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

[VAXman- at SendSpamHere.ORG]

In article <c2a7d366-9421-4174-9ef9-92e428f99c75 at googlegroups.com>, Jess Goodman <norebid at gmail.com> writes:
>On Tuesday, February 16, 2016 at 12:19:54 PM UTC-5, VAXman- wrote:
>> 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.
>
>Been there - done this (YMMV):
>
>$ LICENSE MODIFY xxxxx /AUTH=yyyyyy /NO_SHARE /INCLUDE=zzzzz
>
>Jess

Separate system disks, separate .LDBs.  The remote node (NODE_2) could NOT be
loading any of the PAKs on the local node (NODE_1).  I believe I stated some-
where that /INCLUDE did nothing.

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

I speak to machines with the voice of humanity.