| RE: <<< Note 254.0 by CLARID::HOFSTEE "Take a RISC, buy a VAX" >>>
>
DECmcc (T1.0.1)
>
MCC 0 ALARMS RULE __dummy_test
>
>
AT 13-AUG-1990 12:18:33
>
>
>
>
Software logic error detected
>
MCC Routine Error =
> %MCC-E-NOPARENT, Parent entity
>
> doesn't exist
> Is there a problem with the ALARMS module, or can I ignore the error
> message since the IVP seems to have work correctly.
Timo:
The fact that the Alarms IVP worked correctly means that the module was
installed and enrolled correctly into the MCC system. The IVP doesn't
try to CREATE/DELETE any alarm rules, but the BMS startup command proc-
edure does to establish the rule repository files:
MCC_COMMON:MCC_ALARMS_ATTRIBUTE_MIR.DAT
MCC_COMMON:MCC_ALARMS_INSTANCE_MIR.DAT
Between EFT and EFT update there was a change made to the format of these
MIR files that would cause the problems you are seeing. Did you have the
EFT kit (T1.0.0) installed? Did you delete all MCC files between before
installing the T1.0.1 kit?
If the answers to these two questions are YES and NO respectively then
I think the new format is causing the problem.
Did you have many rules created? The release notes state that before
installing EFT Update you should run the Extract Rule Utility to extract
your alarm rules to a MCC command file. Then you can delete the MCC files,
install T1.0.1 and re-run this command file to re-establish your rules.
If you didn't you probably lost your rules. If you had many and this
causes a large inconvience, call me @DTN:226-5385 (508-486-5385) and we'll
try to help you out.
BTW, this new format was a one time only conversion. Hopefully, there
will be no need for this kind of change in the future.
Hope this helps, let me know if it doesn't...
- Jerry
DECmcc Alarms v1.0 PL
|
| >Between EFT and EFT update there was a change made to the format of these
> MIR files that would cause the problems you are seeing. Did you have the
> EFT kit (T1.0.0) installed? Did you delete all MCC files between before
> installing the T1.0.1 kit?
>
> If the answers to these two questions are YES and NO respectively then
> I think the new format is causing the problem.
The answers to above questions are NO , NO.
I was installing MCCBMSUT011.* on a virgin system (no MCC, TK or
whatsoever installed).
Afterwards I installed MCCTKUT011.*
When running the DIR,BMS and TK IVP's at the end, everything seems ok.
Does this mean that I can savely continue to install MCCBMS2X011?
Thanks
Timo
|
| I would suggest that you continue. It is possible that other factors
were involved in your failure (like those found by T. Zigler, which
were due to symbols which caused his commands to be expanded into
illegal commands, and therefore his startup to fail).
Keep going and let's see what happens.
|