vmsnet.networks.tcp-ip.multinet
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Problem with Multinet cluster service names.

Subject: Re: Problem with Multinet cluster service names.
From: Ralph Young <young@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 05 Jul 2008 10:45:06 -0400
Newsgroups: vmsnet.networks.tcp-ip.multinet

Are there A records set up in your zone file data for the cluster
service hosts in question ?  i.e., for the example below, there need to
be A records set up for MALVM3 and MALVM9... in some versions prior
to 5.2, these A records were 'forged'.. with the more complex attributes
(views, multiple formats, etc.) in Bind 9, this is not yet a feature.  
The A records need to be manually added...

Is this working on other architectures for you but not I64?

Thanks

-Ralph Young
Process Software



Remember this one?

On Apr 10, 11:59 pm, Malcolm Dunnett <noth...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

> I can't get multinet cluster service names to work reliably. It worked
> just fine for years in older versions of multinet, but with multinet 5.2
> the domain nameserver doesn't seem to be able to reliably see it. It was
> working for a while today but then it quit, eg:

> MALVM9> mu nslook vmscluster.mala.bc.ca localhost
> Server:  LOCALHOST
> Address:  127.0.0.1


> *** LOCALHOST can't find VMSCLUSTER.MALA.BC.CA: Non-existent host/domain
> MALVM9> mu netcon domain show
> Connected to NETCONTROL server on "LOCALHOST"
> < malvm9.mala.bc.ca Network Control V5.2(10) at Thu 10-Apr-2008 8:49PM-PDT
> < Service VMSCLUSTER.MALA.BC.CA:
> <   Nodename      Address      Rating
> <   --------  ---------------  ------
> <   MALVM3    142.25.103.73       169
> <   MALVM9    142.25.103.71       169
> < End of line

> The nameserver does not show the translation of vmscluster even though
> the mu netcon domain show displays that the two hosts are both
> contributing entries.

> The servers are Alphaservers running VMS 8.3

> Anyone else seen this problem. Anyone successfully using Multinet
> cluster service names with Multinet 5.2?

And

> Process Software has confirmed this is a bug. They've opened a defect
> report (DE 10509).

This continues to be a problem on IA64 with NAMED-040_A052 and
UCXDRIVER-050_A052 installed - any suggestions? Should this still be
failing?




<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>