on 07-28-2018 8:01 AM
Hello,
When we use sappfpar to check a parameter, we can use the form
sappfpar <parameter> pf=/<path to profile>/<instance-profile>
In this case, only parameters explicitly entered in the instance-profile are recognised.
For example, if we have rdisp/wp_no_vb = 5 set in the DEFAULT.PFL profile only, the above check will return 0.
Also, the following check will not account for parameters in the default-profile when assessing psize and memory usage.
sappfpar check pf=/<path to profile>/<instance-profile>
Is there a way of using sappfpar for instance-profile checks that will take DEFAULT.PFL values into account?
Regards,
Peter
Hello Peter,
I tried this in my test system and could get the parameter value which is defined in Default profile when I call sapppfar with instance profile.
Example:
sappfpar SAPFQDN pf =/usr/sap/<test sid>/SYS/profile/<test instance profile>
--> output = <FQDN>
My environment :
Kernel : 753
SAP_BASIS 7.5 SPS 07
Please let us know which is the environment you are testing the scenario.
Kind regards,
Manjunath Hanmantgad
You must be a registered user to add a comment. If you've already registered, sign in. Otherwise, register and sign in.
The server I am using as the Sandbox server is a former SAP R/3 4.6 server that has recently been decommissioned, but not 100% tidied up.
For the SAP 4.6 installation there was symbolic link - probably created some years ago due to an SAP bug.
The symbolic link was in /usr/sap
ABCsaperpdv01:<s47sid>adm 80> pwd
/usr/sap
ABCsaperpdv01:<s47sid>adm 69> ll
total 28
drwx------ 2 root root 16384 Oct 4 2011 lost+found
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 7 Jul 23 00:13 SYS -> <S46SID>/SYS
drwxrwxr-x 2 <s47sid>adm sapsys 4096 Jul 27 00:39 tmp
drwxrwxr-x 2 <s46sid>adm sapsys 4096 Jul 27 00:39 tmp_46
drwxr-xr-x 11 <s47sid>adm sapsys 4096 Jul 23 12:18 trans
drwxr-xr-x 11 <s46sid>adm sapsys 4096 Jul 23 12:18 trans_46
drwxr-xr-x 4 <s46sid>adm sapsys 4096 Jul 22 14:00 <S46SID>
drwxr-xr-x 4 <s47sid>adm sapsys 4096 Jul 22 15:51 <S47SID>
Thinking this link was needed, I deleted the old SAP 4.6 folder and repointed the link to the equivalent SAP 4.7 folder.
ABCsaperpdv01:<s47sid>adm 69> ll
total 28
drwx------ 2 root root 16384 Oct 4 2011 lost+found
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 7 Jul 23 00:13 SYS -> <S47SID>/SYS
drwxrwxr-x 2 <s47sid>adm sapsys 4096 Jul 27 00:39 tmp
drwxr-xr-x 11 <s47sid>adm sapsys 4096 Jul 23 12:18 trans
drwxr-xr-x 4 <s47sid>adm sapsys 4096 Jul 22 15:51 <S47SID>
Then I compared with the source SAP 4.7 server and the SYS symbolic link was not there. I tried removing it and the problem has gone.
ABCsaperpdv01:<s47sid>adm 69> ll
total 28
drwx------ 2 root root 16384 Oct 4 2011 lost+found
drwxrwxr-x 2 <s47sid>adm sapsys 4096 Jul 27 00:39 tmp
drwxr-xr-x 11 <s47sid>adm sapsys 4096 Jul 23 12:18 trans
drwxr-xr-x 4 <s47sid>adm sapsys 4096 Jul 22 15:51 <S47SID>
Thanks to those who looked. Completely non-standard situation. Interesting nonetheless.
You must be a registered user to add a comment. If you've already registered, sign in. Otherwise, register and sign in.
hi johnlancashire
perhaps the thread was the below 🙂
anyways, im glad it is solved!
Hello,
Thank you.
I retested and got the same result.
I found that sappfpar first reads the DEFAULT.PFL in the standard profile directory. Then it reads the instance profile specified in the command line option PF=<instance profile>.
The problem I had was that I trying to check the DEFAULT.PFL and the instance profiles from a directory other than the default. DEFAULT.PFL was taken from the default profile directory, so the changes I had made to my new DEFAULT.PFL were not reflected.
I was also able to overcome the issue by writing a script to concatenate the DEFAULT.PFL and the instance profile to a temporary file, and then run sappfpar specifying the temp file with the option PF=. This also gave the result I needed (the last occurrence of duplicated parameters is used).
I am using kernel 721_EXT
Regards,
Peter
You must be a registered user to add a comment. If you've already registered, sign in. Otherwise, register and sign in.
User | Count |
---|---|
86 | |
10 | |
10 | |
9 | |
7 | |
7 | |
6 | |
5 | |
4 | |
4 |
You must be a registered user to add a comment. If you've already registered, sign in. Otherwise, register and sign in.