more quick actions
minimize quick actions
Hello,
a customer just reported the following issue:
Version is use: 10.0 SP2 Update 26024
The project has a distributed architecture with two redundant servers and WTS clients.
The clients and servers are using the same BIN folder.
When a client is started, it copies one DLL file per cimway driver in a Tmp folder within the BIN folder.
Now for example when the passive server gets active, it also tries to copy these DLL files in the same folder.
Due to the fact that the files already exist in this folder, an error occurs and the cimway communication fails totally.
The "Solution" is to stop all clients, delete the DLL files and restart the server.
Here is an excerpt from the EventViewer:
2015/09/30,14:36:58.689,0,T,,0,,1,SV,Starte Projekt in EQT ...
2015/09/30,14:36:58.689,4,I,,16300,,1,CW,Cimway 32 - Version 7.44
2015/09/30,14:36:58.704,4,W,,16308,,1,CW,Systemfehler n.32 ist aufgetreten (English: System error n.32)
2015/09/30,14:36:58.704,4,I,,4004,,1,CIMWAY,Start operation error : CwReadConfiguration() : 125
2015/09/30,14:36:58.704,4,I,,4750,,1,Start Cimway : Fehler beim Kopieren des Protokolls in .BinTmp (125) (English: Error while copying the protocoll in...)
The customer says, that he didn't have this issue with 10.0 SP1!
This raises some questions:
Was there a change in 10.0 SP2?
Is the behaviour of the clients correct?
Is it a configuration issue or should an SPR be created or is this already fixed in a newer version?
If you need more information about this issue, I will try to get it from our customer.
Thank you very much!
BR,
Daniel
Posted : 30/09/2015 8:28 pm
It is certainly not a normal behavior.
Posted : 30/09/2015 9:06 pm
Did you try to specify the server list at the network level in the COMM.DAT. (there must be an article KB on this). You must do it manually by editing the COMM.DAT prior to launch PcVue.
That way only the servers should implement the copy I guess.
That is worth a try
Posted : 30/09/2015 10:34 pm
Thank you for your replies.
The issue was indeed resolved by Manu's proposal.
For future reference, it is the article KB768.
Thanks again!
BR,
Daniel
Posted : 01/10/2015 1:27 pm
Excellent Daniel
I am glad it worked!
Posted : 01/10/2015 1:40 pm
Hello,
About the article KB768
It's ok for the network level BUT it's doesn't work in equipment level, it's not yet implemented.
BR
DL
Posted : 01/10/2015 2:04 pm
I modified the article KB768 to match Dominique comment.
Posted : 12/10/2015 5:05 pm