Re: Problem with DNS Client after V8.3 VMS upgrade - VMS

This is a discussion on Re: Problem with DNS Client after V8.3 VMS upgrade - VMS ; > Environment: > V5.7-2 TCPware > V8.3 VMS Alpha (just upgraded from V7.3-2). > After loading the latest Driver ECO, and starting up TCPware, I receive > the following OPCOM message once/second: > %%%%%%%%%%% OPCOM 4-NOV-2006 11:53:03.86 %%%%%%%%%%% > Message ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: Re: Problem with DNS Client after V8.3 VMS upgrade

  1. Re: Problem with DNS Client after V8.3 VMS upgrade

    > Environment:

    > V5.7-2 TCPware
    > V8.3 VMS Alpha (just upgraded from V7.3-2).


    > After loading the latest Driver ECO, and starting up TCPware, I receive
    > the following OPCOM message once/second:


    > %%%%%%%%%%% OPCOM 4-NOV-2006 11:53:03.86 %%%%%%%%%%%
    > Message from user SYSTEM on RABBIT
    > TCPware_DNS, TCPware DNS client process has restarted after an error:
    > %X10002398


    > This message appears whether or not I have the DNS client enabled (!)


    That error message is:

    $ write sys$output f$message(%X2398)
    %SYSTEM-W-SYSVERDIF, system version mismatch; please relink
    $

    TCPware links all (or most) of its image during installation, so when
    you upgrade VMS, you typically need to reinstall TCPware so that the
    images get relinked for the new version of VMS.

    Hunter
    ------
    Hunter Goatley, Process Software, http://www.process.com/
    http://www.goatley.com/hunter/

  2. Re: Problem with DNS Client after V8.3 VMS upgrade

    Hunter Goatley wrote:
    >
    > > Environment:

    >
    > > V5.7-2 TCPware
    > > V8.3 VMS Alpha (just upgraded from V7.3-2).

    >
    > > After loading the latest Driver ECO, and starting up TCPware, I receive
    > > the following OPCOM message once/second:

    >
    > > %%%%%%%%%%% OPCOM 4-NOV-2006 11:53:03.86 %%%%%%%%%%%
    > > Message from user SYSTEM on RABBIT
    > > TCPware_DNS, TCPware DNS client process has restarted after an error:
    > > %X10002398

    >
    > > This message appears whether or not I have the DNS client enabled (!)

    >
    > That error message is:
    >
    > $ write sys$output f$message(%X2398)
    > %SYSTEM-W-SYSVERDIF, system version mismatch; please relink
    > $
    >
    > TCPware links all (or most) of its image during installation, so when
    > you upgrade VMS, you typically need to reinstall TCPware so that the
    > images get relinked for the new version of VMS.


    Will we ever see a time when we can reLINK (without the media/kit) rather than
    reinstall? (Multinet, as well...)

    --
    David J Dachtera
    dba DJE Systems
    http://www.djesys.com/

    Unofficial OpenVMS Marketing Home Page
    http://www.djesys.com/vms/market/

    Unofficial Affordable OpenVMS Home Page:
    http://www.djesys.com/vms/soho/

    Unofficial OpenVMS-IA32 Home Page:
    http://www.djesys.com/vms/ia32/

    Unofficial OpenVMS Hobbyist Support Page:
    http://www.djesys.com/vms/support/

  3. Re: Problem with DNS Client after V8.3 VMS upgrade


    "David J Dachtera" wrote in message
    news:454FF369.3502F08C@spam.comcast.net...
    >
    > Will we ever see a time when we can reLINK (without the media/kit) rather

    than
    > reinstall? (Multinet, as well...)
    >


    I doubt it. The media/kit contains the object files which are not put in
    the TCPware: directory as part of the installation because we don't want to
    consume the disk space that would be required to keep the entire kit
    present.



  4. Re: Problem with DNS Client after V8.3 VMS upgrade

    Richard Whalen wrote:
    >
    > "David J Dachtera" wrote in message
    > news:454FF369.3502F08C@spam.comcast.net...
    > >
    > > Will we ever see a time when we can reLINK (without the media/kit) rather

    > than
    > > reinstall? (Multinet, as well...)
    > >

    >
    > I doubt it. The media/kit contains the object files which are not put in
    > the TCPware: directory as part of the installation because we don't want to
    > consume the disk space that would be required to keep the entire kit
    > present.


    Have you considered compressing the .OLBs? Re-linking should be an event that
    happens only pursuant to a VMS upgrade. So, performance can be traded for
    storage space.

    ....or, provide a means to re-link requiring only the install media, not a repeat
    of the installation. (Less than ideal, but still a short-cut.)

    --
    David J Dachtera
    dba DJE Systems
    http://www.djesys.com/

    Unofficial OpenVMS Marketing Home Page
    http://www.djesys.com/vms/market/

    Unofficial Affordable OpenVMS Home Page:
    http://www.djesys.com/vms/soho/

    Unofficial OpenVMS-IA32 Home Page:
    http://www.djesys.com/vms/ia32/

    Unofficial OpenVMS Hobbyist Support Page:
    http://www.djesys.com/vms/support/

  5. Re: Problem with DNS Client after V8.3 VMS upgrade

    "David J Dachtera" wrote in message
    news:455D1A70.AD358A47@spam.comcast.net...
    > Richard Whalen wrote:
    > >
    > > "David J Dachtera" wrote in message
    > > news:454FF369.3502F08C@spam.comcast.net...
    > > >
    > > > Will we ever see a time when we can reLINK (without the media/kit)

    rather
    > > than
    > > > reinstall? (Multinet, as well...)
    > > >

    > >
    > > I doubt it. The media/kit contains the object files which are not put

    in
    > > the TCPware: directory as part of the installation because we don't want

    to
    > > consume the disk space that would be required to keep the entire kit
    > > present.

    >
    > Have you considered compressing the .OLBs? Re-linking should be an event

    that
    > happens only pursuant to a VMS upgrade. So, performance can be traded for
    > storage space.
    >


    The libraries are compressed. There is a lot of software present in the
    kit.
    Sometimes there are multiple versions of a library or executable present for
    each version of VMS that we support. Putting the version dependent files
    in different savesets could make for a quicker install with lower disk space
    usage, but it would be more complex from our point of view.



+ Reply to Thread