Re: [foxboro] "G" boxes as WP's ?

Stan,

What I suggested for the "mtime" process also applies to the "nfd" process.
Same trick, same file.

Rene Bakker

-----Original Message-----
From: foxboro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:foxboro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of stan
Sent: July 14, 2005 16:50
To: foxboro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [foxboro] "G" boxes as WP's ?

On Thu, Jul 14, 2005 at 08:36:14AM -0400, "Bakker, Ren?" wrote:
> Stan,
> 
> You are correct. SysDef does NOT allow you to decalere a 51G (P80 as 
> well as
> P81) as a WP.
> What do you mean by "NFD issues on mixed nodes"? Please clarify.
> As far as the Master timekeeper issues are concerned the solution 
> should be
> simple: just comment out the execution of the /usr/fox/exten/mtime 
> task in the /usr/fox/exten/foxboro.local file and the box will behave 
> like a WP in that respect.
> Why the decision was made to NOT let the P80 & P81 boxes be defined as 
> a WP but ONLY as an AW, I do not know. I would guess your sales rep 
> can shed some light on that.
> Regards,
> Rene Bakker - EMEATAC - Invensys Systems - Baarn - the Netherlands
> 
Thanks for the feedback on this.

As to nfd issues, it's my understanding that the version of nfd that shipped
with software versions prior to version 6.5.2, required that you disable nfd
on all Solaris 2.5 boxes on a mixed node, where a mixed node is one with
Solaris 2.5 and Solaris 8 machines. We had an instance of "islanding"
on one of our mixed nodes that, if I remember correctly, that was a concern
on. It turned out not to be the culprit, as out field services guys had done
their usual thorough job, and disabled nfd on the AP51B on the node.

What drives this currently is in another area of our mill they gave a
Foxboro LAN, and are adding "G" boxes, which were bought as WP"s, but it
looks like they will have to update the images in the LAN modules to allow
this to work correctly, or they will try to run NFD. Since we are trying to
add these units without a shutdown, this presents difficulties.

What makes this particularly annoying is that originally F boxes were bought
for this job. Then we told that F boxes "might not be supported" when UNIX
on the mesh comes out, so in the interest of future compatibility, we
changed the F boxes to G boxes. Now we have another problem :-(

I really can't understand why this change makes any sense. (not being able
to define these G boxes as WP's).

--
U.S. Encouraged by Vietnam Vote - Officials Cite 83% Turnout Despite
Vietcong Terror
- New York Times 9/3/1967
 
 
_______________________________________________________________________
This mailing list is neither sponsored nor endorsed by Invensys Process
Systems (formerly The Foxboro Company). Use the info you obtain here at
your own risks. Read http://www.thecassandraproject.org/disclaimer.html
 
foxboro mailing list:             http://www.freelists.org/list/foxboro
to subscribe:         mailto:foxboro-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=join
to unsubscribe:      mailto:foxboro-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=leave
 

 
 
_______________________________________________________________________
This mailing list is neither sponsored nor endorsed by Invensys Process
Systems (formerly The Foxboro Company). Use the info you obtain here at
your own risks. Read http://www.thecassandraproject.org/disclaimer.html
 
foxboro mailing list:             http://www.freelists.org/list/foxboro
to subscribe:         mailto:foxboro-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=join
to unsubscribe:      mailto:foxboro-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=leave

Other related posts: