We've run into a snag with cpdb, and were wondering if you'd seen it before.
We've been moving databases to a newer box the past few days, and have had no problems until this morning, when something cropped up for reasons I can't explain.
We run cpdb like so from the destination box, while on the source machine we run cpdb alone, with no params:
cpdb -g /database/mydb/tbldoc -h ntmachine -r f:\
\database\\mydb\\tbldoc -t tbldoc -v
As of this morning, we're returned to the Unix prompt immediately, with no error message onscreen. Previously, the prompt would return only when the copy had completed.
If we run the same command again, we get a message stating "000 bind: Address already in use in the function ezserversock", which makes sense, as the previous cpdb command is still running in the background, although it isn't copying anything over. If we kill that instance of cpdb we can run the original command again, with the original result-- immediate return to the shell prompt and no error.
Have you seen this before? Anything we should be looking for in a logfile, perhaps? Thanks for the help.
We've been moving databases to a newer box the past few days, and have had no problems until this morning, when something cropped up for reasons I can't explain.
We run cpdb like so from the destination box, while on the source machine we run cpdb alone, with no params:
cpdb -g /database/mydb/tbldoc -h ntmachine -r f:\
\database\\mydb\\tbldoc -t tbldoc -v
As of this morning, we're returned to the Unix prompt immediately, with no error message onscreen. Previously, the prompt would return only when the copy had completed.
If we run the same command again, we get a message stating "000 bind: Address already in use in the function ezserversock", which makes sense, as the previous cpdb command is still running in the background, although it isn't copying anything over. If we kill that instance of cpdb we can run the original command again, with the original result-- immediate return to the shell prompt and no error.
Have you seen this before? Anything we should be looking for in a logfile, perhaps? Thanks for the help.
