Manager Provisioning Performance

[wonnag]

Hi Guys

We have recently upgraded our 22 LIM PBX from 3.2 to 4.1 SP3, with Manger Provisioning installed on LIM 1. Since we have started using Manger Provisioniong we have noticed that it is very slow. When you click on the change icon it takes between 45-60 seconds to load up the extension details page.

Does MP normally take this long to load extension details? Our maintainer has said that the speed is down to the way that MP works and that it will never be very quick. They have also said that part of the issue is probably down to our data network causing slow LDAP replication. However when in use PUTTY i dont see any delay in commands executing.

Thanks

G

 

[Satellite1900]

did you also upgrade hardware? ram, servers, etc?

\Satellite1900

 

[wonnag]

Hi Satellite

Half of our LIMs run on HP servers and these were not upgraded. The other half are on ESU's and these had their RAM upgraded prior to the mx upgrade

Thanks

Wonnag

 

[doktor]

For our customer, I install a terminal program to be used in parallel with MP to avoid waiting for MP. TTY commands, when explained to the administrators, can do the job faster, that waiting for the MP to do the job.

///doktor

 

[wonnag]

Thanks Doktor

I use PUTTY when i can but some our team do not. I assume that MP is just slow

 

[LIDAP]

Restart as root the eri_mp and look if its faster.

/etc/init.d/eri_mp restart

 

[wonnag]

Thanks LIDAP

We have already restarted Eri_MP and it does not change the issue.

 

[wonnag]

I forgot to mention that our maintainer has said there are no known issues with performance with MP, and have advised that it will never be as quick as EMG due to the design of MP and how it integrates with the MX

 

[Satellite1900]

Before you make the upgrade was installed MP? It was fast?
Or was installed after the upgrade? What version of MP are you?
I do not have customers who have installed MP with 22 LIM unfortunately.

\Satellite1900

 

[wonnag]

Hi Satellite

No before the upgrade we were running MX-ONE 3.2 and Using Extension Manager installed on a seperate server. After the upgrade our maintainer installed MP on LIM 1 rather than a dedicated server. As i said previously when we raised the issue with them they siad it was a combination of MP not being a quick product and our Data network being poor.

Does MP take as long to load on other users systems? Like i said in my first post, when you click on the pencil icon it takes about 50-60 seconds to load. Is this normal? I dont know any other people who are running MP.

Thanks

 

[wangmadeli]

Hi Wonnag

I've ever recieved advise from Aastra when installing MP on multi LIM system, it is best not to install MP on LIM 1 as LIM 1 already has the highest load. You can install it on any other LIM, such as LIM 2. I've never had a 22 LIM system before though.

Best regards

 

[wonnag]

Hi Wangmadeli

Thanks. I did think it was strange that it was installed on LIM 1 but our maintainer said that is where they always install it. I'll see if i can get them to change it.

Wonnag

 

[teretore]

Hi,
FYI - I have 15-server system, all ASU servers with 4G RAM,
and MP in server-1 (Only seerver 1 have 8G RAM):
no problems at all. Delay is 2-3 sec,
what is normal in web-application.

/BR

 

[UKTurnip]

Hi

I have a large MX-One system with the same MP issue.

Whatever anyone says on here, this is a known issue with MP running on large systems. I believe the delay is something to do with the way MP gathers its information from all LIM's prior to allowing any changes - possably to do with the way PUG's and/or HG's are stored across the system.

We have recently had a (temp) fix applied which reduces all changes down to a more reasonable 3-5 sec's. However, prior to making any change requests we must first View 'All' extensions which populates a cache that has been created. For the next 30 min's all changes can then be made much more quickly.

Unfortunately, this means that everytime we load up the cache we need to select Extension type (All) and Extension numbers (All) - this gets very frustrating when you have had to do this hundreds of times and I cannot see how Aastra justify not defaulting these fields (to All) as they have done in other areas of MP.

Hopefully a more effective fix will soon be made available - however, it may well be that the way MP currently operates will prevent this without major changes.

 

[wonnag]

Thanks UKTurnip. Thats a much more useful answer than we got from the maintainer!

On a seperate note does anyone know what the message "Shakey Inter-LIM filter" means?

thanks
Wonnag

 

[Satellite1900]

Came out very recently patches that solve your problem.
You can do this by contacting your technical parthner Aastra, if you keep the version of your Provisionig must enter the patch, I told you before.
The problem is finally solved with the Provisioning 5.0SP1

\Satellite1900