| Title: | DECmcc user notes file. Does not replace IPMT. |
| Notice: | Use IPMT for problems. Newsletter location in note 6187 |
| Moderator: | TAEC::BEROUD |
| Created: | Mon Aug 21 1989 |
| Last Modified: | Wed Jun 04 1997 |
| Last Successful Update: | Fri Jun 06 1997 |
| Number of topics: | 6497 |
| Total number of notes: | 27359 |
Hi,
I encountered a problem with DECmcc in the
alarm module.
Hardware: - VAX 6430
Sofware: - VMS V5.5
- DECmcc BMS V1.1 (note: the patch described
in notes 1267.4 & 1267.5 has been applied)
Problem description:
- I created an alarm rule (see appendix for the
details) & enabled it.
- The alarm condition has been fulfilled.
- I got the appropriate notification (mail)
- BUT the notification encountered an
"unexpected condition" which disabled
the alarm (I can re-enable it manually).
Additional information:
- The "unexpected condition" is an informational
messages from JBC; the message item (ITMREMOVED)
is not described in the VMS V5.4 documentation
(we have not the VMS V5.5 documentation yet)
- We know that one of the major difference between
VMS 5.4 & VMS 5.5 is the Job controller
- I suspect DECmcc not to trap a new (from VMS 5.4
to VMS 5.5) JBC exception condition properly.
- The VMS V5.5 Upgrade and Installation Manual
mention DECmcc BMS V1.1 as associated layered
product.
- See appendices
- APPENDIX 1 : Alarm Rule characteristics
- APPENDIX 2 : Notification mail
- APPENDIX 3 : Alarm Status
- APPENDIX 4 : SAMPLE of MCC_COMMON:MCC_ALARMS_17-JAN-1992_ERROR.LOG;1
Questions:
- Is this a known problem ?
- If yes, does it exist a patch and/or a work-around ?
- Does DECmcc V1.2 fix the issue ?
Regards,
Maurice.
----< APPENDIX 1 : Alarm Rule characteristics >-----------------------------
MCC> show DOMAIN .MC_WORK RULE MC_TEST_ALARM_MAX_ADDRESS ALL CHARACTERISTICS
Domain SDE:.MC_WORK Rule MC_TEST_ALARM_MAX_ADDRESS
AT 17-JAN-1992 11:24:54 Characteristics
Examination of attributes shows:
Alarm Fired Procedure = SYS$COMMON:[MCC]MCC_ALARMS_MAIL_ALARM.
COM;1
Alarm Exception Procedure = SYS$COMMON:[MCC]MCC_ALARMS_MAIL_EXCEPT
ION.COM;1
Description = "Testimg MAXIMUM ADDRESS of TPLAB"
Category = "TEST"
Batch Queue = "TPLAB$BATCH"
Alarm Fired Parameters = "PLAYER::COLLEYE"
Expression = (Node4 SDE:.DNA_NODE.TPLAB MAXIMUM
ADDRESS > 255, at every=01:00:00)
Severity = Critical
----< APPENDIX 2 : Notification mail >----------------------------------------
From: TPLAB::COLLEYE "Testimg MAXIMUM ADDRESS" 17-JAN-1992 11:35:36.71
To: PLAYER::COLLEYE
CC:
Subj: Notification of alarm " MCC 0 ALARMS RULE MC_TEST_ALARM_MAX_ADDRESS 17-JAN-1992 11:33:27.68"
Rule name: MCC 0 ALARMS RULE MC_TEST_ALARM_MAX_ADDRESS
Domain: Domain SDE:.MC_WORK
Detected at: 17-JAN-1992 11:33:27.68
Category: TEST
Description: Testimg MAXIMUM ADDRESS of TPLAB
Severity: critical
Expression: (Node4 SDE:.DNA_NODE.TPLAB MAXIMUM ADDRESS > 255, at every=01:00:00)
Data: Node4 48.116 Maximum Address = 1023 17-JAN-1992 11:33:27.65
----< APPENDIX 3 : Alarm Status >--------------------------------------------
MCC> show DOMAIN .MC_WORK RULE MC_TEST_ALARM_MAX_ADDRESS ALL STATUS
Domain SDE:.MC_WORK Rule MC_TEST_ALARM_MAX_ADDRESS
AT 17-JAN-1992 11:36:19 Status
Examination of attributes shows:
State = Disabled
Substate = Disabled by error condition
Disable Time = 17-JAN-1992 11:33:28.85
Result of Last Evaluation = True
Error Condition = "%JBC-I-ITMREMOVED, meaningless items
were removed from request"
----< APPENDIX 4: SAMPLE of MCC_COMMON:MCC_ALARMS_17-JAN-1992_ERROR.LOG;1 >---
>>> 17-JAN-1992 11:33:28.23 MCC 0 ALARMS RULE MC_TEST_ALARM_MAX_ADDRESS
Expression = (Node4 SDE:.DNA_NODE.TPLAB MAXIMUM ADDRESS > 255, at every=0
1:00:00)
Status = %JBC-I-ITMREMOVED, meaningless items were removed from request
MCC 0 ALARMS RULE MC_TEST_ALARM_MAX_ADDRESS
AT 17-JAN-1992 11:33:28
| T.R | Title | User | Personal Name | Date | Lines |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2133.1 | We're working on a patch | TOOK::MINTZ | Erik Mintz, DECmcc Development | Fri Jan 17 1992 07:43 | 8 |
This is a known problem with the alarms module on VMS V5.5 (see earlier notes). It is due to changes in the VMS V5.5 job control interface, that occured after DECmcc V1.1 was released. We are in the process of creating a patch to correct the problem for V1.1. It is already corrected in the DECmcc V1.2 field test. -- Erik | |||||
| 2133.2 | Patch ready | BSYBEE::EGOLF | John C. Egolf LKG2-2/T02 x226-7874 | Fri Jan 17 1992 08:02 | 9 |
| 2133.3 | Thanks | RDOSW1::PARKER | Sat Jan 18 1992 01:45 | 3 | |
I've encountered the identical problem. Following instructions in .2
Thanks for the information.
| |||||
| 2133.4 | See note 1267.19 | TOOK::MINTZ | Erik Mintz, DECmcc Development | Sat Jan 18 1992 11:30 | 2 |
See note 1267.19 for the patch. | |||||
| 2133.5 | Patch applied; no IMPM notification | RDOSW1::PARKER | Tue Jan 21 1992 11:06 | 25 | |
Hi,
I've just done the MCC_ALARMS_FM.EXE patch in 1267.19. The patch from
1267.5 was installed first, both without error.
Now, when an alarm fires, I'm getting mail notification but no IMPM
notification. Show status on the rule shows the rule to still be
enabled and the error condition says:
Software logic error detected.
%MCC-E-ILVEOC, end of current
constructor has been reached.
The message no longer includes - ...items removed... but the IMPM
notification still does not occur. Mail notification (exception
handler) does occur.
The MCCBMS011 kit was installed from the 06-Nov CD distribution.
I understood that the ALARMS_PATCH_1 was pre-requisite to the
ALARMS_PATCH_2. Was that correct?
Any advise is greatly appreciated.
Regards,
Jeff.
| |||||
| 2133.6 | Fixed - Thank you | BIS1::COLLEYE | Thu Jan 23 1992 06:25 | 5 | |
I applied the patch in 1267.19... and it's fixed
Many tanks,
Maurice.
| |||||