[Info-vax] HP Integrity rx2800 i4 (2.53GHz/32.0MB) :: PAKs won't load

[Paul Sture]

On 2016-02-15, VAXman-  @SendSpamHere.ORG <VAXman- at SendSpamHere.ORG> wrote:
> In article <cvu9pc-2um1.ln1 at news.chingola.ch>, Paul Sture <nospam at sture.ch> writes:
>>On 2016-02-15, VAXman-  @SendSpamHere.ORG <VAXman- at SendSpamHere.ORG> wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I'm working with a customer who has 2 HP Integrity rx2800 i4 (2.53GHz/32.0MB)
>>> (from $ SHOW CPU output).  Each has a separate system disk because they will 
>>> be clustered at disparate sites.  The PAKs on one of the nodes load but they
>>> do not load on the other.  I've checked that each node has different/unique 
>>> PAKs by authorization numbers.  Listed below:
>>>
>>
>>....
>>
>>> On NODE_2, a $ LICENSE LOAD returns:
>>>
>>> %LICENSE-W-NOLOAD, license was not loaded for OPENVMS-I64-BOE
>>> -LICENSE-F-EXCEEDED, attempted usage exceeds active license limits
>>> %LICENSE-W-NOLOAD, license was not loaded for VMSCLUSTER
>>> -LICENSE-F-EXCEEDED, attempted usage exceeds active license limits
>>> %LICENSE-W-NOLOAD, license was not loaded for VOLSHAD
>>> -LICENSE-F-EXCEEDED, attempted usage exceeds active license limits
>>>
>>> WTF?
>>
>>$ LICENSE MODIFY /INCLUDE=(node-name[,node-name,...])
>>
>>is your friend.
>>
>>From HELP LICENSE /MODIFY /INCLUDE
>>
>>   Licenses for the OpenVMS operating system usually specify the
>>   NO_SHARE option on their PAKs. In a cluster environment you must
>>   restrict each of these OpenVMS licenses to a single node. If
>>   you did not do this when registering with VMSLICENSE.COM, enter
>>   LICENSE MODIFY/INCLUDE=node-name, specifying one SCS node name
>>   for each OpenVMS license.
>>
> It's NOT a NO_SHARE issue and the two nodes have -- I'm pretty sure I stated
> it in the initial post -- their OWN separate system disks.  The two systems
> are perfect clones of each other save for unique PAKs on each, SCSSYSTEM_ID,
> and DECnet and TCP/IP addresses.
>

The clue is in
LICENSE-F-EXCEEDED, attempted usage exceeds active license limits

What is happening is that NODE_2 is trying to load license units already
loaded by NODE_1.

If it's not a  NO_SHARE issue, then (despite what the HELP says)
insufficient license units on any given node will trigger
LICENSE-F-EXCEEDED.  And yes, I have witnessed this problem on systems
with their own system disks.

You really need to nail down each license to the system it belongs to,
and that can be accomplished with /INCLUDE.

Please give it a try.

-- 
There are two hard things in computer science: cache invalidation,
naming, and off-by-one errors.