1250737 - SMMS: Trace file dev_ms could not be opened

[Former Member]

Hi All,

"1250737 - SMMS: Trace file dev_ms could not be opened"

I have this error in smms on a CRM 7.0 W2k8 Failover Cluster, but the snote does not apply due to the version. Everything works, so I think it's not Security related.

Could you please help me in finding the root cause for the above error.

Thanks,

Rudolf

[Former Member]

Hi,

Have you tried to increase the trace level (TX smms) ?

if yes revert.

Regards,

Chetan.

[Former Member]

Hi Chetan,

according to smms (goto/Trace level/increase, decrease) it seems, that he trace level could be changed in every combination where CI/DI/ASCS are running (see investigations below):

But by chance I found the following (1.):

1. If only DI is started I can read the dev_ms via smms, when ASCS was on the "DI"-Node -> neither (I)* nor (II)*

- Moving ASCS to the "CI"-Node, ms_dev was not found -> (II)*

*Compared with Note 1250737:

(I) using CI -> dev_ms could not be opened (due to M in CI "dev_ms on C":)

(II) using Application-Server not on the "ASCS-Node" -> dev_ms not found (absolute Path used instead of share)

2. If only CI was started, dev_ms could not be opened, regardless where the ASCS is running -> (I)

3. Both Application-Server running and ASCS on "CI"-Node:

- logged on DI for smms trying reading dev_ms via DI -> dev_ms not found (II)

(logged on DI for smms trying reading dev_ms via CI -> dev_ms not found (II))

- logged on CI for smms trying reading dev_ms via DI -> dev_ms could not be opened (I)

(logged on CI for smms trying reading dev_ms via CI -> dev_ms could not be opened (I))

4. Both Application-Server running and ASCS on "DI"-Node:

- logged on DI for smms trying reading dev_ms via DI -> dev_ms could not be opened (?)

(logged on DI for smms trying reading dev_ms via CI -> dev_ms could not be opened (?))

- logged on CI for smms trying reading dev_ms via DI -> dev_ms could not be opened (I)

(logged on CI for smms trying reading dev_ms via CI -> dev_ms could not be opened (I))

I don't know if it's really related to note 125073, maybe it has something to do with access violation: why is (1.) working, and (4.) not?

Thank you very much for your effort

Regards

Rudolf