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

[VAXman- at SendSpamHere.ORG]

In article <7s8bpc-a9p1.ln1 at news.chingola.ch>, Paul Sture <nospam at sture.ch> writes:
>On 2016-02-16, Jan-Erik Soderholm <jan-erik.soderholm at telia.com> wrote:
>> Den 2016-02-16 kl. 02:34, skrev Paul Sture:
>>> On 2016-02-15, Jan-Erik Soderholm <jan-erik.soderholm at telia.com> wrote:
>>>> Den 2016-02-16 kl. 00:08, skrev Paul Sture:
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>>> 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?
>>>
>>> The nodes are clustered,...
>>
>> I thought it was quite clear that they was *not* clustered.
>
>Looking at the original message it's not clear either way.  Are they going to
>be clustered together across sites, or is each site going to have its own
>independent cluster?  

THey're clustered across a distance for DR.


>> 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:
>
>And the list given does contain VMSCLUSTER licenses, though note
>that both nodes have two of each license (unique Authorization
>values).
>
>
>>                  NODE_1                         NODE_2
>> 
>>  Issuer:         VSI                           VSI
>>  Authorization:  1R-VSI-20150903-00005         1R-VSI-20150903-00007
>>  Product Name:   OPENVMS-I64-BOE               OPENVMS-I64-BOE
>>  Producer:       VSI                           VSI
>>  Units:          8                             8
>> 
>>  Issuer:         VSI                           VSI
>>  Authorization:  1R-VSI-20150903-00006         1R-VSI-20150903-00008
>>  Product Name:   OPENVMS-I64-BOE               OPENVMS-I64-BOE
>>  Producer:       VSI                           VSI
>>  Units:          8                             8
>> 
>>  Issuer:         VSI                           VSI     
>>  Authorization:  1R-VSI-20160121-00007         1R-VSI-20160121-00009
>>  Product Name:   VMSCLUSTER                    VMSCLUSTER
>>  Producer:       VSI                           VSI
>>  Units:          8                             8
>> 
>>  Issuer:         VSI                           VSI
>>  Authorization:  1R-VSI-20160121-00008         1R-VSI-20160121-00010
>>  Product Name:   VMSCLUSTER                    VMSCLUSTER
>>  Producer:       VSI                           VSI
>>  Units:          8                             8
>> 
>>  Issuer:         VSI                           VSI
>>  Authorization:  1R-VSI-20160121-00011         1R-VSI-20160121-00013
>>  Product Name:   VOLSHAD                       VOLSHAD
>>  Producer:       VSI                           VSI
>>  Units:          8                             8
>> 
>>  Issuer:         VSI                           VSI
>>  Authorization:  1R-VSI-20160121-00012         1R-VSI-20160121-00014
>>  Product Name:   VOLSHAD                       VOLSHAD
>>  Producer:       VSI                           VSI
>>  Units:          8                             8
>> 
>
>The following error messages on NODE_2 could mean that it's failing
>to load the second of each license, i.e. a bug.
>
>> 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

I've been having an email discussion with Clair Grant WRT this issue.  It's
NOT a simple issue of having to use /INCLUDE.  It's an issue that VSI have
been looking into already and, as Clair said in email, "what a coincidence 
- your issue and the problem we have been looking into."

Hang tight, I've confidence that they'll suss out the issue and correct it.

-- 
VAXman- A Bored Certified VMS Kernel Mode Hacker    VAXman(at)TMESIS(dot)ORG

I speak to machines with the voice of humanity.