Oracle FAQ Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid
HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US
 

Home -> Community -> Usenet -> c.d.o.server -> FS-11084 in Verify Cluster of Oracle FailSafe

FS-11084 in Verify Cluster of Oracle FailSafe

From: Bolivar Dittrich <bolivar_at_br.ibm.com>
Date: 24 Jun 2002 09:56:57 -0700
Message-ID: <f4fd2f2c.0206240856.716b2f05@posting.google.com>


Hi everybody,
I have a MS Cluster with two servers running Windows/2000 Advanced Server.
On both servers I installed Oracle 8.1.7, then applied 8.1.7.3.0 Patchset and then 8.1.7.3.2 Patch. So Oracle is at version 8.1.7.3.2. I also Installed Oracle FailSafe 3.1.2. I followed very carefully all installation steps and get successful results in all documented verification tests. I also rebooted both servers after installing FailSafe, one after the other as the books says it should be.

Everything is set and the thing should work. BUT... it doesn't...

When I execute Verify Cluster I get FS-11084 as listed below:

Starting clusterwide operation
** WARNING : FS-11084: Oracle Fail Safe is not installed on node
SPDB002TLP
** WARNING : FS-11081: Node SPDB002TLP is not available for the
specified operation. Operation continuing... ...

I don't know anymore where to look. And this thing doesn't seem to be willing to cooperate.

Can anybody help with any hint ? ... as I said, I'm quite sure I didn't miss any of the basic install steps.

What can I do for debugging ? Is there some way to trace what's going on ? To identify what's going wrong ?

It's sad getting the messages without any better explanation than ... check the installation steps. I did this over and over and there's nothing wrong that I can see. It would really be good to get more info about what exactly Verify Cluster is doing to have a chance to understand what the cause of the failure is.

Ah, I would like to mention that the message always complains for the node that doesn't have the cluster. Ex: If the resources are at SPDB001TLP then the message complains about SPDB002TLP and vice-versa. But this is simply not true. As I said, everything is there and to the best of my knowledge it is correct.

Thank's in advance for any help. I think I really need it. Bolivar Received on Mon Jun 24 2002 - 11:56:57 CDT

Original text of this message

HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US