6.9 - BP Server - Strange behavior

[JorgeMartins]

Hello everyone.
Following a major issue that I previously detected (here) about user management in an Active Directory authentication environment, I detected two more minor issues.
1 - I followed the recommendations on how to install two environments (DEV and QA) on the same BP Server.
I have two services running (ports 8198 and 8197).

Apparently everything is fully functional.
However, when I connect to the DEV environment (second environment to be configured) the BP Server appears as "Missing / Connection lost".

But this is not true because, as you can see, I am connected to the machine where BP Server is running and the services are running (first image).
If I connect to the QA environment (first environment to be configured) the information will appear normal, just like in the production environment.

I am almost concluding that this is just wrong information and it's only visual because everything seems to be working ok.
Can anyone say if this conclusion is right?

2 - The second minor issue is also only visual and appears in the BPServer.exe -> Server Services tab -> Manage Permitions, or better, it doesn't appear! 🙂

But it's there! If I go to Edit I have everything that is needed.

I have a doubt if these issues are of version 6.9 or some particularity of the infrastructure where I am doing the installation and, in this case, whether anyone knows any workaround.

Thanks

------------------------------
Jorge Martins
------------------------------

[GopalBhaire]

Hi Jorge,

This is usually because your Runtime Resource is not connecting to the BP Server, you can try enabling "Start a personal Runtime Resource on the machine when users sign in to Blue Prism" in System Setting and check if no other connection is made.

------------------------------
Gopal Bhaire
Analyst
Accenture
------------------------------

[JorgeMartins]

Hello Gopal

With that option enable there is no additional connection.
I have the Application Server connected as a Runtime Resource, as it should.

Thanks

------------------------------
Jorge Martins
------------------------------

[JorgeMartins]

The good news is: Going back to the previous config and after removing that option ... it's normal now! 🙂

Thanks, was not a real problem but it's solved! 🙂

------------------------------
Jorge Martins
------------------------------

[JorgeMartins · Accepted solution]

Following @GopalBhaire tip here's how it worked for me for issue #1.
- On the Application Server go to System -> Settings
- Enabling "Start a personal Runtime Resource on the machine when users sign in to Blue Prism"
- Sign Out and Sign In again (no sure if it's needed but I did it)
- Go back to System -> Settings
- Disable "Start a personal Runtime Resource on the machine when users sign in to Blue Prism"
- And the ennoying red info is gone!

Thanks @GopalBhaire​

------------------------------
Jorge Martins
------------------------------

[Walter.Koller]

It is not mandatory to see BP server in Control. 
In Control only host names are shown that have been registered as runtime resources at least once. This normally happens when you open Blue Prism client (you can turn off this behavior in System tab). I assume you did the server installation and opened the client ON the server to finish the configuration. This starting of the client registered the app server as runtime resource in BP and therefore is shown in Control.
Since Blue Prism clients normally don't run on BP server, the normal state of the hosts in Control is 'missing'/'offline'. I change the server hosts to be retired in the resource management (System tab).
I assume you have two Blue Prism clients running on the app server (xxxx-RPAQ2). Starting the client also starts the background runtime resource. If you start the client twice, two runtime resources are started, both competing for the same local port.

------------------------------
Walter Koller
Solution Manager
Erste Group IT International GmbH
Europe/Vienna
------------------------------

[JorgeMartins]

@Walter Koller , you are 100% right for every statement you made witch match with the steps I've made or intended to do! 🙂
As I said in answer # 5 (I apologize, I changed the reference. It was about issue #1, not #2 as I said initially), I managed to make the supposed error disappear.

Thank you for confirming the steps I took in the configuration.

------------------------------
Jorge Martins
------------------------------