Cisco Support Community
cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Announcements

Welcome to Cisco Support Community. We would love to have your feedback.

For an introduction to the new site, click here. If you'd prefer to explore, try our test area to get started. And see here for current known issues.

New Member

Server is using a lot more memory since upgrading from LMS 2.6 to 3.2 - any tips?

Hi, Can anyone tell me if they have a similar situation to mine           

CiscoWorks LMS was upgraded from version 2.6 to 3.2

The Server previously ran at 3.5GB of Memory, but following the upgrade now runs at over 5GB of Memory.

The Server is a HP Proliant DL380 G4.

The Server has very poor response times following the upgrade, and we need to understand why this has occurred.

I guess I  need to know if there are some services that you generally disable to improve performance or do we need to upgrade the hardware.

Device has 4G of physical memory with 4G swap size.

Any advice appreciated

Cheers, Dom

3 REPLIES
Cisco Employee

Re: Server is using a lot more memory since upgrading from LMS 2

LMS 3.2 does take more memory that 2.6.  There are more daemon processes which run (e.g. there are now two instances of the DFM servers to support scalability to 5,000 devices).  As for how much RAM will be required, that will depend on the number of devices being managed and the other processes running on the server.  With 4 GB of RAM, you should be able to manage up to 1.5K devices provided HUM is not installed, and the server is dedicated to LMS alone.

New Member

Re: Server is using a lot more memory since upgrading from LMS 2

Thanks Joseph - It's only managing 152 devices and HUM isn't installed. It was already on support with an SAS contract so I raised it with TAC. We've not got to the bottom of it yet, so far we've doubled the swap size to be 8012Gb.

I'll post the outcome of the case for reference

Cheres, Dom

New Member

Re: Server is using a lot more memory since upgrading from LMS 2

We reduced the size of the log file which was very large and didn't receive anything back from the end user so have assumed that this resolved the issue

264
Views
0
Helpful
3
Replies