- Community Home
- >
- Servers and Operating Systems
- >
- Operating Systems
- >
- Operating System - HP-UX
- >
- difference between PA1.1 and PA2.0
Operating System - HP-UX
1754254
Members
3441
Online
108812
Solutions
Forums
Categories
Company
Local Language
юдл
back
Forums
Discussions
Forums
- Data Protection and Retention
- Entry Storage Systems
- Legacy
- Midrange and Enterprise Storage
- Storage Networking
- HPE Nimble Storage
Discussions
Discussions
Discussions
Forums
Forums
Discussions
юдл
back
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
- BladeSystem Infrastructure and Application Solutions
- Appliance Servers
- Alpha Servers
- BackOffice Products
- Internet Products
- HPE 9000 and HPE e3000 Servers
- Networking
- Netservers
- Secure OS Software for Linux
- Server Management (Insight Manager 7)
- Windows Server 2003
- Operating System - Tru64 Unix
- ProLiant Deployment and Provisioning
- Linux-Based Community / Regional
- Microsoft System Center Integration
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Blogs
Information
Community
Resources
Community Language
Language
Forums
Blogs
Topic Options
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Mark Topic as New
- Mark Topic as Read
- Float this Topic for Current User
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Printer Friendly Page
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО10-31-2006 06:04 PM
тАО10-31-2006 06:04 PM
difference between PA1.1 and PA2.0
Hello,
We are migrating our application from Oracle 9i to Oracle10g on HP-UX 11.11 ( 64 bit ).
Process involved in compiling and testing our server :
-We create our ODBC library file using OCI libraries (9i/10g).
-Server executable is created using that ODBC library.
-We will run the server and check if the server is up and running fine.
-We will send a request from client (on HP-3000) to connect to server (on HP-9000).
The problem that we are facing now is : after making the 10g server up and running, when we send a request through client, the server process is getting killed with the error "Pid 29789 killed due to trashed stack. Pid 29789 was killed due to failure in writing he signal context".
The OCI libraries that we use for linking are of PA-RISC1.1 and PA-RISC2.0.
libclient10.a: archive file -PA-RISC1.1 relocatable library
libclntst10.a: archive file -PA-RISC2.0 relocatable library
libnavhoa.a: archive file -PA-RISC2.0 relocatable library
libnnz10.a: archive file -PA-RISC2.0 relocatable library
The above libraries present under /opt/oracle/product/10.2.0/lib32. This error might occur if there is any 32bit and 64bit libraries combination used. Could you please confirm if this kind of combination(PA-RISC1.1 and PA-RISC2.0) is the cause for the above error or it is not related?
With Oracle9i, we are not facing any problem and also the libraries are of PA-RISC1.1.
Thanks in advance.
We are migrating our application from Oracle 9i to Oracle10g on HP-UX 11.11 ( 64 bit ).
Process involved in compiling and testing our server :
-We create our ODBC library file using OCI libraries (9i/10g).
-Server executable is created using that ODBC library.
-We will run the server and check if the server is up and running fine.
-We will send a request from client (on HP-3000) to connect to server (on HP-9000).
The problem that we are facing now is : after making the 10g server up and running, when we send a request through client, the server process is getting killed with the error "Pid 29789 killed due to trashed stack. Pid 29789 was killed due to failure in writing he signal context".
The OCI libraries that we use for linking are of PA-RISC1.1 and PA-RISC2.0.
libclient10.a: archive file -PA-RISC1.1 relocatable library
libclntst10.a: archive file -PA-RISC2.0 relocatable library
libnavhoa.a: archive file -PA-RISC2.0 relocatable library
libnnz10.a: archive file -PA-RISC2.0 relocatable library
The above libraries present under /opt/oracle/product/10.2.0/lib32. This error might occur if there is any 32bit and 64bit libraries combination used. Could you please confirm if this kind of combination(PA-RISC1.1 and PA-RISC2.0) is the cause for the above error or it is not related?
With Oracle9i, we are not facing any problem and also the libraries are of PA-RISC1.1.
Thanks in advance.
3 REPLIES 3
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО10-31-2006 07:49 PM
тАО10-31-2006 07:49 PM
Re: difference between PA1.1 and PA2.0
Sathis,
have you patched with the 11.11 equivalent of:
http://www4.itrc.hp.com/service/patch/patchDetail.do?patchid=PHKL_27282
which seems to be PHKL_27283, with recommended patch PHKL_28474 and most recent patch PHKL_34738
So I would install PHKL_28474 and retest.
Please also see:
http://forums1.itrc.hp.com/service/forums/helptips.do?#28
have you patched with the 11.11 equivalent of:
http://www4.itrc.hp.com/service/patch/patchDetail.do?patchid=PHKL_27282
which seems to be PHKL_27283, with recommended patch PHKL_28474 and most recent patch PHKL_34738
So I would install PHKL_28474 and retest.
Please also see:
http://forums1.itrc.hp.com/service/forums/helptips.do?#28
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО10-31-2006 09:04 PM
тАО10-31-2006 09:04 PM
Re: difference between PA1.1 and PA2.0
Hello Peter,
The patch PHKL_28474 is already been installed in our system. But the recent patch that you mentioned (PHKL_34738) is not installed on our system.
Thanks in advance.
The patch PHKL_28474 is already been installed in our system. But the recent patch that you mentioned (PHKL_34738) is not installed on our system.
Thanks in advance.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО11-02-2006 04:30 AM
тАО11-02-2006 04:30 AM
Re: difference between PA1.1 and PA2.0
PA 1.1 - 32-bit addressing (offset) only.
PA 2.0 - 32 or 64-bit addressing (offset).
One can mix _32-bit_ PA 1.1 and PA 2.0 - the resulting binary will only run on a PA 2.0 system, not a PA 1.1 system.
The tools (linker, loader, dynamic loader) will not permit one to mix 32-bit and 64 bit objects/libraries in the same running image (application).
I suspect that the mix of 1.1 and 2.0 is not related to your troubles. Likely as not you have exposed either a latent bug in your own code, or perhaps one in the Oracle libraries.
You might try running the server process under a debugger (eg wdb) and see just what signal it is receiving. Or, you could trace it with tusc. Perhaps it is receiving a SIGSEGV and things start to go downhill from there.
Big drift - _strictly_ speaking, PA 1.1 and PA 1.0 before it supported "64-bit virtual addressing" in that it had a 32-bit space id and 32-bit offsets. However, the only PA OS (IIRC) to take advantage of that was MPE/XL (later called MPE/iX). HP-UX used essentially a flat address space. PA 2.0 is _strictly_ speaking a 96-bit virtual addressing - the space id remains 32-bit, but the offset becomes 64-bit. However, since 99 times out of 10 we are just talking about the offset we say that PA 1.0 and 1.1 were "32-bit" and PA 2.0 "64-bit"
PA 2.0 - 32 or 64-bit addressing (offset).
One can mix _32-bit_ PA 1.1 and PA 2.0 - the resulting binary will only run on a PA 2.0 system, not a PA 1.1 system.
The tools (linker, loader, dynamic loader) will not permit one to mix 32-bit and 64 bit objects/libraries in the same running image (application).
I suspect that the mix of 1.1 and 2.0 is not related to your troubles. Likely as not you have exposed either a latent bug in your own code, or perhaps one in the Oracle libraries.
You might try running the server process under a debugger (eg wdb) and see just what signal it is receiving. Or, you could trace it with tusc. Perhaps it is receiving a SIGSEGV and things start to go downhill from there.
Big drift - _strictly_ speaking, PA 1.1 and PA 1.0 before it supported "64-bit virtual addressing" in that it had a 32-bit space id and 32-bit offsets. However, the only PA OS (IIRC) to take advantage of that was MPE/XL (later called MPE/iX). HP-UX used essentially a flat address space. PA 2.0 is _strictly_ speaking a 96-bit virtual addressing - the space id remains 32-bit, but the offset becomes 64-bit. However, since 99 times out of 10 we are just talking about the offset we say that PA 1.0 and 1.1 were "32-bit" and PA 2.0 "64-bit"
there is no rest for the wicked yet the virtuous have no pillows
The opinions expressed above are the personal opinions of the authors, not of Hewlett Packard Enterprise. By using this site, you accept the Terms of Use and Rules of Participation.
News and Events
Support
© Copyright 2024 Hewlett Packard Enterprise Development LP