[Search for users]
[Overall Top Noters]
[List of all Conferences]
[Download this site]
Title: | VAX and Alpha VMS |
Notice: | This is a new VMSnotes, please read note 2.1 |
Moderator: | VAXAXP::BERNARDO |
|
Created: | Wed Jan 22 1997 |
Last Modified: | Fri Jun 06 1997 |
Last Successful Update: | Fri Jun 06 1997 |
Number of topics: | 703 |
Total number of notes: | 3722 |
667.0. "AS 255/233 forced crash inconsistency" by HAN::HALLE (Volker Halle MCS @HAO DTN 863-5216) Mon Jun 02 1997 03:07
In an attempt to troubleshoot a 'MOUNT hang' in an OpenVMS cluster, we
forced a couple of crashes on AlphaStation 255/233 systems. When
examining the dumps, I recognized some unusual symptoms (system ALWAYS
had lost cluster connections, the ethernet adapter had ALWAYS just done
a restart due to 3-XmtTimeout or 9-HardwreErr).
We then did a couple of tests and forced crashes with the following
methods:
- forced crash through AMDS
- use >>> CRASH command
- use >>> D PC ffffffffffffffff & >>> D PS 1f00
In all those forced crashes, I see the SAME symptoms, although the
system was running without problems until the crash had been forced:
- cluster connections lost
- most cluster nodes seen in reconnect or wait
- some VCs have just been re-established
- ethernet interface restarted (couple of seconds ago)
These symptoms also could NOT be found in a recent AMDS-forced crash of a
TurboLaser system in that cluster.
It's hard to analyse MOUNT-related hangs, if - after a forced crash - all
the disks are in mount-verify, because the cluster-connections have
been broken due to the forced crash.
QUESTION:
Is there any problem with producing CONSISTENT forced crashes with
AlphaStations 255/233 ?
Volker.
T.R | Title | User | Personal Name | Date | Lines |
---|
667.1 | see more details in note HAN::ECSO_SUPPORT 198.7-.15 | HAN::HALLE | Volker Halle MCS @HAO DTN 863-5216 | Mon Jun 02 1997 03:08 | 1 |
|
|
667.2 | any ideas ? | HAN::HALLE | Volker Halle MCS @HAO DTN 863-5216 | Wed Jun 04 1997 02:57 | 9 |
|
Would anybody agree, that this is an 'unusual and unexpected' behaviour ?
Could this be some CPU-specific code, which is lowering IPL before
writing the dump ?
Any other ideas ?
Volker.
|