| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 3293.1 | check MCC_DNS_SELECTION logical | TOOK::KWAK | | Thu Jul 02 1992 23:25 | 7 |
| RE: .0
Check if you're using MIR by issuing the following command:
$ show log MCC_DNS_SELECTION
If the logical is not defined, the default is DNS not MIR on a VMS
system.
|
| 3293.2 | Definately MIR and not DNS | FOUR62::LICAUSE | Al Licause (338-5661) | Mon Jul 06 1992 10:45 | 11 |
| Yes....the logical is defined to be MIR.
DNS was never installed on this system.
The problem also occurs in the software previously found in the SSB directory.
Perhaps I left out a step since I can't believe that I'm the only one to run
across this problem....any help greatly appreciated.
thanks,
Al
|
| 3293.3 | | FOUR62::LICAUSE | Al Licause (338-5661) | Mon Jul 06 1992 16:28 | 16 |
| Stupid me.....talk about embarassing!
In an attempt to follow the format of the EXPORTER, I was assuming that P1
for the HIISTORIAN_BACKGROUND process was a filename. Thanks to William
Kwak, I used the domain name for P1 and now have working Recording.
Al
Comments:
When establishing a recorded entity, I would think that there are only a limited
number of partitions available and these should be known to the system.
Why is it not possible to use MB2 on this field to expand same and show the
possibilities or do most people simply wild card this?
|
| 3293.4 | | VERNA::V_GILBERT | | Mon Jul 06 1992 18:19 | 14 |
| Al,
The partition argument is not an enumeration, since for different entity classes
there are different partitions.
For V1.2, partition * on Historian directives is release noted as not working
properly, since when more is returned, we do not know if it is more due to time
or more due to data. For V1.2, we assume more due to time, so the Show Recording
partition * displays each reply, one right after the other, the end result being
you only see the last one. There are other possible problems with Partition *
and other Historian directives.
Hope this helps,
Verna
|
| 3293.5 | | FOUR62::LICAUSE | Al Licause (338-5661) | Tue Jul 07 1992 09:07 | 25 |
| Verna,
Thanks for the explaination......I guess I would buy your argument regarding
differences between entity types, but from a user perspective, it appears
rather clumsy.
One of the features of MCC is, or so I thought, the ability to manage many
different types of entites. From the way that many of the screens respond
(i.e. different options shown for different entity types), there would appear
to be some intelligence about the entity type being requested.
If partition types are unique to or are contained in a given set for any
particulary entity, I would think that this should be a part of the intelligence
internal to MCC.
Don't mean to be arumentative, but this could be make the difference in a
customers mind as to the ease of use of a particular feature. If a customer
"perceives" that this functionality is contained to what ever extent in another
product and it is easier to use, (i.e. more intuitive) then we've lost points.
Hopefully we will be able to address all of these user interface issues in
later versions.
Thanks,
Al
|