This is not a question, just a brief statement so other may save time (when I didn't).
One existing QlikView server that is about to be phased out (old QlikView server and old Windows server version).
New Windows server (2012 R2) with new QlikView server (April 2019 SR1).
1) I put all QV Service to Stop and put into Manual mode for old QlikView server.
2) I enter the license key on the new server (after installation and everything)
3) Without me knowing, the old QlikView server starts again (probably surveillance SW that discovered stopped services and then started them again).
4) During reboot, new QlikView server will no start, and terminates. Error message in Event viewer "CQvXmlInterfaceRequestHandler - Catch: errId(-500). Ino(-1). Fno(90)".
5) Debugging, re installation and all kinds of work leads nowhere, until I get notified that the old server is up and running again. Turning it off again and everything works fine...
I guess that this could happen once in a while that two server installations accidentally uses the same licenses. I would have hoped for a better error message than this (please Qlik), and this is the reason I write here for future use.
Patrik, the place you should have been looking for the error is in the QVS Event logs, as one of the environments should have been throwing a Cluster Join Denied message there, which would have immediately clued you into the fact you had too many nodes running and that likely would have triggered the thought about the old environment. Always be sure you check the QVS Event logs, and be sure the QVS logging is set to High verbosity in these cases too in order to get the maximum logging to provide clues. I just wanted to add this for future visitors.
To help users find verified answers, please do not forget to use the "Accept as Solution" button on any post(s) that helped you resolve your problem or question. I now work a compressed schedule, Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday, so those will be the days I will reply to any follow-up posts.
The QVS event log told exactly the same thing, but I did not have verbose logging on, thanks for the feedback. I would though still argue that Qlik could do better in providing better top level messages…