|
I have a client that we just upgraded (actually replaced systems) from a 170 (V4R3) to a 270 (V5R1). We knew that Client Access would no longer be supported. They have one PC (along with other twinax devices) in a spot in a warehouse where running twisted pair will be an expensive pain (it has to be run 30+ feet up in the air and well past the 100 meter limit...) The PC is running Client Access for Win95/NT V3R2 using the NS Router. So we decided to test Client Access communicating with the new system before the conversion to see if it was necessary. Everything tested okay, so last Friday we did the conversion. This particular PC uses 5250 emulation, uploads, and downloads to the AS/400. It worked fine over the weekend and into Monday. But Monday/Tuesday they couldn't do the upload. When it attempted to upload the file the got "CWBLM0020 License Manager Software Error - 0003, 0037" But they didn't get this error when downloading or using the 5250 emulation. Now it does not matter what you are trying to do, it will not connect. What I observe now is that the NS Router connects just fine. I can see the twinax "place holder" device go active, the communications controller and device go active, and QACSOTP and QZSCSRVR jobs attach to the communication device briefly. It is when these jobs attach, and the Client Access portion is trying to connect, that the process fails with the CWBLM0020. I have tested with my user profile, with the same results. I have also changed the logging level for the QACSOTP and QZSCSRVR jobs and cannot find anything abnormal in their job logs. Essentially it says that it connected and then the job ends normally (ending code 0). IBM's KB article 23683628 essentially says that they told you that it might not work, so either use TCP/IP or install V4R5 (which they point out that they also do not recommend). As an aside, all other PC's that are still running Client Access, but are using TCP/IP to connect, are working just fine. Does anyone have any suggestions on how I might get this PC up and running again, or am I just going to have to tell them that I know it worked in the tests, but we're going to have to run twisted pair? TIA (a lot!) Chuck
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2024 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact [javascript protected email address].
Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.