set to agree on speed/duplex or auto negotiate.

What sort of VPN and is there an MTU recommendation to trim MTU? Are these Giga adaptors? If so, are jumbo frames enabled and over running the VPN?

Andy
If you don't have time to do it right, when will you have time to do it over? Reach me at first_name + "." + last_name at sysmanager net
Robert Gezelter
Honored Contributor

Re: ftp large files fail, small files succeed

Ron,

As has been noted, duplex mismatches somewhere in the path will produce this type of symptom (I have seen it, they can be pernicious to track down -- I had it happen at a client a while back, someone in the network group had swapped a switch and mis-configured the replacement).

A LAN trace of the transfer can be illuminating. Wireshark is freely available, and runs on many standard personal platforms.

The small files may not hit the timing problem that is the actual problem.

- Bob Gezelter, http://www.rlgsc.com
John Gillings
Honored Contributor

Re: ftp large files fail, small files succeed

Ron,

As others said, this is almost certainly a duplex mismatch.

> (I did ask them to verify fixed full on the ports.)

Please ask "them" to set AUTO on all ports and switches. Hard setting network speeds is just setting yourself up for a failure like the one you're observing sometime in the future.

Remember to check all systems in the path between you and the FTP target.
A crucible of informative mistakes
Robert Brooks_1
Honored Contributor

Re: ftp large files fail, small files succeed

The frequent response to these problems by the
VMS Engineer who wrote ethernet drivers for a couple of decades is to set both ends of the connection to autonegotiate, assuming a modern version of VMS (in this case "modern" means V.3-2 and newer) and a properly-functioning switch. VMS should always get it right.


-- Rob
Ron Kaledas
Advisor

Re: ftp large files fail, small files succeed

Well, everyone (and hi to John and Andy!) seems to agree that it is a network configuration problem, so I will pursue that further. I haven't actually heard back from "them" yet.

I do find it interesting though, I'd always heard NOT to use auto, but that seems to be the opposite of what I'm hearing here. I will take that into consideration! It seems to me - though I can't remember details - that auto was to be avoided because "things" (cisco, nics, can't remember what) didn't always make the right choice, so that's why fixed was preferred. Of course, this may be outdated information...

So, thanks for your input, and I will report back if I find a definitive answer.
Richard Whalen
Honored Contributor

Re: ftp large files fail, small files succeed

Though I won't say don't investigate the network configuration, I think that there may be other things to consider as well.

Since small file transfer fine, but large files are allocated, but not transferred, I'd look for something that might be tearing down an "idle" connection. Does the path between the production system and test system involve some sort of firewall or NAT device?

The information above shows that you aren't operating in passive mode; have you tried passive mode?
Ron Kaledas
Advisor

Re: ftp large files fail, small files succeed

Guess I'm not sure (/don't remember) what passive mode is, could clarify how to use it?
Richard Whalen
Honored Contributor

Re: ftp large files fail, small files succeed

To enter passive mode, use the SET PASSIVE ON command before starting the transfer.
This will cause the FTP server to create the data port and pass information to the client as to how to connect to it.
Hoff
Honored Contributor

Re: ftp large files fail, small files succeed

Note: ACTIVE and PASSIVE are likely not involved here.

ACTIVE and PASSIVE are transfer modes. Check your ftp client command documentation for details. The command is often a toggle command "passive", but syntax varies. TCP/IP Services uses the SET PASSIVE (on|off) command.

ACTIVE: the ftp client tells the ftp server which port the server should connect back to. Can be blocked by the client or client network firewall.

PASSIVE: client asks server for the identity of a port to connect into. Can be blocked by the server or server network firewall.

Because of that second channel and its associated handling, the ftp protocol design is largely incompatible with modern IP networks; with (most) IP firewalls.

(Trivia: ftp is older than IP, and way older than IP firewalls.)

The "fun" is that ftp uses a second IP port from the ephemeral range, and in a way that is inherently blocked by the most prevalent designs for IP firewalls. This means that the port range specified for ftp will have to be coordinated with the firewall, and opened. (And yes, other network applications can also use the ephemeral port range, so various firewall administrators are loathe to open it.)

There are comparatively sophisticated IP firewalls that can deal with ftp, as they explicitly know the ftp protocol, sniff and remember the ftp traffic, and automatically open the correct port for the impending data connection. These firewalls aren't yet in common use.

All of which means that ftp goes off the rails fairly regularly, and folks try the so-called active and passive transfers, and can end up opening up vast ranges of IP ports.

ftp also spews your credentials in cleartext, so it's a poor choice for any applications where write access is required.

sftp is a far newer design and - though it shares three letters with and its basic purpose with ftp - shares little else. sftp is vastly easier to punch through a firewall, and you can also incorporate certificates to greatly reduce your exposure to brute-force server attacks.

Yes, I've been known to express a relative distaste for ftp. Here are some technical details behind that opinion and around why ftp is such utter "fun" to deal with:

http://labs.hoffmanlabs.com/node/530

ftp is best left to the task of anonymous reading of and copying of files from a server, and little else. If you even use that and not something like WebDAV.

A network that requires VPN to PuTTY to telnet (and particularly if that's three separate steps and two intermediate hops) would imply the potential for simplification there, and potentially elsewhere in the network design. That is not a typical sequence for a secure network, and not an access sequence that would be commonplace for a more "open" internal network. I'd probably install a better and VPN-capable firewall, or otherwise reconfigure the firewall(s) and that LAN to allow a connection onto the LAN with the VMS servers. Based in this description (and I've built and rebuilt these sorts of network configurations myself) the network design looks to need some assistance to better contend with the organic growth it has apparently undergone.

Again, Note: IP firewalls aren't a factor with VMS, as VMS doesn't (yet?) have one. This particular case likely does NOT involve firewalls, particularly given the transfer works with smaller files.
Ron Kaledas
Advisor

Re: ftp large files fail, small files succeed

Thanks for all the input.

I have zero control or input on the network side of things at this site, I can only (try to) use what they give me. Based on what I've read here, I'll see if I can get the ports that my systems connect to set to auto-negotiate if I can. Does that apply to both duplex and speed, or are there separate auto settings for each? (I'm not a network guru!) mc lancp tells me I'm expecting 100 full on both. I can't take the prod system down to verify console settings.

fwiw, both systems are at vms 7.3-2. (upgrade is in progress to 8.3, wish I could go right to 8.4, but can't.)
Mike Maltsman
Occasional Visitor

Re: ftp large files fail, small files succeed

It is possible that FTP server closes COMMAND port 21 before closing high data port. You may try to increase timeout interval. This has it's own issues with having too many ports open in TIME_WAIT. What is interposing that you can actually still be able to transfer the file successfully even with that error.
Jon Pinkley
Honored Contributor

Re: ftp large files fail, small files succeed

Ron,

Without more information than you have provided, all we can do is make some educated guesses.

Has ftp ever worked between these systems? If so, what has changed?

Does ftp work between other systems and the production system?

Does ftp work between other systems and the test system?

What do you mean by "I can ftp smaller files."? 1 block, 10 block, 100 blocks, 1000 blocks? Can you show us an example of what works?

If a small file works, I don't see how the problem could be related to passive mode. That only affects which side opens the data connection, and is related to firewall configurations. Using put from the other system could also test this.

We need to know how the test system is connected to the production system. Is there something more than an ethernet switch (layer 2) between the two systems; a router, firewall, NAT, VPN etc.?

A layer 2 ethernet switch isn't going to modify packets, there could be duplex mismatches, but these should be visible in the output from LANCP> show device /internal_counters.

Routers and gateways provide for many more possible failures.

PMTUD blackhole

https://supportforums.cisco.com/docs/DOC-5839;jsessionid=55857038EDD78889298385026D39F4E2.node0

Resolve IP Fragmentation, MTU, MSS, and PMTUD Issues with GRE and IPSEC (this has a lot of good technical info that applied to VPN connections, but this doesn't explain how to avoid the problems with VMS)

http://www.cisco.com/application/pdf/paws/25885/pmtud_ipfrag.pdf

If there is more than just a simple switch between the two VMS systems, you could try this to see if it makes a difference. If it doesn't, then return to previous state. You may need to apply to both sides.

The following can possibly work around a PMTUD blackhole, but it could also increase the TCP/IP overhead (since it can cause smaller packets to be sent)

Contents of SYS$COMMON:[SYSMGR]TCPIP_SYSCONFIG.COM

$ @sys$manager:tcpip$define_commands.com
$ sysconfig -r inet tcp_mssdflt=536
$ sysconfig -r inet pmtu_enabled=0
$ exit

Good luck,

Jon
it depends
Hoff
Honored Contributor

Re: ftp large files fail, small files succeed

Call up Mike LeRoy. Explain the problem. Done.
Ron Kaledas
Advisor

Re: ftp large files fail, small files succeed

Nice thought Steve...however, this isn't at dmc, it's at another site. And, it so happens that I was on a con call with that site today, which included the CIO there, and I mentioned the problem...

it's being worked on. I don't expect much this week...
Ron Kaledas
Advisor

Re: ftp large files fail, small files succeed

As for Jon's questions - this is a new test system, that got set up for this upgrade. Also, I only have these 2 vms systems to go between.

Sorry, I don't remember the rest of your questions, but that should answer a few of them. (wish I could see the thread when I'm doing a reply!)
Jon Pinkley
Honored Contributor

Re: ftp large files fail, small files succeed

Your original post indicates that no data was transferred in the data connection, so that makes me think it is could be related to an MTU black hole. It is possible that short packets get through, but large ones are being dropped by something in the path between the systems. If there is something blocking ICMP packets, MTU path discovery will not work.

Q1: What is the largest small file that you can successfully ftp?

Q2: Does $ ping -s 1500 10.252.18.75 work? If not what about smaller values for size, for example -s 1200? Use binary search to determine the largest packet you can get to work.

To be able to see questions while answering, cut and paste to notepad, then use notepad to edit your response, then select your response from notepad, and paste into ITRC.

Jon
it depends
Andy Bustamante
Honored Contributor

Re: ftp large files fail, small files succeed

Ron,

You may also try traceroute with the -f flag

from a 7.3-2 system

$tcpip traceroute -f 10.92.212.57 1500
1 GATEWAY (10.40.92.1) 0.976 ms 0.976 ms 0.0 ms
2 172.20.252.6 (172.20.252.6) 0.977 ms 0.977 ms 0.976 ms
3 10.198.10.19 (10.198.10.19) 0.976 ms 0.976 ms 0.976 ms
4 10.198.10.19 (10.198.10.19) 0.977 ms (ttl=253!) !F=1412 0.976 ms (ttl=253!) !F=1412 0.977 ms (ttl=253!) !F=1412
(switching to new packet size 1412)
5 DRES40 (10.198.212.57) 1.95 ms 1.95 ms 1.95 ms

the -f is don't fragement, 1500 is packet size. There is an encrypted tunnel in the example above.

I didn't expect TCPIP to give a working MTU in one step. Kudos to the TCPIP team.



If you don't have time to do it right, when will you have time to do it over? Reach me at first_name + "." + last_name at sysmanager net
John Gillings
Honored Contributor

Re: ftp large files fail, small files succeed

Ron,

>It seems to me - though I can't remember
>details - that auto was to be avoided
>because "things" (cisco, nics, can't
>remember what) didn't always make the right
>choice, so that's why fixed was preferred.
>Of course, this may be outdated
>information...

Very outdated! It might have been relevant last century with a limited set of very old adapters, but for at least the last 10 years, autonegotiate has worked correctly on all OpenVMS systems.

Bad things happen when one end of the link is hard set and the other end is set to auto (and since auto is an all but universal default, this happens a lot if you hard set ports anywhere). The autonegotiate end typically sets the speed correctly, but chooses half duplex. That works intermittently if the other end is set to full duplex, typically failing under load. Blame the poorly thought out autonegotiate protocol dreamt up by those who claim to be the setters of industry standards, but suffice to say that if everyone agrees to autonegotiate it will work reliably.

From a support perspective, I have a policy of checking ethernet port settings for ANY performance related issue on an OpenVMS host. I never cease to be amazed at how pervasive this configuration error could be! Anything from FTP to cluster locking and sometimes things that you'd never guess could be affected by network behaviour.

My strong recommendation is for ALL ports on ALL systems and network infrastructure for ALL operating systems to be set to autonegotiate (note that for gigabit ethernet it's mandatory - I don't know why anyone even allows for it to be turned off!).

The only good thing to say about hard setting port speeds is it keeps a lot of folk like me employed, fixing them!
A crucible of informative mistakes
Steve Reece_3
Trusted Contributor

Re: ftp large files fail, small files succeed

Stupid though it may sound, if you're stuck with FTP rather than sftp, try putting the command
ftp> hash
in before you start the transfer. It will at least tell you if there are any data going over the link. Others will confirm whether it keeps the control link alive too.

It will create lots of output though on the terminal/log file doing the transfer!

Steve
Ron Kaledas
Advisor

Re: ftp large files fail, small files succeed

well, the switch ports that the vms systems are plugged into have been confirmed to be set to 100 full.

ignoring the fact that they should be set to auto (assuming that's safe to ignore for now? the client didn't want to make changes to the prod system) what should I look at next? I saw Andy's note on the traceroute, but I'm not sure what I'm supposed to be looking for there. (though maybe I need to review that note again - darn this not being able to review the thread while replying!)

yes, I know I could cut and paste and such, but it doesn't help when I cut and paste a different message in the thread that I'm replying to. most forums I've been on let you see the whole thread on the same screen as your reply.

anyway, lancp says 100 full, the switch ports say 100 full...thoughts? (I'll review the thread again after I submit this.)
Hoff
Honored Contributor

Re: ftp large files fail, small files succeed

We've gotten a week along, and I still don't see the VMS versions, which TCP/IP stacks, what the patch levels are, and related details, nor an indicating of whether active or passive has been attempted, nor the contents of any ftp logs, nor information on whether ftp is configured on the target box, nor whether sftp is available and tested.

Try setting the transfer mode.

Post the traceroute.

Post the full command sequence.

Post whether the target box target ftp server is configured and running.

Post logs from the target ftp server.

Post the versions and the patches.

And if that's a full OpenVMS distro kit as it looks, burn a CD and send it over.

Managed switches and VLANs are not error-free and can have issues ranging from configuration errors to wedged ports, and it's also possible for a misconfigured firewall or VLAN to be blocking (for instance) the ephemeral ports.

In this case, also confirm that that ftp is configured and running on the target server, and there's a not a firewall or a VLAN blocking the ephemeral ports. (It's common for managed switches to firewall *everything* unless the boxes have been configured otherwise.

In particular, firewalls and VLANs can play all sorts of games with connectivity, and ftp is about as sensitive as a protocol can be.

Or escalate this internally, or externally.


--

The usual workaround for not being able to view the thread within the ITRC UI is to open another tab with the rest of the thread; Firefox and Safari provide that with version you're likely to have, and IE7 and later can have tabs enabled.
Jim_McKinney
Honored Contributor

Re: ftp large files fail, small files succeed

You might try using TCPDUMP and watching the FTP control and data connections during a transfer. You may find that the long-idle control connection is terminated by some intervening firewall as Mr Whalen earlier suggested. You may observe retransmissions of packets... perhaps a lossy network. You may see one side or the other stall (as evidenced by connection meta-data) which should direct you to examine processing on that system or prehaps some incongruity with the connection itself... could be lots of things. In any event, I usually find that observing the flow of data is informative and helps get one focusing on where the root of any problem resides if not immediately exposing it.
Ron Kaledas
Advisor

Re: ftp large files fail, small files succeed


Okay, my mistake for not following up on details, sorry - though I think some of the details requested are actually in the thread above. But, to put it all together:

> We've gotten a week along, and I still don't see the VMS versions, which TCP/IP stacks, what
> the patch levels are, and related details, nor an indicating of whether active or passive has
> been attempted, nor the contents of any ftp logs, nor information on whether ftp is configured
> on the target box, nor whether sftp is available and tested.

passive mode was attempted, with no change in results. I didn't see any ftp logs, the [tcpip$ftp] directory has none. ftp is configured the same on both nodes.
the two nodes are hnaa and hnatst - hnatst was created from a copy of the hnaa system disk, so all patches, etc. are the same on both systems:

hnaa and hnatst patches:

DEC AXPVMS VMS732_PTHREAD V6.0 Patch Install 20-SEP-2007 01:47:36
DEC AXPVMS VMS732_UPDATE V13.0 Patch Install 20-SEP-2007 01:47:05
DEC AXPVMS TCPIP_ECO V5.4-156 Patch Install 20-SEP-2007 01:31:11
DEC AXPVMS VMS732_PCSI V3.0 Patch Install 20-SEP-2007 01:27:46
CPQ AXPVMS CDSA V2.0-109 Full LP Install 20-SEP-2007 01:15:26
DEC AXPVMS DECNET_PHASE_IV V7.3-2 Full LP Install 20-SEP-2007 01:15:26
DEC AXPVMS DWMOTIF V1.3-1 Full LP Install 20-SEP-2007 01:15:26
DEC AXPVMS OPENVMS V7.3-2 Platform Install 20-SEP-2007 01:15:26
DEC AXPVMS TCPIP V5.4-15 Full LP Install 20-SEP-2007 01:15:26
DEC AXPVMS VMS V7.3-2 Oper System Install 20-SEP-2007 01:15:26
HP AXPVMS KERBEROS V2.0-6 Full LP Install 20-SEP-2007 01:15:26

HNAA> tcpip sho ver

HP TCP/IP Services for OpenVMS Alpha Version V5.4 - ECO 6
on a AlphaServer ES45 Model 2 running OpenVMS V7.3-2

HNAA>

I am not familiar with sftp, and I don't see it listed in the options for client or server in tcpip$config.


> Try setting the transfer mode.

I believe you're referring to active/passive, if so that didn't help.

> Post the traceroute.

HNATST> traceroute -f 10.252.16.60 1500
traceroute to HNAA (10.252.16.60): 1-30 hops
(initial packetsize = 1500)
1 HNAA (10.252.16.60) 1.66 ms 1.66 ms 1.66 ms
HNATST>

can't get much simpler than that, I imagine!

on a side note, the previously requested ping with packet sizes worked like this:

HNATST> ping -s 65500 10.252.16.60
ping: packet size too large.
%SYSTEM-F-BADPARAM, bad parameter value
HNATST> ping -s 65000 10.252.16.60
PING 10.252.16.60 (10.252.16.60): 65000 data bytes
65008 bytes from 10.252.16.60: icmp_seq=0 ttl=64 time=17 ms
65008 bytes from 10.252.16.60: icmp_seq=1 ttl=64 time=16 ms
65008 bytes from 10.252.16.60: icmp_seq=2 ttl=64 time=15 ms
65008 bytes from 10.252.16.60: icmp_seq=3 ttl=64 time=15 ms


----10.252.16.60 PING Statistics----
4 packets transmitted, 4 packets received, 0% packet loss
round-trip (ms) min/avg/max = 15/16/17 ms
HNATST>

I assume this answers the question as to how much data can be transferred successfully?

> Post the full command sequence.

by this, I assume you meant what I have included in the first post of this thread - were you looking for something more than that?

> Post whether the target box target ftp server is configured and running.

yes, both systems are the same.

> Post logs from the target ftp server.

don't see any logs there either, in sys$sysdevice:[tcpip$ftp]

> Post the versions and the patches.

shown above.

> And if that's a full OpenVMS distro kit as it looks, burn a CD and send it over.

not sure what you're looking for here, I don't have burners on these systems. they are an es45 and an alpha 4100, with 100mb nics.

> Managed switches and VLANs are not error-free and can have issues ranging from configuration
> errors to wedged ports, and it's also possible for a misconfigured firewall or VLAN to be
> blocking (for instance) the ephemeral ports.

I did bring up the firewall issue earlier, but someone didn't think that mattered. I did ask the site to fix the firewall to allow me to connect directly to the test system after I get in via vpn, so maybe that'll help, directly or indirectly. still waiting for that fix to happen.

> In this case, also confirm that that ftp is configured and running on the target server, and
> there's a not a firewall or a VLAN blocking the ephemeral ports. (It's common for managed
> switches to firewall *everything* unless the boxes have been configured otherwise.

> In particular, firewalls and VLANs can play all sorts of games with connectivity, and ftp is
> about as sensitive as a protocol can be.

I will ask them to make sure the ports I'm connected to on the switch will allow everything through.

here's one more sample run, showing a file I was able to transfer, and one that only transferred the filename and size, no data:


HNATST> dir/size=all

Directory SYS$COMMON:[SYSMGR.WEB]

FTP_FAIL.LOG;1 2/18
OPENVMS_ALPHA.ZIP;1
231889/231894

Total of 2 files, 231891/231912 blocks.
HNATST> ftp hnaa
220 HNAA.GCH.GCHOSP.ORG FTP Server (Version 5.4) Ready.
Connected to HNAA.
Name (HNAA:system):
331 Username system requires a Password
Password:
230 User logged in.
FTP> cd sys$common:[sysmgr.web.83]
250-CWD command successful.
250 New default directory is SYS$COMMON:[SYSMGR.WEB.83]
FTP> dir
200 PORT command successful.
150 Opening data connection for SYS$COMMON:[SYSMGR.WEB.83]*.*;* (10.252.16.75,49200)

Directory SYS$COMMON:[SYSMGR.WEB.83]

DEC-AXPVMS-TCPIP-V0506-9ECO5-1.ZIPEXE;1
84846/84852 8-MAR-2010 11:08:27 [SYSTEM] (RWED,RWD,R,R)
OPENVMS_ALPHA_8_3.ZIP;1
409275/409284 13-JUL-2010 10:35:45 [SYSTEM] (RWED,RWED,RWED,)
PATCH_MANIFEST.;1 2/18 13-JUL-2010 09:23:33 [SYSTEM] (RWED,RWD,R,R)
VMS83A_ACRTL-V0600.ZIPEXE;1
6949/6966 1-DEC-2009 18:26:58 [SYSTEM] (RWED,RWD,R,R)
VMS83A_DEBUG-V0200.ZIPEXE;1
8778/8784 29-JAN-2010 18:28:00 [SYSTEM] (RWED,RWD,R,R)
VMS83A_IMGDMP-V0200.ZIPEXE;1
450/450 2-FEB-2010 18:27:52 [SYSTEM] (RWED,RWD,R,R)
VMS83A_PCSI-V0200.ZIPEXE;1
2437/2448 15-APR-2008 19:22:21 [SYSTEM] (RWED,RWD,R,R)
VMS83A_PCSI-V0300.ZIPEXE;1
2456/2466 11-JUL-2010 19:29:50 [SYSTEM] (RWED,RWD,R,R)
VMS83A_SHADOWING-V0600.ZIPEXE;1
1545/1548 3-FEB-2010 18:28:12 [SYSTEM] (RWED,RWD,R,R)
VMS83A_UPDATE-V0900.ZIPEXE;1
99193/99198 18-MAR-2009 19:26:35 [SYSTEM] (RWED,RWD,R,R)
VMS83A_UPDATE-V1000.ZIPEXE;1
100844/100854 9-JUN-2009 19:27:52 [SYSTEM] (RWED,RWD,R,R)
VMS83A_UPDATE-V1200.ZIPEXE;1
102522/102528 17-DEC-2009 18:29:35 [SYSTEM] (RWED,RWD,R,R)

Total of 12 files, 819297/819396 blocks

226 LIST Directory transfer complete.
1612 bytes received in 00:00:00.01 seconds (98.39 Kbytes/s)
FTP> bin
200 TYPE set to IMAGE.
FTP> get patch_manifest.
200 PORT command successful.
150 Opening data connection for SYS$COMMON:[SYSMGR.WEB.83]patch_manifest.; (10.252.16.75,49201) (740 bytes)
226 Transfer complete.
local: SYS$COMMON:[SYSMGR.WEB]PATCH_MANIFEST.;1 remote: patch_manifest.
740 bytes received in 00:00:00.00 seconds (722.66 Kbytes/s)
FTP> get vms83a_imgdmp-v0200.zipexe
200 PORT command successful.
150 Opening data connection for SYS$COMMON:[SYSMGR.WEB.83]vms83a_imgdmp-v0200.zipexe; (10.252.16.75,49202) (230400 bytes)
HNATST::_TNA14: 08:45:51 TCPIP$FTP CPU=00:00:00.66 PF=1522 IO=1151 MEM=342
GET (VMS+) 0 bytes 00:00:02.29 elapsed (0.00 KB/S)
Local: SYS$COMMON:[SYSMGR.WEB]VMS83A_IMGDMP-V0200.ZIPEXE;1
Remote: vms83a_imgdmp-v0200.zipexe
HNATST::_TNA14: 08:48:00 TCPIP$FTP CPU=00:00:00.67 PF=1522 IO=1155 MEM=342
GET (VMS+) 0 bytes 00:02:11.10 elapsed (0.00 KB/S)
Local: SYS$COMMON:[SYSMGR.WEB]VMS83A_IMGDMP-V0200.ZIPEXE;1
Remote: vms83a_imgdmp-v0200.zipexe
%SYSTEM-F-CONNECFAIL, connect to network object timed-out or failed
HNATST> dir/size=all

Directory SYS$COMMON:[SYSMGR.WEB]

FTP_FAIL.LOG;1 2/18
OPENVMS_ALPHA.ZIP;1
231889/231894
PATCH_MANIFEST.;1 2/18
VMS83A_IMGDMP-V0200.ZIPEXE;1
30/450

Total of 4 files, 231923/232380 blocks.
HNATST>
HNATST>

(the ftp_fail.log file just contains the text that I posted in the first message of this thread.)


> Or escalate this internally, or externally.

I didn't think I could call hp support about this, partly because I don't think it's a vms issue.

> --

> The usual workaround for not being able to view the thread within the ITRC UI is to open
> another tab with the rest of the thread; Firefox and Safari provide that with version you're
> likely to have, and IE7 and later can have tabs enabled.

yeah, I know...just an inconvenience, I'll deal with it!

so right now I'm concentrating on the firewall issue. I'll report back what happens when that part gets fixed, if it fixes the ftp issue.

Ron
Oswald Knoppers_1
Valued Contributor

Re: ftp large files fail, small files succeed

Hi,

In sys$manager on hnaa there should be a TCPIP$FTP_SERVER.LOG file. Is there anything in it?

Can you try getting a trace on hnaa, in a separate session (on hnaa) do:

$ tcptrace/full/port=local=20/prot=tcp/packet=200

Oswald