| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 156.1 | no problem on our cluster | GOSTE::CALLANDER | | Wed Jun 20 1990 15:03 | 5 |
|
I don't know where they get started but we run MCC on our clusters
without incident. I would be interested in knowning which "training"
told them that...
|
| 156.2 | Was system crash really caused by MCC? | KEEL::SAVAGE | Peter Savage | Wed Jun 20 1990 21:09 | 7 |
| This is news to me. MCC is in field test and if a problem exists we
would like to know so that it can be corrected prior to releasing the
product. I know of NO existing problem within MCC that would cause a
system to crash. Any additional information that you could provide
would be helpful.
Peter
|
| 156.3 | | TOOK::SWIST | Jim Swist LKG2-2/T2 DTN 226-7102 | Thu Jun 21 1990 12:38 | 3 |
| This is SOP for field service. They have a list of supposedly flaky
software products that they blame when they can't find an intermittent
hardware problem.
|
| 156.4 | cluster aliases as NODE4 instance | NAC::SCHLENER | | Wed Jun 27 1990 13:29 | 15 |
| Perhaps what they had heard was that MCC has the same problem as NCP
in that DECnet Phase IV doesn't distinguish between an actual node name
and a cluster alias. So that doing a modify/action command to a cluster
alias would cause unpredictable results.
A while ago we (the DECnet Phase IV AM team - I was a member of that
team) looked at solutions to the cluster alias problem and determined
that we could not be 100 % certain if we were dealing with an alias.
Plus, it would have impacted performance on every command severly.
Hence, people need to be aware that MCC will have the same problem as
NCP concerning using cluster aliases as a NODE4 global entity instance.
Cindy
|