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

[Jan-Erik Soderholm]

Den 2016-02-16 kl. 00:08, skrev 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.

But, how does NODE_2 even *know* that NODE_1 exists at all?