[Search for users] [Overall Top Noters] [List of all Conferences] [Download this site]

Conference iosg::all-in-1_v30

Title:*OLD* ALL-IN-1 (tm) Support Conference
Notice:Closed - See Note 4331.l to move to IOSG::ALL-IN-1
Moderator:IOSG::PYE
Created:Thu Jan 30 1992
Last Modified:Tue Jan 23 1996
Last Successful Update:Fri Jun 06 1997
Number of topics:4343
Total number of notes:18308

2558.0. "2.3 & 3.0 each on 2-node cluster, possible?" by KAOT01::M_MORIN (Le diable est aux vaches!) Tue Apr 13 1993 20:27

A customer is willing to try doing an ALL-IN-1 V3.0 install on a clustered
system that is not currently running ALL-IN-1, but is clustered with another
system running V2.3, and both systems are sharing the same system disk.

What king of potential problems can we think of to try to discourage them
from doing this?

	- All files that have common names in the SYS$* directories.
	- Common ALL-IN-1 account names,

What else can be added to that?

Has anyone tried doing this and run into unexpected problems?

Thanks,

/Mario
T.RTitleUserPersonal
Name		DateLines
2558.1BUSHIE::SETHIMan from DownunderWed Apr 14 1993 02:4917
    Hi Mario,
    
    I think this has been discussed in a round about way in this conference
    a few weeks ago, see topic 2500.
    
    What I guess would be a problem would be the various libraries and
    images in SYS$LIBRARY.  This would be a problem if the installation
    procedure updates, deletes or replaces 2.3 images etc.  Maybe someone
    in Kitinstall Land can give us all a better insight into what happens
    during an install and upgrade.
    
    Anyway that's my 2 cents worth on the subject.  I err on the side of
    caution I hate to take a risk on a live system ;-).
    
    Regards,
    
    Sunil
2558.2doable but unsupported UTRTSC::SCHOLLAERTAjax, Ajax, Ajax...Wed Apr 14 1993 09:1317
    Hello Mario,

>What king of potential problems can we think of to try to discourage them
>from doing this?
    
    The fact that it is unsupported. Did you think of a CO-EX system ?

>Has anyone tried doing this and run into unexpected problems?
    
    We run 2.3 , 2.4 and 3.0 without problems on a 2-node cluster.

    Regards,
    
    Jan
2558.3KAOT01::M_MORINLe diable est aux vaches!Wed Apr 14 1993 14:407
They know they're unsupported and I've already told them about the CO-EX bit.

But they're not willing to go to 2.4 in order to be able to do the CO-EX 
install, because of lack of resources and time.

/Mario
2558.42.3 co-ex ok I thinkIOSG::BILSBOROUGHJust testing. Please ignore!!! Wed Apr 14 1993 15:065
    I thought you could have a V2.3 co-ex system.
    
    At least that's what I thought I tested :-)
        
    Mike