[Search for users]
[Overall Top Noters]
[List of all Conferences]
[Download this site]
| 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 |
4029.0. "event notification and dynamic subdomains" by COL01::LUNT () Wed Nov 04 1992 03:49
Hello,
Yesterday I was at a customer site, because he couldn't get
evnet notification working. Everything looked fine, mcc_dna4_evl
started, sinks set up, opcom event seeable, in FCL a getevent worked,
notify request created. After a while I came across the reason.
The customer has about 60 domains in a 4 level hierarchial structure.
We were issuing a notify request which set up event notification
for node4 * any events, expand to all dynamic subdomains in the top
domain. We got no event notification. When we issued a specific
event request such as node4 blabla
circuit * counters zeroed in the correct domain we got the events.
Then we tried the following, in the domain where the node was we
created a notify request of node4 * any events and turned of the
expand to all dynamic subdomains. Bingo, it worked.
Is this the correct behavior, that when one is setting up notify
requests on events with wildcards, i.e. node4 * any events, that
one must issue this for every domain that one wants to see events
from? Should the "expand to all dynamic subdomains" work with this type
of notify request?
Thanks in advance,
Julie Ann
| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 4029.1 | bug | MCC1::DITMARS | Pete | Thu Nov 05 1992 13:13 | 14 |
| >Is this the correct behavior, that when one is setting up notify
>requests on events with wildcards, i.e. node4 * any events, that
>one must issue this for every domain that one wants to see events
>from?
No.
>Should the "expand to all dynamic subdomains" work with this type
>of notify request?
Yes.
QAR'd as 533 in MCCEXT_012. See note 7 for instructions on adding
information and tracking.
|
| 4029.2 | | MCC1::DITMARS | Pete | Thu Nov 05 1992 13:16 | 4 |
| p.s.
you're sure that the expand=true notify requests actually had time to
finish setting up (i.e. it was in the "running" state), right?
|
| 4029.3 | any partially registered entities? | TOOK::S_KO | Hoot mon! | Thu Nov 05 1992 16:52 | 9 |
| are there any partially registered entities in the domain hierarchy?
is the customer running V1.2.0? there was a gub where a partially
registered entity in the domain would cause notification not to be able
to match any events to the domain members.
this is fixed in v1.2.3.
is the notify request being made from FCL?
|
| 4029.4 | and the answers are in! | COL01::LUNT | | Fri Nov 06 1992 08:32 | 15 |
| Hello,
Thanks for the quick replies.
Yes, the notify request was finished enabling and in the running state.
Yes, there are partially registered members in the domain heirachy. For
example our DECbridge 90, because we need to do a firmware upgrade, and
many many PC'S. I am not sure if there are partially registered
Node4'S.
The customer is running V1.2.0. We haven't yet begun to update our
customers to 1.2.3. I expect this will occur over the next month.
Julie Ann
|