HPE GreenLake Administration
- Community Home
- >
- Servers and Operating Systems
- >
- Operating Systems
- >
- Operating System - HP-UX
- >
- Re: dmesg error: Failing bind request to disabled ...
Operating System - HP-UX
1834009
Members
3006
Online
110063
Solutions
Forums
Categories
Company
Local Language
back
Forums
Discussions
Forums
- Data Protection and Retention
- Entry Storage Systems
- Legacy
- Midrange and Enterprise Storage
- Storage Networking
- HPE Nimble Storage
Discussions
Forums
Discussions
Discussions
Discussions
Forums
Discussions
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
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
05-12-2005 03:15 AM
05-12-2005 03:15 AM
dmesg error: Failing bind request to disabled processor 2.
Dear All,
I was getting file table full error for that i had modified the kernel parameter nfile to 50% more. After the reboot i am getting the below error message in dmesg.
Please let me know why this occured. Is this related to the change in kernel parameter or some thing else?
It is a superdome partition and 2 CPU are being used for this partition.
mpc_kernel_bind (2): Failing bind request to disabled processor 2.
mpc_kernel_bind (2): for pid 1624 tid 1890 (sdci)
mpc_kernel_bind (2): Failing bind request to disabled processor 2.
mpc_kernel_bind (2): for pid 1624 tid 1890 (sdci)
mpc_kernel_bind (2): Failing bind request to disabled processor 2.
mpc_kernel_bind (2): for pid 1624 tid 1890 (sdci)
I was getting file table full error for that i had modified the kernel parameter nfile to 50% more. After the reboot i am getting the below error message in dmesg.
Please let me know why this occured. Is this related to the change in kernel parameter or some thing else?
It is a superdome partition and 2 CPU are being used for this partition.
mpc_kernel_bind (2): Failing bind request to disabled processor 2.
mpc_kernel_bind (2): for pid 1624 tid 1890 (sdci)
mpc_kernel_bind (2): Failing bind request to disabled processor 2.
mpc_kernel_bind (2): for pid 1624 tid 1890 (sdci)
mpc_kernel_bind (2): Failing bind request to disabled processor 2.
mpc_kernel_bind (2): for pid 1624 tid 1890 (sdci)
2 REPLIES 2
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
05-12-2005 07:05 AM
05-12-2005 07:05 AM
Re: dmesg error: Failing bind request to disabled processor 2.
Jagadesh,
I think may be processor 2 is in differed state . ie processor disabled .
Check Chasis logs in GSP.
Better log a support call with HP.
Thanks.
BL
I think may be processor 2 is in differed state . ie processor disabled .
Check Chasis logs in GSP.
Better log a support call with HP.
Thanks.
BL
Good things Just Got better (Plz,not stolen from advertisement -:) )
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
05-12-2005 07:59 AM
05-12-2005 07:59 AM
Re: dmesg error: Failing bind request to disabled processor 2.
For 11.11, this message was a known issue fixed originally in PHKL_24578 and PHKL_26405.
It probably has nothing to do with the nfile change, but everything to do with the reboot.
One of two things happened on this reboot.
a) Either, processor 2 failed self test and is now disabled.
b) Prior to the boot someone set up a process to be bound to CPU 2 without knowing that CPU 2 was not available on this machine.
If you don't think that you should have a processor disabled on this machine, then you may need to run diagnostics or look at the top of syslog.log to see how many CPUs you are running on after the boot versus how many you expect to be running on.
Best regards,
Kent M. Ostby
It probably has nothing to do with the nfile change, but everything to do with the reboot.
One of two things happened on this reboot.
a) Either, processor 2 failed self test and is now disabled.
b) Prior to the boot someone set up a process to be bound to CPU 2 without knowing that CPU 2 was not available on this machine.
If you don't think that you should have a processor disabled on this machine, then you may need to run diagnostics or look at the top of syslog.log to see how many CPUs you are running on after the boot versus how many you expect to be running on.
Best regards,
Kent M. Ostby
"Well, actually, she is a rocket scientist" -- Steve Martin in "Roxanne"
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.
Company
Events and news
Customer resources
© Copyright 2025 Hewlett Packard Enterprise Development LP