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

Conference smurf::ase

Title:ase
Moderator:SMURF::GROSSO
Created:Thu Jul 29 1993
Last Modified:Fri Jun 06 1997
Last Successful Update:Fri Jun 06 1997
Number of topics:2114
Total number of notes:7347

2062.0. "AS8400+TCR1.4=Panic" by NNTPD::"carterrg@mail.dec.com" (Richard Carter) Thu May 15 1997 16:14

Hi,

I'm doing a rolling upgrade on a Turbolaser cluster, and the member that I
have upgraded
panics on reboot.

The message I get is:

panic(0); memory channel - timed out waiting for response from node.

Does this point to a broken mc card?
Has anyone got Production Server running on TCR1.4+DU4.0B?

Also, the release notes mention putting rm-driver-debug-error=1 in the
sysconfigtab. Which stanza is this, because it isn't recognised in rm.

The remaining member is still at TCR1+DU3.2g awaiting it's partners return.
Regards,
Richard.
[Posted by WWW Notes gateway]
T.RTitleUserPersonal
Name
DateLines
2062.1HintsNNTPD::"cherkus@buff.zk3.dec.com"Dave CherkusThu May 15 1997 18:0032
>
> Hi,
>
> I'm doing a rolling upgrade on a Turbolaser cluster, and the member that I
> have upgraded
> panics on reboot.
>
> The message I get is:
>
> panic(0); memory channel - timed out waiting for response from node.
>
> Does this point to a broken mc card?

Yes, or some other form of unhappiness at the memory channel layer.
Strange, since presumably you didn't change the cables, jumpers
or position of the board.

> Has anyone got Production Server running on TCR1.4+DU4.0B?

I believe this was qualified in our lab, but I'm no authority.

> Also, the release notes mention putting rm-driver-debug-error=1 in the
> sysconfigtab. Which stanza is this, because it isn't recognised in rm.

"rm_spur".

> The remaining member is still at TCR1+DU3.2g awaiting it's partners return.
> Regards,
> Richard.
>

[Posted by WWW Notes gateway]
2062.2Curiouser..and curiouser..(and more curious)NNTPD::"carterrg@mail.dec.com"Richard CarterThu May 15 1997 19:308
If I shutdown the 3.2g machine, the v4.0b machine will boot.

Is there a conflict between TCRv1 and TCR1.4?
I have not run dlm_enable, which I believe may cause such a conflict.

Regards,
Richard.
[Posted by WWW Notes gateway]
2062.3MC the same rev .NNTPD::"carterrg@mail.dec.com"Richard CarterThu May 15 1997 19:3815
Hi Dave,

Thanks for your note.

I wrote -1 before I saw your reply.

MCS have very kindly replaced both MC cards and the cable to no effect.
So, this may point to a software problem.

Who should I ask next?
(I will log this with my CSC tomorrow; but any help would be nice)

Regards,
Richard.
[Posted by WWW Notes gateway]
2062.4worked oK for meKYOSS1::GREENFri May 16 1997 12:586
    	I recently did "SIMULTANEOUS" cluster upgrade from:
    3.2f, TCR 1.0--> 3.2g, TCR 1.0--> 4.0a, TCR 1.4--> 4.0b, TCR 1.4
    	All went well. We followed the documentation and had NO problems.
    	The config was 2 2100s in a virtual hub.
    		dick
    
2062.52100 O.K.NNTPD::"carterrg@mail.dec.com"Richard CarterMon May 19 1997 09:4211
Hi Dick,

Thanks for the info. 

I have also upgraded 2100's without a problem, by using rolling upgrade.

Regards,
Richard.


[Posted by WWW Notes gateway]
2062.6MC rev 11 or 14?NNTPD::"carterrg@mail.dec.com"Richard CarterMon May 19 1997 16:1526
Hi,

I was working on a different TruCluster/TurboLaser customer today. 
This one is up and running O.K.
 
There seems to be two differences between the working cluster and 
the one that panics:

1. Memory channel card Rev. 
    The panicing systems have Rev 11
     The O.K. systems have Rev 14.

2. The O.K. system was a fresh install not an upgrade.
     What is the following sysconfigtab for and when is it enabled. i.e.
during an
     upgrade or afterwards?

     dlm:
            dlm_disable_grptx = 0

The customer is currently deciding whether to abandon MC altogether,
and go ASE only. Is there any debugging info that could help?

Regards,
Richard.
[Posted by WWW Notes gateway]