cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Disconnection users session from sap

Former Member
0 Kudos

Dear all,

I an facing a problem from Users u201Cthey are automatically disconnected from sapu201D

Some work processes error is

dev_w22

A Tue Dec 29 10:16:04 2009

A *** ERROR => RFC-GUI: ThSendAndWait in read returned: 18 [abrfcsys.c 6062]

A *** ERROR => RFC Error RFCIO_ERROR_SYSERROR in abrfcsys.c : 6067

[abrfcio.c 7645]

M ***LOG R11=> ThCPIC, ThGetCommEntry () [thxxcpic.c 2344]

M ***LOG R5A=> ThCPIC, ThGetCommEntry (69265189) [thxxcpic.c 2349]

M ***LOG R64=> ThCPIC, CPIC-Error ( CMSEND(SAP)) [thxxcpic.c 2354]

M *** ERROR => no entry in comm_adm found [thxxcpic.c 2359]

M *** ERROR => appc_index/conv_id/tid/uid/mode: -1/69265189/22/23/0 [thxxcpic.c 2359]

M *** ERROR => bad index: -1 [thxxcpic.c 2360]

A *** ERROR => RFC-GUI: ThSendAndWait in read returned: 19 [abrfcsys.c 6062]

A *** ERROR => RFC Error RFCIO_ERROR_SYSERROR in abrfcsys.c : 6067

[abrfcio.c 7645]

S 1 pages (OTF) printed in 161 seconds, avg. 0.0 pages per sec

S Timeinfo 19523/1 (LP01): 161 1 OTF ( 0 0 0 0 0 160 )

dev_w0

A PXA

A PXA INITIALIZATION

A PXA: Fragment Size too small: 229 MB, reducing # of fragments

A System page size: 4kb, total admin_size: 37684kb, dir_size: 12512kb.

A PXA allocated (address c0000001d0000000, size 940000K)

A *** WARNING: INTERNAL_KERNEL_VERSION of message server

A unknown yet.

A System name

A ORACLE...........................PRD........20050806080831.................

A is used for RFC security.

A Sharedbuffer token: 5341...33 (len: 111)====== bc489e069a0a60fc9ef603f9...

A abap/pxa = shared unprotect gen_remote

A PXA INITIALIZATION FINISHED

dev_disp

Tue Dec 29 10:16:19 2009

      • ERROR => max_hold_time exceeded (jammy ) [dpxxdisp.c 6941]

Tue Dec 29 10:18:34 2009

      • ERROR => DpHdlSoftCancel: terminal has token [dpxxdisp.c 13833]

RM-T56, U2790, 100 FIARM02, AKMAL, 10:18:12, M1, W2, ZSDL, 3/1

Tue Dec 29 10:24:54 2009

Network error of client T58, NiBufReceive (-6: NIECONN_BROKEN), dp_tm_status=3

***LOG Q0I=> NiPGetHostByAddr: address 10.2.1.37 not found: gethostbyaddr [niuxi.c 437]

Client address of T58 is 10.2.1.37(10.2.1.37)

***LOG Q04=> DpRTmPrep, NiBufReceive (2930 FIARL01 58 ahmad ) [dpxxdisp.c 9530]

RM-T58, U2930, 100 FIARL01, ahmad, 10:23:59, M0, W0, FBA2, 2/1

Tue Dec 29 10:30:58 2009

dev_w1

A Sun Dec 27 19:07:58 2009

A *** ERROR => RFC ======> connection closed (no data)

[abrfcio.c 7645]

A

A Sun Dec 27 19:08:12 2009

A *** ERROR => RFC ======> connection closed (no data)

[abrfcio.c 7645]

A

A Mon Dec 28 11:31:18 2009

A *** ERROR => RFC ======> connection closed (no data)

[abrfcio.c 7645]

A

dev_w2

Tue Dec 29 10:06:10 2009

      • WARNING => ThSndDelUser: delete client/user 100/MMLPS02 (T29) on server ahlprdap_PRD_03

Tue Dec 29 10:10:04 2009

      • WARNING => PfSetGuiTime: gui time too large, discard (gui=563281/resptime=172015)

Tue Dec 29 10:10:20 2009

      • WARNING => PfSetGuiTime: gui time too large, discard (gui=370422/resptime=69)

dev_rfc23

        • Trace file opened at 20091229 101619 PST SAP-REL 640,0,80 RFC-VER 3 763688

Error RFCIO_ERROR_SYSERROR in abrfcsys.c : 6067

ABAP Programm: SAPLLPRF (Transaction: )

Called function module: RFC_PING

User: SDMCL03 (Client: 100)

Destination: SAPGUI (handle: 1, , )

Regards

shahid

Accepted Solutions (1)

Accepted Solutions (1)

Former Member
0 Kudos

Set the rdisp/max_hold_time parameter to 60. This enables you to increase the max. queue time to 60 seconds. You must set the parameter in each instance profile for this an entry in DEFAUTL.pfl is not accepted. However, you should not increase the parameter value too much. Instead, check why the action takes so long on your PC.

This message can also occur if rdisp/max_hold_time value is 60. If many RFCs are be made to the GUI, an error in the kernel is responsible for this error. This error is corrected by a kernel patch.

The relevant kernel patch numbers are:

46D: 1711

620: 1232

Gerard

Courtesy: http://www.saptechies.com/maxholdtime-exceeded/

Answers (1)

Answers (1)

Former Member
0 Kudos

Dear all

Also my services file is

cerntral Instance

sapdp00 3200/tcp # SAP System Dispatcher Port

sapdp01 3201/tcp # SAP System Dispatcher Port

sapdp02 3202/tcp # SAP System Dispatcher Port

sapdp03 3203/tcp # SAP System Dispatcher Port

sapdp99 3299/tcp # SAP System Dispatcher Port

sapgw00 3300/tcp # SAP System Gateway Central Instance Port

sapgw01 3301/tcp # SAP System Gateway Central Instance Port

sapgw02 3302/tcp # SAP System Gateway Central Instance Port

sapgw03 3303/tcp # SAP System Gateway Central Instance Port

sapmsPRD 3600/tcp # SAP System Message Port

FailOver server ( currenly as application servre when central instance down it will work as central instance )

sapdp00 3200/tcp # SAP System Dispatcher Port

sapdp01 3201/tcp # SAP System Dispatcher Port

sapdp02 3202/tcp # SAP System Dispatcher Port

sapdp03 3203/tcp # SAP System Dispatcher Port

sapdp99 3299/tcp # SAP System Dispatcher Port

sapgw00 3300/tcp # SAP System Gateway Central Instance Port

sapgw01 3301/tcp # SAP System Gateway Central Instance Port

sapgw02 3302/tcp # SAP System Gateway Central Instance Port

sapgw03 3303/tcp # SAP System Gateway Central Instance Port

sapmsPRD 3600/tcp # SAP System Message Port

Dialog Instance

#sapgw00 3300/tcp # SAP System Gateway Central Instance Port

sapgw01 3301/tcp # SAP System Gateway Central Instance Port

sapgw02 3302/tcp # SAP System Gateway Central Instance Port

sapgw03 3303/tcp # SAP System Gateway Central Instance Port

sapmsPRD 3600/tcp # SAP System Message Port

sapdp02 3202/tcp # SAP System Dispatcher Port

Regards

shahid

former_member759680
Contributor
0 Kudos

This problem occurs because the RFC communication partner cancels the connection to the SAP back-end system.

The error may also occur if an SAP router or a firewall between the RFC back end and the RFC program interrupts the connection because of a power failure or because a timeout has been exceeded.

Maybe notes 406390 and 1065551can provide direct solution.

If not resolved then you need to run RFC trace to pin point the exact cause:

Note 532918 - RFC trace generation scenarios