T.R | Title | User | Personal Name | Date | Lines |
---|
1873.1 | 1 per user | CHRLIE::HUSTON | | Mon Nov 30 1992 14:25 | 9 |
|
There will be 1 decnet link per user. The second link could be coming
from an IAD if they do this.
The user link will go away when the user exits ALL-IN-1, the IAD link
will time itself out when it isn't used for a time.
--Bob
|
1873.2 | non-MAIN drawer operations | CHRLIE::HUSTON | | Thu Dec 03 1992 18:26 | 22 |
|
from within ALL-IN-1, no connection will be made to the FCS until you
do something that requires the FCS. In other words, if all you do
is exactly what you could do in V2.4 of ALL-IN-1 then you will never
get a connection to the FCS.
Things that cause a FCS connection are:
1) Remote drawer access
2) Access to a drawer which is not your MAIN drawer
3) Cross drawer operations
4) IAD of a remote system
5) Any SM function for a partition/remote anything
6) Drawer sharing (not sure about sharing MAIN drawer, I think so).
So if all you are doing is V2.4 functionality like mail and operations
within your main drawer you won't connect to the FCS. TL on the other
hand has no access to the IOS FC without the FCS so any FC access via
TL will create a FCS link.
--Bob
|
1873.3 | I see 2 links as well | FAILTE::EWE::LAAHS | An accumulation of Celts | Tue Feb 09 1993 17:30 | 10 |
| Sorry to re-open this but I also see 2 links per user after they have
performed an operation that requires the FCS.
So is this a problem with the way ALL-IN-1 uses the FCS?
Also, is it possible that max decnet links could become a limiting factor in
the number of supported users?
Thanks,
Kevin
|
1873.4 | What are they doing | CHRLIE::HUSTON | | Tue Feb 09 1993 18:27 | 16 |
|
Kevin,
What is the user doing? If it involves ANY system management routines
like performing an IAD, then this will make a second link.
If you are seeing two links, go into the manager account and
go to the manage users menu, have it show you the connected users,
this will show you if they are system management links.
If they are getting two links and they are not doing system management
or IAD, are they brokering?? This would create a second link out to
the remote server. This will also show up in the manage users stuff.
--Bob
|
1873.5 | Nothing special happening | FAILTE::EWE::LAAHS | An accumulation of Celts | Wed Feb 17 1993 14:23 | 16 |
| Hi,
No system management or brokering is taking place. I have just logged into a
standalone machine, ran ALL-IN-1, went to EM and then refiled a document
across a drawer and ended up with the following from NCP:
16603 62.15 (EDOFIS) 0003B3A4 LAAHS 16604 OBJ_73
16604 62.15 (EDOFIS) 000000B9 EDOFIS$SRV73 16603 LAAHS
Logging in as MANAGER and doing a MSC show clients LAAHS and ALLIN1 with
ALLIN1 with MGT set to Y.
Is this what we should expect as far as DECNET links go?
Thanks,
Kevin
|
1873.6 | Not quite sure | CHRLIE::HUSTON | | Thu Feb 18 1993 15:48 | 21 |
|
Kevin,
>No system management or brokering is taking place. I have just logged into a
>standalone machine, ran ALL-IN-1, went to EM and then refiled a document
>across a drawer and ended up with the following from NCP:
>
>16603 62.15 (EDOFIS) 0003B3A4 LAAHS 16604 OBJ_73
>16604 62.15 (EDOFIS) 000000B9 EDOFIS$SRV73 16603 LAAHS
>
Not sure what the second one is, I will check on it.
>Logging in as MANAGER and doing a MSC show clients LAAHS and ALLIN1 with
>ALLIN1 with MGT set to Y.
This means that you have 1 link to the FCS for each of ALLIN1 and LAAHS
--Bob
|
1873.7 | Any news? | FAILTE::LAAHS | An accumulation of Celts | Fri Mar 12 1993 15:05 | 6 |
| Bob or anyone else,
I'd really appreciate knowing if this is a problem or not.
Thanks,
Kevin
|
1873.8 | no problems that I can see | CHRLIE::HUSTON | | Fri Mar 12 1993 15:34 | 7 |
|
Kevin,
I don't see any problems with what you have described.
--Bob
|
1873.9 | So is it a bug? | FAILTE::64551::LAAHS | An accumulation of Celts | Mon Mar 22 1993 14:54 | 10 |
| Bob,
Ok. But you stated earlier that it should only use one link and that you
would check why there are two.
Is there anybody out there that only sees one link? I'm trying to establish
whether it is a local set-up problem.
Thanks,
Kevin
|
1873.10 | I'll get back to ya | CHRLIE::HUSTON | | Mon Mar 22 1993 15:23 | 12 |
|
I also am seeing two decnet links per connect, one if the process
that requested the connect (the user), the other is the server.
Is it a bug? Don't know, if it is, it is a DASL bug. Neither the
FCS or ALL-IN-1 make DECnet links on their own, ALL DECnet operations
are done via DASL. I will check with the DASL folks and see what they
say.
--Bob
|
1873.11 | DECnet links terminate 'automatically' | GIDDAY::LEH | | Thu May 13 1993 11:17 | 109 |
| Have been observing DECnet links opened by IOS user processes that start
invoking FCS-related tasks, as mentioned in Bob's previous reply.
It occurred to me in once instance that DECnet links created by one IOS
seesion terminated themselves although that session never left ALL-IN-1; yes,
both links, e.g.
*** 16676 62.123 (RAKOFF) 00012102 LE 16677 OBJ_73
*** 16677 62.123 (RAKOFF) 00000CB3 RAKOFF$SRV73 16676 LE
I recalled changing from SM MFC MS to send an EM, still staying at EM when
listing of DECnet links didn't show up any of the above links.
Trying to reproduce for the next 15 minutes didn't give any success. I almost
gave up, left 2 IOS sessions: ALLIN1 and LE in 2 DECwindows sessions and moved
on to a different session to read VAXnotes.
It must have been some 30 minutes later I went back to the 2 IOS sessions and
started playing around a bit more, when I did reproduce the original incident
and recorded it as follws:
STEP 1 - 2 processes LE and ALLIN1 were idle, staying at EM and WP menus
*** Known Link Volatile Summary as of 13-MAY-1993 17:48:02
***
*** Link Node PID Process Remote link Remote user
***
*** 8308 59.980 00000090 REMACP 37894 LE
*** 16626 59.980 00000090 REMACP 3081 LE
*** 8211 62.123 (RAKOFF) 00000DBD MUAS$SERVER_000 8212 MRLISTEN
*** 8212 62.123 (RAKOFF) 00000B9B MRLISTEN_8212 8211 SYSTEM
*** 8219 62.123 (RAKOFF) 000000BE TMR$SA_SA1 8220 A1M$MUAS
*** 16655 62.123 (RAKOFF) 0000F69C ALLIN1 16656 OBJ_73
*** 16656 62.123 (RAKOFF) 00000CB3 RAKOFF$SRV73 16655 ALLIN1
*** 16676 62.123 (RAKOFF) 00012102 LE 16677 OBJ_73
*** 16677 62.123 (RAKOFF) 00000CB3 RAKOFF$SRV73 16676 LE
STEP 2 - 2 processes LE and ALLIN1 were still idle, staying at EM and WP menus
*** Known Link Volatile Summary as of 13-MAY-1993 18:36:03
***
*** Link Node PID Process Remote link Remote user
***
*** 8308 59.980 00000090 REMACP 37894 LE
*** 16626 59.980 00000090 REMACP 3081 LE
*** 8211 62.123 (RAKOFF) 00000DBD MUAS$SERVER_000 8212 MRLISTEN
*** 8212 62.123 (RAKOFF) 00000B9B MRLISTEN_8212 8211 SYSTEM
*** 8219 62.123 (RAKOFF) 000000BE TMR$SA_SA1 8220 A1M$MUAS
*** 16655 62.123 (RAKOFF) 0000F69C ALLIN1 16656 OBJ_73
*** 16656 62.123 (RAKOFF) 00000CB3 RAKOFF$SRV73 16655 ALLIN1
*** 16676 62.123 (RAKOFF) 00012102 LE 16677 OBJ_73
*** 16677 62.123 (RAKOFF) 00000CB3 RAKOFF$SRV73 16676 LE
***
STEP 3 - process LE was idle, staying at EM
process ALLIN1 at WP menu, doing MCD to make a copy of document from one
folder to another, totally in MAIN drawer
Listing DECnet link no longer showed 2 links from ALLIN1
*** Known Link Volatile Summary as of 13-MAY-1993 18:42:15
***
*** Link Node PID Process Remote link Remote user
***
*** 8308 59.980 00000090 REMACP 37894 LE
*** 16626 59.980 00000090 REMACP 3081 LE
*** 8211 62.123 (RAKOFF) 00000DBD MUAS$SERVER_000 8212 MRLISTEN
*** 8212 62.123 (RAKOFF) 00000B9B MRLISTEN_8212 8211 SYSTEM
*** 8219 62.123 (RAKOFF) 000000BE TMR$SA_SA1 8220 A1M$MUAS
*** 16676 62.123 (RAKOFF) 00012102 LE 16677 OBJ_73
*** 16677 62.123 (RAKOFF) 00000CB3 RAKOFF$SRV73 16676 LE
***
STEP 4 - process LE was idle, staying at EM
process ALLIN1 doing SM MFC MS on "Manage Servers"
2 DECnet links were, as expected, back for ALLIN1
*** Known Link Volatile Summary as of 13-MAY-1993 18:42:57
***
*** Link Node PID Process Remote link Remote user
***
*** 8308 59.980 00000090 REMACP 37894 LE
*** 16626 59.980 00000090 REMACP 3081 LE
*** 8211 62.123 (RAKOFF) 00000DBD MUAS$SERVER_000 8212 MRLISTEN
*** 8212 62.123 (RAKOFF) 00000B9B MRLISTEN_8212 8211 SYSTEM
*** 8219 62.123 (RAKOFF) 000000BE TMR$SA_SA1 8220 A1M$MUAS
*** 16676 62.123 (RAKOFF) 00012102 LE 16677 OBJ_73
*** 16677 62.123 (RAKOFF) 00000CB3 RAKOFF$SRV73 16676 LE
*** 16700 62.123 (RAKOFF) 0000F69C ALLIN1 16701 OBJ_73
*** 16701 62.123 (RAKOFF) 00000CB3 RAKOFF$SRV73 16700 ALLIN1
***
STEP 5 - However, I repeated step 3, and listed out DECnet links
immediately, which still showed 2 links for ALLIN1
Could it be the time elapsed between steps 1 and 2, almost 1 hour, that
has caused the links to terminate ?
Would you expect even the DECnet (user) link would terminate although the
session never leave ALL-IN-1, as in this case, the ALLIN1 process itself?
Any chance they timed out ? Unlikely, I think. Confused, confused ??
Also, Bob, have you been able to find out if the second link is a DASL
bug ?
Hong
CSC Sydney
|
1873.12 | reproducible, just !! | GIDDAY::LEH | | Thu May 13 1993 11:42 | 21 |
| About half an hour later when ALLIN1 session was still staying in WP menu
after having done MCD some 20+ minutes earlier
*** Known Link Volatile Summary as of 13-MAY-1993 19:35:06
***
*** Link Node PID Process Remote link Remote user
***
*** 8308 59.980 00000090 REMACP 37894 LE
*** 16626 59.980 00000090 REMACP 3081 LE
*** 8211 62.123 (RAKOFF) 00000DBD MUAS$SERVER_000 8212 MRLISTEN
*** 8212 62.123 (RAKOFF) 00000B9B MRLISTEN_8212 8211 SYSTEM
*** 8219 62.123 (RAKOFF) 000000BE TMR$SA_SA1 8220 A1M$MUAS
*** 16676 62.123 (RAKOFF) 00012102 LE 16677 OBJ_73
*** 16677 62.123 (RAKOFF) 00000CB3 RAKOFF$SRV73 16676 LE
***
If this is not a fluke, what governs the termination of those DECnet links
Thanks for any comments
Hong
|
1873.13 | Sysman and brokered connects timeout | CHRLIE::HUSTON | | Thu May 13 1993 15:24 | 15 |
|
THere are two types of links that time out, system management and
inter-server. THey both will time out periodically if not used.
Normal client->server connects will not time out, don't know if DASL
will "hide" them or time them out somehow if unactive for x amount
of time.
As for the original question, it has been pointed out via mail that
there use to be a bug in DASL that would cause this, the explainer of
this was not a DASL person but a user. The DASL group has been
mysteriously quiet about the entire thing.
--Bob
|