nameloc

Imagine network of 14 nodes with two central nodes (running
permamently). Network is not reliable and sometimes some
nodes are isolated for longer period, but also their operation
without connection is reasonable. If I run nameloc only on
the two central nodes then an isolated node cannot launch
QNX windows after start up. On the other hand if nameloc
is running everywhere, the network should not work properly
(I haven’t tested, but in one similiar news-thread above
Mario Charest promises totaly crash for such network.).
So, what is solution for such situation ?

Andy

Here’s how we obtain licensing for our file server on the QNX4 network using
nameloc -k, where the name servers are nodes 1 and 9:

/bin/Net -n 1000 -m “1 2 00a029 1baf23” -m “9 00a029 0a6cb9” &
/bin/Net.tulip -c21041 -I0 -l2 -w 100 &
netmap -n 1 | netmap -F -
netmap > /etc/config/netmap
nameloc -k 1
nameloc -k 9
rtc net 1
/etc/netstart



<andy@microstep-mis.com> wrote in message
news:ammoij$fp2$1@charon.microstep-mis.sk

Imagine network of 14 nodes with two central nodes (running
permamently). Network is not reliable and sometimes some
nodes are isolated for longer period, but also their operation
without connection is reasonable. If I run nameloc only on
the two central nodes then an isolated node cannot launch
QNX windows after start up. On the other hand if nameloc
is running everywhere, the network should not work properly
(I haven’t tested, but in one similiar news-thread above
Mario Charest promises totaly crash for such network.).
So, what is solution for such situation ?

Andy

<andy@microstep-mis.com> wrote in message
news:ammoij$fp2$1@charon.microstep-mis.sk

Imagine network of 14 nodes with two central nodes (running
permamently). Network is not reliable and sometimes some
nodes are isolated for longer period, but also their operation
without connection is reasonable. If I run nameloc only on
the two central nodes then an isolated node cannot launch
QNX windows after start up. On the other hand if nameloc
is running everywhere, the network should not work properly
(I haven’t tested, but in one similiar news-thread above
Mario Charest promises totaly crash for such network.).

Well totaly is a strong word :wink: But it’s definitely out of spec according
to the documentation. Maximum is 10 nodes.

So, what is solution for such situation ?

Alan’s suggestion is one of them. Another one is to have a script that will
start nameloc on the local machine only if it can’t find one on the network.
This is not 100% proof but works nice in most cases.

If you interested in beta testing Automap 2.0, it removes the need for
nameloc all together. Send me an email!

Andy

Mario Charest postmaster@127.0.0.1 wrote:

andy@microstep-mis.com> > wrote in message
news:ammoij$fp2$> 1@charon.microstep-mis.sk> …
Imagine network of 14 nodes with two central nodes (running
permamently). Network is not reliable and sometimes some
nodes are isolated for longer period, but also their operation
without connection is reasonable. If I run nameloc only on
the two central nodes then an isolated node cannot launch
QNX windows after start up. On the other hand if nameloc
is running everywhere, the network should not work properly
(I haven’t tested, but in one similiar news-thread above
Mario Charest promises totaly crash for such network.).

Well totaly is a strong word > :wink: > But it’s definitely out of spec according
to the documentation. Maximum is 10 nodes.

Does somebody knows what can happen if this limit goes over ?

So, what is solution for such situation ?

Alan’s suggestion is one of them.

I am sorry but it is not clear to me how Alan’s suggestion can help.
Having isolated node, it does not work, I think.

Another one is to have a script that will
start nameloc on the local machine only if it can’t find one on the network.
This is not 100% proof but works nice in most cases.

Yes, this is solution, but I wonder that there is no better one.

If you interested in beta testing Automap 2.0, it removes the need for
nameloc all together. Send me an email!

I know this choice, we concerned it four years ago, but we decided
that price is too high for us. Thank you for offer.

Andy

Why don’t you try running nameloc with the -s and -e parameters?
Run nameloc normally on 2 nodes and then on the other nodes you run
‘nameloc -s3 -e3’ etc. BTW, ‘3’ is the node number.

Previously, andy@microstep-mis.com wrote in qdn.public.qnx4:

Mario Charest postmaster@127.0.0.1 wrote:

andy@microstep-mis.com> > wrote in message
news:ammoij$fp2$> 1@charon.microstep-mis.sk> …
Imagine network of 14 nodes with two central nodes (running
permamently). Network is not reliable and sometimes some
nodes are isolated for longer period, but also their operation
without connection is reasonable. If I run nameloc only on
the two central nodes then an isolated node cannot launch
QNX windows after start up. On the other hand if nameloc
is running everywhere, the network should not work properly
(I haven’t tested, but in one similiar news-thread above
Mario Charest promises totaly crash for such network.).

Well totaly is a strong word > :wink: > But it’s definitely out of spec according
to the documentation. Maximum is 10 nodes.

Does somebody knows what can happen if this limit goes over ?

So, what is solution for such situation ?

Alan’s suggestion is one of them.

I am sorry but it is not clear to me how Alan’s suggestion can help.
Having isolated node, it does not work, I think.

Another one is to have a script that will
start nameloc on the local machine only if it can’t find one on the network.
This is not 100% proof but works nice in most cases.

Yes, this is solution, but I wonder that there is no better one.

If you interested in beta testing Automap 2.0, it removes the need for
nameloc all together. Send me an email!

I know this choice, we concerned it four years ago, but we decided
that price is too high for us. Thank you for offer.


Andy

Hugh Brown <hsbrown@qnx.com> wrote:

Why don’t you try running nameloc with the -s and -e parameters?
Run nameloc normally on 2 nodes and then on the other nodes you run
‘nameloc -s3 -e3’ etc. BTW, ‘3’ is the node number.

ok, it means that I can run more than 10 namelocs in network,
only small number of nodes should be polled on each nodes
besides central systems. correct ? (there is “You may run
nameloc on up to 10 different nodes in the network” in
documentation…)

Andy

I know this choice, we concerned it four years ago, but we decided
that price is too high for us. Thank you for offer.

Not to want to debate this in a public place, but I usually hear that people
find it not expensive enough (I’m not kidding).

Last time I checked 10 Automap licenses (for a 10 nodes network) are 1/10
of the price of ONE qnx licenses.

But at any rate the -e -s option is probably the best in your case.

Side effect of having more then 10 nameloc seen by the same machine, is
licensing problem, timeout problem with qnx_name_locate. Unreliable
qnx_name_locate. If you run sin info you will see a list of nodes running
locators, if there is more then 10 nameloc you will notice some locator keep
on disapearing, which I’ve always experience to be a bad thing :wink:

Andy

“Mario Charest” postmaster@127.0.0.1 wrote in message
news:ams5li$np3$1@inn.qnx.com

I know this choice, we concerned it four years ago, but we decided
that price is too high for us. Thank you for offer.

Not to want to debate this in a public place, but I usually hear that
people
find it not expensive enough (I’m not kidding).

I’ll debate this publicly.

Automap is a VERY cost effective solution to the problems that my company
faced. We are extremely pleased with its performance and ease of use. In
operation it is totally transparent as it should be.

Although we had the technical expertise to solve the problem ourselves,
licensing Automap was a much more cost-effective solution.

Bill Flowers
Insight Control Systems
Safety Harbor, FL

No. I don’t think so.

I believe that all of the nameloc’s try to talk to each other and keep each
other informed. But they have an array that is only 10 elements long for
information about the other nameloc’s.

If you attempt to access more than 10 total namelocs then they get confused
and start making mistakes.

NOTE: I don’t work for QSSL but this is my understanding of what is going to
happen with more than 10 nameloc’s system wide.

<andy@microstep-mis.com> wrote in message
news:amrmr6$n6n$1@charon.microstep-mis.sk

Hugh Brown <> hsbrown@qnx.com> > wrote:
Why don’t you try running nameloc with the -s and -e parameters?
Run nameloc normally on 2 nodes and then on the other nodes you run
‘nameloc -s3 -e3’ etc. BTW, ‘3’ is the node number.

ok, it means that I can run more than 10 namelocs in network,
only small number of nodes should be polled on each nodes
besides central systems. correct ? (there is “You may run
nameloc on up to 10 different nodes in the network” in
documentation…)

Andy

Hugh Brown <hsbrown@qnx.com> wrote:

Why don’t you try running nameloc with the -s and -e parameters?
Run nameloc normally on 2 nodes and then on the other nodes you run
‘nameloc -s3 -e3’ etc. BTW, ‘3’ is the node number.

and how to start the nameloc on the node 3 - just nameloc & ???

Mario Charest postmaster@127.0.0.1 wrote:

I know this choice, we concerned it four years ago, but we decided
that price is too high for us. Thank you for offer.

Not to want to debate this in a public place, but I usually hear that people
find it not expensive enough (I’m not kidding).

I believe you. I said “for us”, not “in general”.

Last time I checked 10 Automap licenses (for a 10 nodes network) are 1/10
of the price of ONE qnx licenses.

My impression from Becom offer list was that it is 1/10 of QNX price per node.
I will check again.

Andy

William A. Flowers <wflowers_NOSPAM@insightcontrol.com> wrote:

“Mario Charest” postmaster@127.0.0.1 wrote in message
news:ams5li$np3$> 1@inn.qnx.com> …
I know this choice, we concerned it four years ago, but we decided
that price is too high for us. Thank you for offer.

Not to want to debate this in a public place, but I usually hear that
people
find it not expensive enough (I’m not kidding).

I’ll debate this publicly.

Automap is a VERY cost effective solution to the problems that my company
faced. We are extremely pleased with its performance and ease of use. In
operation it is totally transparent as it should be.

I have seen prices again, I agree with you. I was wrong, sorry. Andy

Although we had the technical expertise to solve the problem ourselves,
licensing Automap was a much more cost-effective solution.

Bill Flowers
Insight Control Systems
Safety Harbor, FL

If you interested in beta testing Automap 2.0, it removes the need for
nameloc all together. Send me an email!

Mario, I use Automap 2.0 , but the machines still need nameloc running
or nothing runs on bootup << screaming ‘no license’>>

can you tell me more,
thanks
delia

“Delia Leal” <Delia.Leal@sri.com> wrote in message
news:3E36ED2B.E43555BE@sri.com

If you interested in beta testing Automap 2.0, it removes the need for
nameloc all together. Send me an email!


Mario, I use Automap 2.0 , but the machines still need nameloc running
or nothing runs on bootup << screaming ‘no license’

can you tell me more,

contact me via email at mcharest @ zinformatic dot com

thanks
delia