- Community Home
- >
- Servers and Operating Systems
- >
- Operating Systems
- >
- Operating System - OpenVMS
- >
- Bugcheck 0000036c
Categories
Company
Local Language
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
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
Community
Resources
Forums
Blogs
- 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
07-22-2008 02:08 AM
07-22-2008 02:08 AM
I suspect that a file has gone bad.
A power cycle has already been done.
system parameters have not been changed since previous boot (2 years ago).
I tried minimal boot and it bugchecks too.
How to debug this bugcheck ?
Wim
PS Machine is not at my location.
Solved! Go to Solution.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
07-22-2008 02:11 AM
07-22-2008 02:11 AM
Re: Bugcheck 0000036c
Post it again.
Wim
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
07-22-2008 03:13 AM
07-22-2008 03:13 AM
Re: Bugcheck 0000036c
Jur.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
07-22-2008 04:00 AM
07-22-2008 04:00 AM
Re: Bugcheck 0000036c
Then I verified the disk with anal/dis/read/repair. No errors at all.
Did anal/rms of sysinit.exe. No errors.
Tried booting it again from disk. Bugcheck.
Strange.
Wim
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
07-22-2008 04:14 AM
07-22-2008 04:14 AM
Re: Bugcheck 0000036c
%EXECINIT-E-LOADERR, error loading SYS$FILES_64.EXE, status = 00000910
%EXECINIT-I-LOADING, loading SYS$XFS_CLIENT.EXE
%EXECINIT-E-LOADERR, error loading SYS$XFS_CLIENT.EXE, status = 00000910
%EXECINIT-I-LOADING, loading SYS$XFS_SERVER.EXE
%EXECINIT-E-LOADERR, error loading SYS$XFS_SERVER.EXE, status = 00000910
%EXECINIT-I-LOADING, loading SYS$LFS.EXE
%EXECINIT-E-LOADERR, error loading SYS$LFS.EXE, status = 00000910
These files don't exist on my other systems too.
Wim
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
07-22-2008 04:29 AM
07-22-2008 04:29 AM
Re: Bugcheck 0000036c
Wim
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
07-22-2008 04:53 AM
07-22-2008 04:53 AM
Re: Bugcheck 0000036c
I also defragmented the disk before reusing it. No problems while defragmenting.
Wim
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
07-22-2008 05:50 AM
07-22-2008 05:50 AM
Re: Bugcheck 0000036c
Wim
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
07-22-2008 06:53 AM
07-22-2008 06:53 AM
Re: Bugcheck 0000036c
V7.3? ECO it or (better) upgrade to V7.3-2 and ECO it. Chasing old bugs and particularly chasing old and fixed bugs is a waste of time. I'd slam in a replacement copy of OpenVMS Alpha onto this disk.
Do check the system battery for this box; the boot year is 1858. That can cause various weirdness, though I've not specifically seen it trigger a crash.
Those files listed as 00000910 errors are very likely the remnants of an old Spiralog installation, and that product should have been deinstalled several releases ago. I'd *guess* that a series of 00000910/FNF references are not the proximate trigger for the error, though stranger things have happened. See if a combination of SYS_LOADABLE REMOVE on the Spiralog images and invoking SYS$UPDATE:VMS$SYSTEM_IMAGES.COM cleans up that part of the diagnostic display. (The diagnostic bootstrap might point at the specific file.)
As for another approach toward troubleshooting, enable boot time diagnostics via R5 (30000, IIRC), and look to clear out the Spiralog loadable images via the LOAD_SYS_IMAGES parameter.
But then, the best approach with what is very clearly a somewhat questionable system disk that's not being used for anything other than as a quorum node is to slam new V7.3-2 bits onto the disk, load the current ECOs, slam CLUSTER_AUTHORIZE.DAT and VOTES and EXPECTED_VOTES from values expected for the the cluster, and see if that fixes this case.
I have to ask what you expect to gain by debug this. Not to be sarcastic or cynical or such here; I've simply found that there are cases when the knowledge and the value that might be provided from troubleshooting a bugcheck is worth zero. And it costs. Analyzing a crashdump is the software equivalent of troubleshooting hardware. There are cases where that approach is valuable, and there are cases when it is better to swap out the gear with the more current gear. But for this "quorum host" box, new bits (ECOs and/or upgrades) seem an easy and efficient and expeditious diagnostic.
Stephen Hoffman
HoffmanLabs LLC
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
07-22-2008 06:58 AM
07-22-2008 06:58 AM
Re: Bugcheck 0000036c
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
07-22-2008 07:01 AM
07-22-2008 07:01 AM
Re: Bugcheck 0000036c
Upgrade is not allowed. Nothing installed since 2003 !!
Wim
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
07-22-2008 07:08 AM
07-22-2008 07:08 AM
Re: Bugcheck 0000036c
Show exec in ana/cra shows that all images were loaded (compared with a crash where the node exited the cluster after some uptime).
Wim
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
07-22-2008 07:39 AM
07-22-2008 07:39 AM
Re: Bugcheck 0000036c
You've caught yourself very firmly in the enterprise trap, eh? Okfine. The more firmly a business gets itself stuck in that particular trap, the more it tends to cost the business. TANSTAAFL, as Mr Heinlein posited, applies here.
[[[ Nothing installed since 2003 !!]]]
Respectfully, um, so? Latent bugs have shown up after twenty or even thirty years, and all hardware eventually goes weird. There are PROCGONE bugcheck fixes around for V7.3 (I found one ECO listing a case where a directory appears to erroneously go walkabout), and for later releases.
Roll in your last good backup, or your post V7.3 install disk image. Or roll in a fresh installation of V7.3, and ECO to current. (That gets rid of all traces of Spiralog, too.)
Or pay somebody to get this bugcheck resolved within the site-local rules. The perceived savings and the safety of not upgrading -- the enterprise trap -- eventually do start to incur costs.
And check that battery. Those can and do fail, and an AlphaStation 400 (if that's what is in use here; I don't recall a 400 MHz variant) is certainly within the range for those failures; that box is easily old enough.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
07-26-2008 01:45 AM
07-26-2008 01:45 AM
Re: Bugcheck 0000036c
a successfull boot looks like this (from a V6.2-1H3 system with -fl 0,30000):
...
%SWAPPER-I-CREPRC, creating the SYSINIT process
%SWAPPER-I-MAINLOOP, entering SWAPPER main loop
%SYSINIT-I-START, SYSINIT process execution begins
%SYSINIT-I-UNLOAD, unloading EXEC_INIT
%SYSINIT-I-AUDIT, initializing security auditing
%SYSINIT-I-LOAD, loading RMS.EXE
%SYSINIT-I-LOAD, loading RECOVERY_UNIT_SERVICES.EXE
%SYSINIT-I-LOAD, loading DDIF$RMS_EXTENSION.EXE
%SYSINIT-I-LOAD, loading SYSMSG.EXE
%SYSINIT-I-ALTLOAD, loading site specific execlets
%SYSINIT-I-TIME, setting the system time
%SYSINIT-I-CLUSTER, cluster/lock manager initialization
%SYSINIT-I-DEFINE, defining system logical names
%SYSINIT-I-INIT, initializing the XQP
%SYSINIT-I-MOUNT, mounting the system disk
%SYSINIT-I-TIME, setting the system time
%SYSINIT-I-FILCACHE, deallocating the primitive file cache
%SYSINIT-I-DEFINE, defining SYS$TOPSYS
%SYSINIT-I-OPEN, marking system files open
%SYSINIT-I-CREPRC, creating the STARTUP process
%SYSINIT-I-FINISH, SYSINIT process execution completed
...
In your PROCGONE crash R0=00000910 = %SYSTEM-W-NOSUCHFILE must indicate, that SYSINIT failed to start. Look for all images required for SYSINIT.EXE to start and see if they all exist and can be successfully accessed:
From $ ANAL/IMA SYSINIT.EXE
...
Shareable Image List
0) "DECC$SHR"
1) "LIBRTL"
2) "LIBOTS"
3) "SYS$BASE_IMAGE"
4) "SYS$PUBLIC_VECTORS"
Volker.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
07-26-2008 01:59 AM
07-26-2008 01:59 AM
Re: Bugcheck 0000036c
the current process name is SYSINIT and there is no image name. This may the symptom of an image activation problem !
Look at the Image Activator Scratch Area in the dump.
SDA> clue proc/lay
...
Image Activator Scratch Area 00000000.xxxxxxxxx 00000000.7FFD1800 00001000
...
SDA> exa xxxxxxxx;1000
do you see a filename in the ASCII dump ?
Does that file exist ?
Volker.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
07-27-2008 10:26 PM
07-27-2008 10:26 PM
Re: Bugcheck 0000036c
I still have the old disk but can't play with it in boots. A backup copy to the new disk gave no errors during backup but during the verification of the backup (/ver) about 20 parity errors were given. None of them on exe files (mostly cde files). The boot of the copy resulted in the same crash. We recreated the OS on the new disk from scratch.
Volker,
The address exa shows multiple file names.
See enclosure. All exe files you mentioned existed.
Wim
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
07-27-2008 10:58 PM
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
07-27-2008 11:44 PM
07-27-2008 11:44 PM
Re: Bugcheck 0000036c
Last week I compared all files present with those on another system and discovered 1 file different. I should have compared all exe files.
Are these files the reason ? I found cms$tis_shr in the sda enclosure too.
Wim
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
07-28-2008 12:29 AM
07-28-2008 12:29 AM
Re: Bugcheck 0000036c
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
07-28-2008 02:41 AM
07-28-2008 02:41 AM
Re: Bugcheck 0000036c
I just learned that there is a toolset called VOIT on the V8 freeware CDs. It contains the tool SHMTL, which diagnoses and prints the shareable image list for a given image and it's dependant shareable images. Much easier than multiple invocations of ANAL/IMAGE...
Volker.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
07-28-2008 02:43 AM
07-28-2008 02:43 AM
Re: Bugcheck 0000036c
correction: the tool is called SHIML
Volker.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
07-28-2008 03:01 AM
07-28-2008 03:01 AM
Re: Bugcheck 0000036c
Thanks Volker
Wim
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
07-28-2008 07:57 AM
07-28-2008 07:57 AM
Re: Bugcheck 0000036c
Seems like a reasonable enhancement for supportability.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
07-28-2008 09:36 PM
07-28-2008 09:36 PM
Re: Bugcheck 0000036c
But on all sys$library was still complete.
Wim
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
07-29-2008 05:14 AM
07-29-2008 05:14 AM
Re: Bugcheck 0000036c
We used it and reboot was not stopped !
Wim