Application Development Discussions
Join the discussions or start your own on all things application development, including tools and APIs, programming models, and keeping your skills sharp.
cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

how to find detail of RFC connection, established by using one ID.

Former Member
0 Kudos

Hi Experts,

i want to get the list of all RFC connection establised by using one SAP ID.

actaully what happening one of my main system (GA)have RFC connection with another system but ID is getting locked with massage 'Incorrect Logon', i did password reset and same i maintained in SM59 but again this happening.

so as my understanding this is because any other system is also using this ID for RFC connection to the my main system(GA).

and creating issue.

so is there any table or transaction by which i can found how many RFC's and detail of all RFC estaplised with GA by using this particular id.

3 REPLIES 3

Former Member
0 Kudos

Trace the ( RFC ) logins dynamically in SM19 to find the terminal name. In this case, the terminal will be the application server of the system with the SM59 entry which is also using this ID.

Respecting the "cardinality" of RFC connections solves this problem you are facing.

Cheers,

Julius

Former Member
0 Kudos

Try table RFCDES ..this table should have the user id details in the options field once you execute it. I usually just give the connection type as 3 for ABAP system and execute it. You will see user id in Options row as U=Your RFC user id being used.

0 Kudos

Ah, but you need to know in which RFCDES to look! There are more than one (typically companies have about 15 or more of them).

Additionally, the logon attempts might be coming from some other RFC client (ie. not an SAP WAS but rather a script or an RFCSDK or a Java application etc etc ).

This you can find out from SM19 / SM20. Some historical data can also be extracted from the ST03N "rfc server profiles" as you will be able to see the client destination name field, but these might be the same (actually, should be).

Cheers,

Julius