![]() | |
#1
| |||
| |||
|
#2
| |||
| |||
|
|
Hello, we are exploring Rdb for possible use within our organization. One of the first problems I encountered was the following: SQL> @SYSMGT:[BART]BANKING.SQL %SQL-F-ERRCRESCH, Error creating database filename eurobanking:banking.rdb -RDB-F-SYS_REQUEST, error from system services request -RDMS-F-FILACCERR, error parsing file SYSMGT:[RDMicrosoftRUJ]BANKING$1E333AA0G0BQOH3MQ29LS6PF6O.RUJ; -COSI-I-NOTSYSCONCEAL, non-system concealed device name in filename (Yes, I am following the example in the Comprehensive Guide by Lilian Hobbs, Ian Smith and Ken England!) This topic already came up in 1997 in comp.databases.rdb, but then the cause seemed to be something else. It appears that Rdb does not accept a /EXEC logical name in LNMicrosoftSYSCLUSTER_TABLE as a valid system concealed device. When I copied the logical name SYSMGT to the LNMicrosoftSYSTEM_TABLE, the problem was solved. I find this rather disturbing. In my opinion, (and I believe in the general opinion of OpenVMS engineering), logical names in LNMicrosoftSYSCLUSTER_TABLE are just as valid as logical names in LNMicrosoftSYSTEM_TABLE. After all, both are elements in the LNMicrosoftSYSTEM search list! Our clusters are configured in such a way that all logical names that are common to all cluster members are placed in cluster wide tables. It would be a pity if we would need to copy the contents of the clusterwide table to the system table of each node. Thanks for any thoughts! Regards, Bart Zorn |
#3
| |||
| |||
|
|
Hi Bart, It has been my experience that if you dare mention Rdb and "Cluster" in the same sentence then Rdb support/engineering (and JCC in particular) are likely to look upon you as a skid-mark on a hotel towel! Having said that, cluster-wide logicals names are relatively new and IIRC Rdb has been discouraging the use of concealed logicals since year dot+-2 so why not just file a bug report. If you don't have a license agreement yet then try an entry in the www.jcc.com listserver. Big Norm also wanders past here every now and then so you may even get a useful reply :-) Regards Richard Maher Bart.Zorn (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote in message news:1158053737.043991.174590 (AT) i3g2000cwc (DOT) googlegroups.com... |
#4
| |||
| |||
|
|
Hello, we are exploring Rdb for possible use within our organization. One of the first problems I encountered was the following: SQL> @SYSMGT:[BART]BANKING.SQL %SQL-F-ERRCRESCH, Error creating database filename eurobanking:banking.rdb -RDB-F-SYS_REQUEST, error from system services request -RDMS-F-FILACCERR, error parsing file SYSMGT:[RDMicrosoftRUJ]BANKING$1E333AA0G0BQOH3MQ29LS6PF6O.RUJ; -COSI-I-NOTSYSCONCEAL, non-system concealed device name in filename (Yes, I am following the example in the Comprehensive Guide by Lilian Hobbs, Ian Smith and Ken England!) This topic already came up in 1997 in comp.databases.rdb, but then the cause seemed to be something else. It appears that Rdb does not accept a /EXEC logical name in LNMicrosoftSYSCLUSTER_TABLE as a valid system concealed device. When I copied the logical name SYSMGT to the LNMicrosoftSYSTEM_TABLE, the problem was solved. I find this rather disturbing. In my opinion, (and I believe in the general opinion of OpenVMS engineering), logical names in LNMicrosoftSYSCLUSTER_TABLE are just as valid as logical names in LNMicrosoftSYSTEM_TABLE. After all, both are elements in the LNMicrosoftSYSTEM search list! Our clusters are configured in such a way that all logical names that are common to all cluster members are placed in cluster wide tables. It would be a pity if we would need to copy the contents of the clusterwide table to the system table of each node. Thanks for any thoughts! Regards, Bart Zorn |
#5
| |||
| |||
|
|
curious. please get in touch with Rdb support and log a call here. It appears that there is code that explitly looks for "LNMicrosoftSYSTEM_TABLE" when a concealed logical is found. I don't think that this probably is the right check in this case. The reason that the notsysconceal check is there is because the user and the dbr (and I suspect potentially the monitor) all have to have access to the RUJ file. I think though that maybe this check could be enhanced in this case. "Bart.Zorn (AT) gmail (DOT) com" wrote: |
|
-- - - - - - opinions expressed here are mine and mine alone and certainly are not intended in any way to express or represent any opinions or commitment of oracle corporation. norman lastovica / oracle rdb engineering |
#6
| |||
| |||
|
|
Thanks, Norman. Problem is that we don't have (yet) a service agreement with Oracle. |
|
Is there any way to have this put on a bug list or something? |
|
Bart Norman Lastovica wrote: curious. please get in touch with Rdb support and log a call here. It appears that there is code that explitly looks for "LNMicrosoftSYSTEM_TABLE" when a concealed logical is found. I don't think that this probably is the right check in this case. The reason that the notsysconceal check is there is because the user and the dbr (and I suspect potentially the monitor) all have to have access to the RUJ file. I think though that maybe this check could be enhanced in this case. "Bart.Zorn (AT) gmail (DOT) com" wrote: [ snip ... ] -- - - - - - opinions expressed here are mine and mine alone and certainly are not intended in any way to express or represent any opinions or commitment of oracle corporation. norman lastovica / oracle rdb engineering |
#7
| |||
| |||
|
|
"Bart.Zorn (AT) gmail (DOT) com" wrote: Thanks, Norman. Problem is that we don't have (yet) a service agreement with Oracle. got it. I hope that you do decide to get one. Is there any way to have this put on a bug list or something? I've added it to an internal problem report. I suspect that we'll try to get it addressed in the next rdb 72 release (unnamed and not yet fully scheduled for release date). Bart Norman Lastovica wrote: curious. please get in touch with Rdb support and log a call here. It appears that there is code that explitly looks for "LNMicrosoftSYSTEM_TABLE" when a concealed logical is found. I don't think that this probably is the right check in this case. The reason that the notsysconceal check is there is because the user and the dbr (and I suspect potentially the monitor) all have to have access to the RUJ file. I think though that maybe this check could be enhanced in this case. "Bart.Zorn (AT) gmail (DOT) com" wrote: [ snip ... ] -- - - - - - opinions expressed here are mine and mine alone and certainly are not intended in any way to express or represent any opinions or commitment of oracle corporation. norman lastovica / oracle rdb engineering -- - - - - - opinions expressed here are mine and mine alone and certainly are not intended in any way to express or represent any opinions or commitment of oracle corporation. norman lastovica / oracle rdb engineering |
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
| |