on 06-11-2012 10:07 AM
Hi,
We are facing an issue with the Transport management system. Our domain controller is SOlution Manager 7.0 EHP1 in abc.int domain and we are adding new systems with trans domain as this solman. Due to some reasons the recently built new systems are in new xyz.com domain. We have installed the EHP6 DEV (xyz.com) system with transhost as solman (abc.int) and it worked fine but when we installed QA same like DEV system but after STMS configuration the transport tool check in STMS failing with the following error
"timeout during allocate / CPIC-CALL: 'ThSAPCMRCV' : cmRc=20 thRc=456#Time thRc=456#Time
out during connection setup (check that partner exists"
After this issue suddenly the DEV system is also stoped woking with transport tool. The issue seems to be the RFC ping issues but as checked, the RFCs are working fine in SM59. We could not upgrade the SPs due to this issue.
Some one please help in resolving the issue with these 2 different domain system in the single transport domain. Is there any additional settings needed to configure STMS?
Thanks,
Ajay.
Hi Ajay,
At first glance it looks like firewall issue. Please check with your network team if gateway ports are open.
With Regards.
Ruchit.
You must be a registered user to add a comment. If you've already registered, sign in. Otherwise, register and sign in.
Hi Ruchit,
We have updated the DEV System config and restarted the system and DEV TP check is working fine now even though it is also in same domain of QA System. Every time I perform the TP check in QA System the dev_rfc file logs error/ connection issue with the DEV system. I am really confused now that why this QA system is trying to connect with DEV System becoz there is no specific relation between them. All the system are joined to SOLMAN trans domain. When I go to SMGW transaction under remote connection, it was showing connection to SOLMAN and DEV System. It is fine with SOLMAN but why with DEV and why not any other system in trans domain.
Following dev_rfc
Please give some clues for this and I am thinking there is something pointing to DEV instead of QAS. I have checked all the profiles but every thing is fine with QAS details.
Thanks,
Ajay.
Hi Siddhesh,
Yes, I did distribute the configuration changes from SOLMAN (domain controller) to all systems. I have already set the icm/host_name_full parameter for FQDN as the post installation activity on both DEV and QA Systems and I have also tried chaging the host name of QA with FQDN in TMS communication data during TP check but no use (but DEV working without FQDN in STMS data, parameter already set anyway). Please suggest if any other possible reasons/ additional settings.
Thanks,
Ajay.
icm/host_name_full has nothing to do with TMS.
I am speaking about FQDN in STMS system setup on Solman, you can remove the system and re-include the system.
However, before approving the inclusion of QA System into the domain, setup the FQDN in the systems area of STMS.
And finally publish the TMS configuration to all systems forcefully.
Hope that helps.
Regards,
Siddhesh
Hi Ruchit,
The QAS System is a fresh installation same as DEV system. But every time I check TP, it logs dev_rfc with connection failure to DEV. No where I have mentioned DEV host name for QAS installation or post activities. The 2 systems are just part of Transport domain with DC as SOLMAN and these are the first 2 systems with different domain (xyz.com) in which DEV working fine.
Thanks,
Ajay.
Hi Ruchit & Siddhesh,
Thank you so much for the replies and help. The issue has been resolved with the latest kernel 201 for EHP6. Earlier I have calculated the queue with SOLMAN MOPZ, which gave me kernel level 120. Kernel level 120 was working fine for DEV but issue with QAS. So I have individually downloaded latest kernel patch 201 and upgraded. Now QAS is working perfect (seems issue was with tp program).
Thank you,
Ajay.
Hello Ajay,
Having DEV and QA at different kernel levels isn't the norm. Check the versions of TP and R3trans in both system are they same? check in your kernel backup were they dissimilar ?
In any case, all is well that ends well, glad to hear that the problem is resolved and thanks for posting what solved the issue.
Regards,
Siddhesh
User | Count |
---|---|
87 | |
10 | |
10 | |
10 | |
7 | |
6 | |
6 | |
5 | |
5 | |
4 |
You must be a registered user to add a comment. If you've already registered, sign in. Otherwise, register and sign in.