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

Conference azur::mcc

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

728.0. "TSAM alarms bug! INSUF_BUF s/w error?" by ZPOVC::RAMARAJ () Sat Feb 16 1991 01:09

I was trying out an alarm condition with TSAM on V1.1 kit and the following 
problem surfaced.

According to the DECmcc error messages manual, it says, the developers need
to increase the buffer size.

Could someone look into this please.

Following is the mail alarm:


From:	ZPAC12::SYSTEM       "Port 16 on DEACT3 is not" 16-FEB-1991 10:51:43.47
To:	 system
CC:	
Subj:	Notification of exception " MCC 0 ALARMS RULE PORT16NOTLAT  16-FEB-1991 10:48:27.72"

    Rule name:     MCC 0 ALARMS RULE PORT16NOTLAT
    Domain:        Domain
  Occurred at:     16-FEB-1991 10:48:27.72
     Category:     PORT NOT LAT
  Description:     Port 16 on DEACT3 is not set to LAT.  Please check.!
     Severity:     clear
 
   Expression:     (TERMINAL_SERVER DEACT3 PORT 16 DEFAULT PROTOCOL =                       LAT,   AT EVERY 00:10:00)
    Exception:     Software logic error detected
                   %MCC-E-INSUF_BUF, software error: output data buffer too small


Raj
SWS Singapore

T.R	Title	User	Date	Lines
728.1	ALARMS FM bug?	SCRPIO::LIZBICKI	`Mon Feb 18 1991 16:20`	8
	This may be a problem with the Alarms FM. Does the Alarms FM handle the CVR MCC_S_INSUF_BUF (with handle state set to MORE)? Does it allocate a larger buffer and re-issue the call again, as the FCL and Iconic Map do? Lynne
728.2	Yup: You found a bug!	WAKEME::ANIL	`Mon Feb 18 1991 17:13`	12
	!!! Bug Alert !!! re: .-1 Lynne is absolutely right. I am sorry I took some time to respond. Yes Raj has uncovered a bug in Alarms code. We are indeed not handling the CVR MCC_S_INSUF_BUF. I will also QAR Alarms on this. Thanks for letting us know about this problem. V1.1 SSB kit should not have this problem. Sorry for the inconvenience. - Anil
728.3	?	SCRPIO::LIZBICKI	`Mon Feb 18 1991 18:57`	5
	Does this mean that there are changes between the MCS_A and the final (SSB) kit? Lynne
728.4	Restriction	SCRPIO::LIZBICKI	`Mon Feb 18 1991 21:06`	12
	Raj - Until this problem is fixed in the Alarms FM, you will be unable to set alarm conditions based on Terminal_Server Port entity Characteristic or Initial Atrtributes (These are the only cases where the Terminal Server AM returns the insufficient buffer error). You should be able to use the Alarms FM with the Terminal Server AM with the exceptions above. Lynne
728.5	changes between mcs_a and ssb	GOSTE::CALLANDER	`Tue Feb 19 1991 16:05`	8
	RE .3 Yes Lynne there will be changes between the mcs_a and ssb kits. The guidelines allow for the correction of priority 1 and 2 QARS. For more information on this I will send you a note off-line. jill
728.6	Bug fix need not be a surprise!	TOOK::NAVKAL	`Tue Feb 19 1991 16:10`	9
	RE: .3 > Does this mean that there are changes between the MCS_A and the > final (SSB) kit? Yup! We will modify Alarms FM so that you can write rules on any AM that needs a buffer >2048. With this change Alarms will be SRM compliant! - Anil Navkal