topic Re: ADMIN SEND over PATHWORKS in Operating System - OpenVMS

ADMIN SEND over PATHWORKS

robert70 — Tue, 17 Aug 2010 14:30:42 GMT

Hi
I have an Alpha DS20E running Advanced Server 7.3B on VMS 8.3

I am trying to run the following command:-

$ DAVE:SYSTEM> admin send
_computer name(s): sandisor
_message: test
%PWRK-E-ERRSENMSG, error sending message for computer "SANDISOR"
-LM-E-NERR_NAMENOTFOU, the message alias could not be found on the network

We have a 2nd Alpha on the same network running VMS7.3-2 and Pathworks 6.0C
the admin send works as this

$ admin send
_computer name(s): sandisor
_message: test

Any ideas what to check?

Re: ADMIN SEND over PATHWORKS

robert70 — Tue, 17 Aug 2010 14:37:26 GMT

further info
Paul Nunez on anothe thread suggested these checks:-

The way the ADMIN SEND command works is it attempts to resolve the NetBIOS name SANDISOR\0x03 to get the IP address of the system to which the message should be sent.

A similar test would be:

$ @sys$startup:pwrk$define_commands
$ nbshow knbstatus sandisor 03

from upgraded box we get:-
$ DAVE:SYSTEM> @sys$startup:pwrk$define_commands
$ DAVE:SYSTEM> nbshow knbstatus sandisor 03
: No response for sandisor
$ DAVE:SYSTEM>

If you don't get a response it could be because the name SANDISOR\0x03 is not registered on the network, most likely because the Messenger service is not running on the Windows client.
.
The messenger sefvice is running on the client PC

From the client on which you expect to receive the message, do:

nbtstat -n

to see the list of NetBIOS names it has registered. Is there an entry for SANDISOR <03>?

NetBIOS Local Name Table

Name Type Status
---------------------------------------------
E8262ZD50187488<00> UNIQUE Registered
HBEU <00> GROUP Registered
E8262ZD50187488<20> UNIQUE Registered
E8262ZD50187488<03> UNIQUE Registered
E8262ZD50187488<52> UNIQUE Registered
SANDISOR <03> UNIQUE Registered
E8262ZD50187488<01> UNIQUE Registered
xRoberÂ¦.....5aÃ UNIQUE Registered

If the name has been registered, is that client on the same IP subnet as the Advanced Server?

IP addresses of ALphas are
129.94.185.45 and
129.94.185.46

If not, is WINS being used? If yes, it could be a WINS issue too (i.e., the client is using one WINs server while Advanced Server uses another and the 2 WINS servers aren't replicating).

WINS not being used on either server

HTH,

Re: ADMIN SEND over PATHWORKS

Brad McCusker — Wed, 18 Aug 2010 10:52:53 GMT

Are your 6.0C and 7.3B servers in the same subnet as sandisor?

If WINS is not being used on either server, then how is name resolution being performed? I suspect your V6.0C server is either using LMHOSTS file or DNS. Do ADMIN/CONFIG, choose Transports and compare your 6.0C server with the 7.3B server. Anything different?

You could try to use DEBUG in ADMIN to see if it gives you any clues. I doubt it will, I think ADMIN just does a "NetMessageSend" or something like that to the APISHR and lets the shareable do all the work. But give it a try on both the 6.0C and 7.3B servers and compare.

$ ADMIN
DOMAIN\\SERVER> DEBUG LOG /EVENT=(APIDATA,INFO,CMDSTATUS)/FILE=FOO.BAR

DOMAIN\\SERVER> EXIT
$ TYPE FOO.BAR

(do ADMIN DEBUG HELP to learn more about ADMIN's debug capability, especially if the above commands aren't working)

Brad McCusker
Software Concepts International
www.sciinc.com

Re: ADMIN SEND over PATHWORKS

robert70 — Wed, 18 Aug 2010 14:51:40 GMT

thanks brad,
the same subnet yes
running the admin/config - both same LMHOSTS and using TCPIP

output from admin commands:-
$ DAVE:SYSTEM> admin
BERTDOMAIN\\DAVE> debug log/event=(apidata,info,cmdstatus)/file=foo.bar
%PWRK-I-LOGOPENED, log file SYS$SYSROOT:[SYSMGR]FOO.BAR;1 opened

BERTDOMAIN\\DAVE> net send sandisor test
%PWRK-E-ERRSENMSG, error sending message for computer "SANDISOR"
-LM-E-NERR_NAMENOTFOU, the message alias could not be found on the network

BERTDOMAIN\\DAVE> exit
%PWRK-I-LOGCLOSED, log file SYS$SYSROOT:[SYSMGR]FOO.BAR;1 closed
$ DAVE:SYSTEM> type foo.bar
16:35:11 ML_LOG+180\ML_Log_OpenLog() Log file SYS$SYSROOT:[SYSMGR]FOO.BAR;1 init
ialized at 18-AUG-2010 16:35:11
16:35:11 MAN_DEBUG+530\Cmd_Debug_Log() Logging events mask = 0x1CA
16:35:11 ML_CLI+297\Cli_ParseCommand() Command completion status is: %SYSTEM-S-N
ORMAL, normal successful completion
16:35:25 MAN_NET+5752\CmdTransDispatch() Calling Cli_ParseCommand
16:35:25 ML_COMPUTER+2278\ML_Comp_GetServerInfo1() NetServerGetInfo(Server="\\DA
VE", Level=1)
16:35:25 ML_COMPUTER+2283\ML_Comp_GetServerInfo1() (S) ApiStatus=0 : %LM-S-NER
R_SUCCESS, normal successful completion
16:35:25 ML_ADMIN+1806\GetServerInfo() ServerName="DAVE" => "DAVE"
16:35:25 ML_ADMIN+1819\GetServerInfo() Local ADMIN user name is "Administrator"
16:35:25 ML_ADMIN+1229\SetAdminInfo() Temporary Administration Information:
16:35:25 ML_ADMIN+1229\SetAdminInfo() Domain="BERTDOMAIN"
16:35:25 ML_ADMIN+1229\SetAdminInfo() Server="DAVE", Alias="DAVE", Domain="BER
TDOMAIN", Version=4.0, Flags: VMS PDC PWRK
16:35:25 ML_ADMIN+1229\SetAdminInfo() Do priv checks: NO
16:35:25 ML_SEND+383\ML_Send_Msg() NetMessageBufferSend(Server="\\DAVE", Compute
r="SANDISOR")
16:35:29 ML_SEND+392\ML_Send_Msg() (F) ApiStatus=2273 : %LM-E-NERR_NAMENOTFOU,
the message alias could not be found on the network
16:35:29 ML_CLI+297\Cli_ParseCommand() Command completion status is: %PWRK-E-ERR
SENMSG, error sending message for computer "!AZ"
16:35:29 ML_CLI+297\Cli_ParseCommand() Command completion status is: %PWRK-E-ERR
SENMSG, error sending message for computer "!AZ"
16:35:35 ML_LOG+222\ML_Log_CloseLog() Log file SYS$SYSROOT:[SYSMGR]FOO.BAR;1 clo
sed at 18-AUG-2010 16:35:35
$ DAVE:SYSTEM>

any further ideas?

Re: ADMIN SEND over PATHWORKS

robert70 — Wed, 18 Aug 2010 14:55:18 GMT

when you said subnet - would the mask have to be the same? they are different

working server - 255.255.255.128
not working server:- 255.255.255.0

Re: ADMIN SEND over PATHWORKS

Brad McCusker — Wed, 18 Aug 2010 14:58:32 GMT

>both same LMHOSTS and using TCPIP

And, you checked the LMHOSTS file on both systems and the entry for sandisor is the same?

Re: ADMIN SEND over PATHWORKS

robert70 — Wed, 18 Aug 2010 15:03:29 GMT

odd? both lmhosts files empty?

Re: ADMIN SEND over PATHWORKS

Brad McCusker — Wed, 18 Aug 2010 15:16:08 GMT

Sorry, I skipped over the "same subnet" statement.

Try changing the mask to match, if you can do so easily - that sort of thing is not my area of expertise.

Next step in my mind would be wireshark to take a look at what's happening on the wire.

Re: ADMIN SEND over PATHWORKS

robert70 — Wed, 18 Aug 2010 15:20:07 GMT

ye ive tried changing to match subnet masks - net send still giving same error
what is wireshack?

Re: ADMIN SEND over PATHWORKS

robert70 — Wed, 18 Aug 2010 15:28:20 GMT

when i added my PC IP address and sandisor equivalent to the lmhosts files i get the net send to work

but this is definitely not the way it was working on the main server

we have 10 users here with PC's so I could simply add them all to the hosts file i suppose

Re: ADMIN SEND over PATHWORKS

Paul Nunez — Wed, 18 Aug 2010 15:42:25 GMT

Hi Robert,

In addition to the subnet mask, was the broadcast address changed accordingly?

If all systems are on the same subnet (same subnet mask and broadcast address) you should not need any lmhosts. entries.

HTH,

Paul

Re: ADMIN SEND over PATHWORKS

Paul Bakker — Fri, 20 Aug 2010 09:03:24 GMT

Robert,

The fact you are mentioning Pathworks V6.0C makes me think that this machine is perhaps configurred for other network transports.
Could it be that it is also configurred for NetBEUI and/or DECnet? If so then this could explain the difference in behaviour.
Fixing the problem using lmhost file shows that at IP level the client and the server are not in the same IP subnet. Configuring the clients and the server to use the same Wins server should also fix your problem. but for that you need to have a Wins server on your network.

Regards,

Paul Bakker