Error Installing RRDI 2.0.0.1
When we are on the "Configure Application Server Profile" page of the RRDI 2.0 install we are getting an error that the WebSphere installation directory and the HTTP port cannot be validated (CRRRA0063E). The CRRRA0205E error that we are also getting is saying that the architecture is different between Websphere and RRDI. Looking at the View Installed Packages, they are both listed as 32 bit so this does not make sense to me. Has anyone seen this error before or know how to fix it?
One answer
Hi James,
To confirm the architecture between RRDI and WebSphere matches, can you:
1) From the <WASInstallDir]\bin directory, run the following command:
.\versionInfo.bat
Near the end of its output, look for the "Architecture" property in the "Installed Product" section. What value do you see?
2) Start > All Programs > IBM Installation Manager > View Installed Packages
Look for the "Program Group Architecture" property for IBM Rational Reporting. What value do you see?
They should both report the same bit level (32 or 64).
Regards,
Ali
To confirm the architecture between RRDI and WebSphere matches, can you:
1) From the <WASInstallDir]\bin directory, run the following command:
.\versionInfo.bat
Near the end of its output, look for the "Architecture" property in the "Installed Product" section. What value do you see?
2) Start > All Programs > IBM Installation Manager > View Installed Packages
Look for the "Program Group Architecture" property for IBM Rational Reporting. What value do you see?
They should both report the same bit level (32 or 64).
Regards,
Ali
Comments
Ali,
The architecture property is stating 64 bit and the installed packages (for both Websphere and RRDI) are stating 32 bit. Why would there be a difference in these two screens? We were given the 32 bit link for Websphere but should we have been given the 64 bit download for Websphere? We're on a 64 bit machine.
James
Hi James - I believe this is a known issue (limitation?) whereby Installation Manager does not accurately report the correct "bit-level" for WAS. The -versionInfo.bat file, however, does accurately report the correct "bit-level".
This mismatch is probably the source of your errors.
Regards,
Ali