ADSM-L

Re: TSM 4.2 (AIX), licensing..

2001-08-15 10:21:14
Subject: Re: TSM 4.2 (AIX), licensing..
From: David McClelland <DAVIDMCCLELLAND AT UK.IBM DOT COM>
Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2001 15:11:24 +0100
Tom,

Yes, apparently this is a known bug - you should have a look at the latest
patch (4.2.0.1) , rather than the flat 4.2 version, although I'm of the
understanding that the licensing problem is still an issue here too...

There'll be a fix for this along soon - can anyone add any more to this?

Rgds,

David McClelland
---------------------------
Tivoli Storage Management Team
Tivoli Storage Management Team
IBM EMEA Technical Centre,
Mail Point SGJ3, IBM, North Harbour, Portsmouth PO6 3AU, England
Internet: davidmcclelland AT uk.ibm DOT com



Tom Tann{s <tom.tannas AT USIT.UIO DOT NO>@VM.MARIST.EDU> on 15-08-2001 14:46:22

Please respond to "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" <ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU>

Sent by:  "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" <ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU>


To:   ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
cc:
Subject:  TSM 4.2 (AIX), licensing..



Hello!

I upgraded a server from 4.1 to 4.2 today.

I've only managed to register one 50mgsyslan.lic whith the command
register lic file=50mgsyslan.lic number=12

additional attempts toregister more result in the same..

tsm: SUMO>register license file=50mgsyslan.lic
ANR2852I Current license information:
ANR2827I Server is licensed to support Managed System for LAN for a
quantity of 60.
ANR2853I New license information:
ANR2827I Server is licensed to support Managed System for LAN for a
quantity of 60.

tsm: SUMO>

(Its 60 now because I successfully registered one 10mgsyslan.lic)


After several attempts I took a look at the nodelock-file, and this file
seems to be updated correctly, with one entry for each of my attempts..

.
.
.
.
# Managed System for LAN 50 Licen
6fb1ea8d2ebc.a3.89.a3.25.04.00.00.00 8umtikm47qkykpffafnaa "" "4.2"
#[admin_comment] "" "" "0" "0" "0"
# Managed System for LAN 50 Licen
6fb1ea8d2ebc.a3.89.a3.25.04.00.00.00 8umtikm47qkykpffafnaa "" "4.2"
#[admin_comment] "" "" "0" "0" "0"




So... Could this be a bug, or am I missing something here?
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>