1 INFO-VAX	Mon, 09 Jul 2001	Volume 2001 : Issue 377       Contents: Re: 4 mm tape drive  Re: A little weekend humour  Re: A little weekend humour  Re: Alpha 2100A blue screen :-(  Re: Alpha 2100A blue screen :-( H Anyone from c.o.v. going to Storage Days in Colorado Springs next month?* Re: Capellas admits move anti-competitive?* Re: Capellas admits move anti-competitive?* Re: Capellas admits move anti-competitive?> Computer Rooms and big UPSes: I need some electrical advice...B Re: Computer Rooms and big UPSes: I need some electrical advice...B Re: Computer Rooms and big UPSes: I need some electrical advice...0 DSNlink_NEW : Problem connecting to DSNlink host4 Re: DSNlink_NEW : Problem connecting to DSNlink host Re: Experience with EMC storage  Re: Experience with EMC storage  Re: Experience with EMC storage  Re: Experience with EMC storage  Re: FUD  Re: FUD ! Re: H-P EOLs PA-RISC Architecture  Re: IA64 Rocks My World  Re: IA64 Rocks My World ! IA64 volume and low-end dominance % Re: IA64 volume and low-end dominance = Re: If you operate VMS systems, what really are your choices? , Re: network clustering - multiple interfaces- Re: Porting VMS (was Itanium, non-issue, ...)  Re: POSTs via SSL to Apache 
 Re: Rdb troll 1 Re: Some thoughts on the recent turn of events... 1 Re: Some thoughts on the recent turn of events... 1 Re: The death of VMS has been greatly exaggerated   F ----------------------------------------------------------------------  % Date: Sun, 08 Jul 2001 22:22:57 -0600  From: yyyc186@mindspring.com Subject: Re: 4 mm tape drive; Message-ID: <3b4931cb$3$lllp186$mr2ice@nntp.mindspring.com>   2 In <9hv428$af2$1@news1.kornet.net>, on 07/04/2001 6    at 10:02 PM, "David Lee" <phongle@kornet.net> said:  I Generally this indicates the tape drive knows it has a problem.  At least H that is what it indicates in every other model I have owned.  Time for a
 service swap.    Roland  J >Does anyone know how to to reset the tape drive on an ES40?  The busy andJ >status light indicator is on even though there is no tape in it.  I triedI >to insert the tape in but it won't take it.  It seemed like the latch is  >not release or somehow.   >Any idieas! >Thanks      --  ; -----------------------------------------------------------  yyyc186@mindspring.com; -----------------------------------------------------------    ------------------------------  # Date: Sun, 08 Jul 2001 17:57:32 GMT 4 From: "Terry C. Shannon" <terryshannon@mediaone.net>$ Subject: Re: A little weekend humour< Message-ID: <ga127.1124$vb6.1546310@typhoon.ne.mediaone.net>  7 "Dave McDonald" <browser@acenet.co.za> wrote in message ' news:9i8tvv$ilu$1@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net...  > Hear hear, brother.  > B > Many of us outside the US can only shake our heads in wonder andC > bewilderment at the inability or unwillingness of so many to take H > responsibility for their own actions or mistakes or stupidity, and the ease4 > with which they make vast sums of money out of it. >  > Dave McDonald  > Johannesburg > ! > (Did I hear a whisper "troll"?)   L Could be one o' those nasty little critters that lurks under a bridge, but a/ fact nonetheless. In America, VICTIMHOOD RULES!   A Don't let VMS become a victim: tell your ISVs to port their apps!    ------------------------------  $ Date: Sun, 8 Jul 2001 14:30:50 -0400' From: "Bill Todd" <billtodd@foo.mv.com> $ Subject: Re: A little weekend humour( Message-ID: <9ia8lj$qtm$1@pyrite.mv.net>  ? "Terry C. Shannon" <terryshannon@mediaone.net> wrote in message 6 news:ga127.1124$vb6.1546310@typhoon.ne.mediaone.net...   ...   C > Don't let VMS become a victim: tell your ISVs to port their apps!   L Rather:  Don't let VMS become a victim:  tell your *vendor* to support it or get stuffed.   - bill   ------------------------------  $ Date: Sun, 8 Jul 2001 17:13:12 -0400) From: "Neil Rieck" <n.rieck@sympatico.ca> ( Subject: Re: Alpha 2100A blue screen :-(9 Message-ID: <hZ327.1488$gb6.495326@news20.bellglobal.com>   > "Jason O'Donnell" <jason_odonnell@erinet.com> wrote in message7 news:5c8ffd05.0107070831.70f2fe58@posting.google.com...  > All, > F > I recently acquired an Alpha 2100A.  I ran into a problem booting it > up.  Description:  > G > The OPC shows the CPUs as having one pass and one fail.  I pulled the : > failed CPU card and moved the good one to the CPU0 slot. > C > It seems to run through the OPC fine and get to the "Model 4/275" F > printout.  At this point the system should be turned over to the OS. > H > However, the console I have attached shows nothing but blue screen.  IG > tried a VGA monitor, mouse and keyboard set, then I tried a simple VT  > terminal.  Nothing.  > ? > My next thought is to reload the firmware.  The owners manual H > (downloaded from Compaq) shows the FSL dipswitches.  However, I cannotB > find them or even jumpers instead.  ARGH.  So, I cannot find theD > overwrite switch.  Could the board be newer and not have a switch? > E > Any suggestions about what may be wrong and how I can check for it?  >  > Thanks in advance! >  > JMOD  6 If someone has executed the following console command:    SET CONSOLE SERIAL K then output from the booting OS will be redirected to the serial port where  you connect your VT terminal. % Typing the following console command:     SET CONSOLE GRAPHICS 9 will allow you to see the whole boot on your VGA monitor.   H BTW, what OS are you booting? I recently acquired an Alpha-2100 that wasK being used to boot Digital-UNIX. I scratched the system drive and installed K OpenVMS by booting the distribution CD-ROM (b dka500 in my case). After the K installation of OpenVMS, the machine would not boot from the updated drive. J I discovered the reason for this was that default BOOTFLAGS was set to "A"7 for UNIX but needed to be changed to "0,0" for OpenVMS.   I I'm new to Alpha-2100 machines so I'll check my 2100 console tomorrow and J update this posting if I discover anything else that may be of use to you.    
 Neil Rieck Kitchener/Waterloo/Cambridge,  Ontario, Canada.! http://www3.sympatico.ca/n.rieck/ @ http://www3.sympatico.ca/n.rieck/links/compaq_memorial_site.html   ------------------------------   Date: 8 Jul 2001 18:07:23 -0700 1 From: jason_odonnell@erinet.com (Jason O'Donnell) ( Subject: Re: Alpha 2100A blue screen :-(= Message-ID: <5c8ffd05.0107081707.50f36fb6@posting.google.com>    Neil,   E Thanks for your response!  I do not know what the prior OS was.  I am < going to ask the company from which it was acquired for more information.  D However, nothing is showing up on the terminal or monitor.  I am notD getting the ">>>" or anything.  I am experienced with AdministrationB (UNIX and OpenVMS).  But, I think this kind of problem is probablyE firmware or hardware.  Something, with which I have less experience.  E I am hoping that it is firmware as that should be fixable.  Or, maybe C it is something else entirely, and hopefully one of you all have an  idea.    JMOD   ------------------------------  # Date: Sun, 08 Jul 2001 18:28:01 GMT $ From: Scott Vieth <svieth@wi.rr.com>Q Subject: Anyone from c.o.v. going to Storage Days in Colorado Springs next month? ) Message-ID: <3B48A6CA.7A2B1EF9@wi.rr.com>   E It's only a month away!  I'm already getting excited about seeing the  new storage toys.   F I'll be in Boston the week before for the IDX National User ConferenceD if anyone wants to hunt me down and talk system stuff over a beer or six.  
 -Scott :^)   ------------------------------  % Date: Sun, 08 Jul 2001 21:43:22 -0600  From: yyyc186@mindspring.com3 Subject: Re: Capellas admits move anti-competitive? ; Message-ID: <3b492f41$2$lllp186$mr2ice@nntp.mindspring.com>   2 In <3B3FB586.A45D654D@bigfoot.com>, on 07/01/2001 8    at 07:43 PM, Hamlyn Mootoo <univms@bigfoot.com> said:  J Basically, GQ Bob has been on Mickey's payroll ever since he took the helmI of steering DEC straight into the ground.  This was a deliberate criminal D action taken with mallice of forethought.  Even as he was committingF mail/wire fraud hosting interviews and spouting how he was turning DECD around he was in negotiations to sell the entire company to Compaq. G Shareholders were given absolutely NO knowledge of this when he started D doing it week one of his tenure.  This was a blatant criminal action# directed by the Billy Goat himself.   J The current criminal master plan is to whore off enough of Compaq that theG Billy Goat can now consume it.  Why does he want it?  So he can put the H same resource working on generating new and unique Blue Screens of DeathI into "improving" VMS.  He wants to remove the two platforms which are the B epitamy of being correctly done and reliable.  But he can't....YouG see....VMS is a protected computer species....ceasing development of it J while it is still under contract with DOD and other government agencies isD an act of treason.  Doing it gets you a trip to prison, and possiblyF hanging.  (Been so long since someone was killed for an act of treasonJ that the "acceptable methods" haven't been updated.)  Add to this the factF __none__ of the evil billy gates's OS's (if you commit enough fraud to* call them that) enjoy the same protection.  I So, the evil billy gates has two options.  Option 1) put in place a patsy G which will take the fall  ala GQ Oswald or 2)  Consume the company, put G your "crack" Windows 2k development team (you know, the ones that still I haven't figured out how to do clustering) and let them "improve" each new D release of VMS such that it is more wretched and grotesque than yourI average .Even MS release.  This will force the DOD into either taking the D OS in house, or porting to your new "prefferred" platform.  He has aH little problem here though...none of his "prefferred" platforms can passH any of the reliability tests.  And the 40Billion dollar Yorktown !@#$ upI (which I don't think has left drydock since being found dead in the water C some number of years ago) isn't lending any creedence to his cause.   4 That's my analysis given MS's prior battle tacticts.   Roland     >mulp wrote:M >> Those aren't the relevant issues.  The questions are 1) whether the merger M >> of businesses tends to create a monopoly where one didn't previously exist   G >This is a matter for possibly the SEC and/or FTC.  I don't believe its G >actionable (I was responding to the query about whether  "good" lawyer G >could make something of it), and if it is, what would be your cause of  >action in a civil suit?  F >> and 2) whether it violates the terms of an agreement between the USK >> government, Digital, and Intel, that Compaq then ratified to ensure that 4 >> Alpha remains an independent competitor to Intel.  # >What agreement?  Please elaborate.    >>  N >> The latter required that Compaq find two foundaries for Alpha besides IntelA >> and that there be at least one independent holder of Alpha IP.  --  ; -----------------------------------------------------------  yyyc186@mindspring.com; -----------------------------------------------------------    ------------------------------  # Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2001 04:15:02 GMT 4 From: "Terry C. Shannon" <terryshannon@mediaone.net>3 Subject: Re: Capellas admits move anti-competitive? < Message-ID: <ada27.8466$Pf6.3253689@typhoon.ne.mediaone.net>  ) <yyyc186@mindspring.com> wrote in message 5 news:3b492f41$2$lllp186$mr2ice@nntp.mindspring.com... 3 > In <3B3FB586.A45D654D@bigfoot.com>, on 07/01/2001 : >    at 07:43 PM, Hamlyn Mootoo <univms@bigfoot.com> said: > L > Basically, GQ Bob has been on Mickey's payroll ever since he took the helmK > of steering DEC straight into the ground.  This was a deliberate criminal F > action taken with mallice of forethought.  Even as he was committingH > mail/wire fraud hosting interviews and spouting how he was turning DECE > around he was in negotiations to sell the entire company to Compaq. I > Shareholders were given absolutely NO knowledge of this when he started F > doing it week one of his tenure.  This was a blatant criminal action% > directed by the Billy Goat himself.  > L > The current criminal master plan is to whore off enough of Compaq that theI > Billy Goat can now consume it.  Why does he want it?  So he can put the J > same resource working on generating new and unique Blue Screens of DeathK > into "improving" VMS.  He wants to remove the two platforms which are the D > epitamy of being correctly done and reliable.  But he can't....YouI > see....VMS is a protected computer species....ceasing development of it L > while it is still under contract with DOD and other government agencies isF > an act of treason.  Doing it gets you a trip to prison, and possiblyH > hanging.  (Been so long since someone was killed for an act of treasonL > that the "acceptable methods" haven't been updated.)  Add to this the factH > __none__ of the evil billy gates's OS's (if you commit enough fraud to, > call them that) enjoy the same protection. > K > So, the evil billy gates has two options.  Option 1) put in place a patsy I > which will take the fall  ala GQ Oswald or 2)  Consume the company, put I > your "crack" Windows 2k development team (you know, the ones that still K > haven't figured out how to do clustering) and let them "improve" each new F > release of VMS such that it is more wretched and grotesque than yourK > average .Even MS release.  This will force the DOD into either taking the F > OS in house, or porting to your new "prefferred" platform.  He has aJ > little problem here though...none of his "prefferred" platforms can passJ > any of the reliability tests.  And the 40Billion dollar Yorktown !@#$ upK > (which I don't think has left drydock since being found dead in the water E > some number of years ago) isn't lending any creedence to his cause.  > 6 > That's my analysis given MS's prior battle tacticts. >  > Roland  K Microsoft's influence at Compaq is fading. Oracle is ascendent. Recall that L Microsoft never got access to the VMS goodies it wanted (cluster file systemI for NT, etc) yet Oracle got the TruCluster IP for Oracle9i RAC. Note that I Compaq's new best friend Oracle participated in the June 25 announcement. ' Nary a reference was made to Microsoft.   H Compaq's IPF-Inside strategy is bad juju for Gates and Win2K Datacenter.J With the demise of Alpha and MIPS, Intel gets three proven enterprise OSesF to run on IPF. The not-ready-for-prime-time Win2K Datacenter faces newI competition in the IPF space, and market share dominance is by no means a B sure thing. And Microsoft's ability to influence Intel is directly proportional to market share.    ------------------------------  $ Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2001 00:46:34 -0400' From: "Bill Todd" <billtodd@foo.mv.com> 3 Subject: Re: Capellas admits move anti-competitive? ( Message-ID: <9ibcnt$qsn$1@pyrite.mv.net>  ? "Terry C. Shannon" <terryshannon@mediaone.net> wrote in message 6 news:ada27.8466$Pf6.3253689@typhoon.ne.mediaone.net...   ...   H > Microsoft's influence at Compaq is fading. Oracle is ascendent. Recall thatG > Microsoft never got access to the VMS goodies it wanted (cluster file  system > for NT  I My recollection is that Microsoft did indeed get the joint VMS/NT cluster J file system DEC had been developing - I think the date was September, 1998K (just after the acquisition).  However, since it was a shared-disk-oriented C file system, Microsoft wasn't interested in doing anything with it.   C , etc) yet Oracle got the TruCluster IP for Oracle9i RAC. Note that K > Compaq's new best friend Oracle participated in the June 25 announcement. ) > Nary a reference was made to Microsoft.  > J > Compaq's IPF-Inside strategy is bad juju for Gates and Win2K Datacenter.L > With the demise of Alpha and MIPS, Intel gets three proven enterprise OSesH > to run on IPF. The not-ready-for-prime-time Win2K Datacenter faces new > competition in the IPF space,   J Somehow I suspect Win2KDC is more concerned about shorter-term competitionL from other 64-bit hardwaresoftware platforms and from Linux, *BSD, and HP/UXL (I forget whether IBM will sell AIX on IA64 and don't know if SCO is still aJ competitor) on IA64 than it's concerned about possible competition on IA64G from Tru64 2 years out, from VMS 3 years out, and from NSK 4 years out.   ,  and market share dominance is by no means a
 > sure thing.M  @ Sure isn't - not much more, or less, than it is for IA64 itself.   - bill   ------------------------------  # Date: Sun, 08 Jul 2001 19:24:17 GMT1$ From: Scott Vieth <svieth@wi.rr.com>G Subject: Computer Rooms and big UPSes: I need some electrical advice...r) Message-ID: <3B48B3FA.B8DCDE6E@wi.rr.com>a   All:  F I'm doing some planning regarding our current UPS capacity and how big? the next one should be.  We currently have a 75kVA Liebert unit C servicing our computer room.  The LCD panel on the front says it islF running at 55%.  I'm trying to determine how much equipment we can addG to the computer room before we hit 80% (a ceiling that we determined onl	 our own).r  G We hired an electrician to come in with an ammeter to measure the powereB consumption of some of our "typical" equipment racks.  I have someG questions on how to interpret these numbers so I need someone from thiseD group with an electrical background to help me out.  The electricianF measured the current by tracing the circuits back to the breaker panelD and putting the ammeter lead around the wire going directly into the breaker.  = 1) We had an SW800 full of HSJ50s and disks plugged-in with a.G three-phase connection.  The electrician measured an average current ontG phase 1 (I1) of 3.6A, an average current on phase 2 (I2) of 5.9A and annD average current on phase 3 (I3) of 6.7A.  Considering that this is aE "three-phase 208V" setup, what is the power consumption of that rack? A Is it (3.6A + 5.9A + 6.7A) * 208V?  Or is it the highest of thosejG values, 6.7A, multiplied by 208V?  (Everything in the SW800 was pluggedd into one PDU).  G 2) I've got an ESA1200 (two PDUs inside) which uses a NEMA L6-20P plug.L@ That means two hot leads and a ground (I think).  The electricanG measured 3.2A on I1 and 3.4A on I2.  This is for PDU number one in thateH rack.  The other PDU had these figures: 3.4A on I1 and 3.3A on I2.  WhatH is the total power consumption for that rack?  Is it (3.2A + 3.4A + 3.4A- + 3.3A) * 208V or is it (3.2A + 3.4A) * 208V?   C 3) When the electrician was trying to explain this stuff to me, the.C square root of three came up a few times in different calculations.a? Where does the square root of three come from when dealing with-B electrical power?  Is it because the UPS is outputting three-phaseF power?  He said that the max capacity of our UPS is (75000 VA)/(208V *A sqrt(3)) or right around 208 Amps at 208 Volts.  Is this correct?e  H 4) Bonus round:  If the UPS has a capacity of 75kVA AND the meter on theG front says we're at 55% AND we don't want to go over 80%, then how muchsD juice do we have left in our current setup?  Is it 208A (number fromG previous question) multiplied by (80%-55%)?  That would be (208A * 25%)s$ = 52 Amps at 208V.  Is that correct?  E 5) Is there a "power distribution for dummies" page on the web that Ii5 could read to bring myself up to speed on this stuff?d  E 6) What is the difference between "watts" and "VA"?  Why aren't UPSesa rated in watts?o  D I reeeally wish I would have paid more attention when I was studyingA E.E. for three semesters in college before I switched to Computern Science.  Ha ha ha!!   Thanks,R  
 -Scott :^)   ------------------------------  " Date: Sun, 8 Jul 2001 20:53:19 GMT( From: Terry Kennedy <terry@gate.tmk.com>K Subject: Re: Computer Rooms and big UPSes: I need some electrical advice...:' Message-ID: <GG6A0v.Hzx@spcuna.spc.edu>a  & Scott Vieth <svieth@wi.rr.com> writes:I > We hired an electrician to come in with an ammeter to measure the power6D > consumption of some of our "typical" equipment racks.  I have someI > questions on how to interpret these numbers so I need someone from this F > group with an electrical background to help me out.  The electricianH > measured the current by tracing the circuits back to the breaker panelF > and putting the ammeter lead around the wire going directly into the
 > breaker.  G   Note that there's a pretty large margin of error in those gizmos, buteF it is the only way to non-intrusively determine the load on individual	 circuits.@  ? > 1) We had an SW800 full of HSJ50s and disks plugged-in with a2I > three-phase connection.  The electrician measured an average current on I > phase 1 (I1) of 3.6A, an average current on phase 2 (I2) of 5.9A and anUF > average current on phase 3 (I3) of 6.7A.  Considering that this is aG > "three-phase 208V" setup, what is the power consumption of that rack?iC > Is it (3.6A + 5.9A + 6.7A) * 208V?  Or is it the highest of thosenI > values, 6.7A, multiplied by 208V?  (Everything in the SW800 was pluggedo > into one PDU).  D   Your UPS is almost certainly configured as "three phase wye" which looks like this:     Phase "A"  Phase "B"        o       o         \     /m          \   /
           \ / #            O-------- ground/neutrale            |            |            |            o        Phase "C"  G   Between any one phase leg and the neutral, you have 120V. Between anyhD 2 phase legs, you have 208V, and with all 3 phase legs you have 208V 3-phase.  G   For various reasons you want to have approximately equal loads on allEG 3 phases. In a perfect world, if all 3 phases were exactly equal, therelE would be no current flowing in the neutral lead. However, reality in-oE trudes. Something called "harmonic current" causes additional current 6 in the neutral. APC has a useful tech note on it here:T http://sturgeon.apcc.com/technotes.nsf/For+External/3DAACE92398278AE85256A5C007A1436  C   Secondly, most UPS configurations won't achive their rated outputtE unless the phase legs are relatively balanced. Many UPS installationstF have current metering for all 3 phase legs, the neutral, and sometimesC the ground leg, either as part of the UPS or in add-on distributionn panels.b  D   Back to your original question. It is each of the loads multiplied by 120V, added together.  I > 2) I've got an ESA1200 (two PDUs inside) which uses a NEMA L6-20P plug.uB > That means two hot leads and a ground (I think).  The electricanI > measured 3.2A on I1 and 3.4A on I2.  This is for PDU number one in thateJ > rack.  The other PDU had these figures: 3.4A on I1 and 3.3A on I2.  WhatJ > is the total power consumption for that rack?  Is it (3.2A + 3.4A + 3.4A/ > + 3.3A) * 208V or is it (3.2A + 3.4A) * 208V?e  D   This is what I was saying about the variation in readings on thoseE clamp-on ammeters. You're correct about the L6-20 - the 3rd pin is a  E ground wire, and it is not permissible to draw current through it fortD normal operation (in other words, you can't use a L6-20 to power twoE independent 120V loads, only a single 208V or 240V load). Thus, "whataF goes out must come back" - the current on each of the 2 hot leads must
 be identical.a  E > 3) When the electrician was trying to explain this stuff to me, thetE > square root of three came up a few times in different calculations. A > Where does the square root of three come from when dealing withDD > electrical power?  Is it because the UPS is outputting three-phaseH > power?  He said that the max capacity of our UPS is (75000 VA)/(208V *C > sqrt(3)) or right around 208 Amps at 208 Volts.  Is this correct?4  H   Most US residential power is 120V/240V nominal, supplied from a single9 center-tapped transformer on the utility pole, like this:B        o--/\/\--o--/\/\--o      |        |        |      |        |        |     "Y"       |       "Z"                |          neutral/ground  J   You get 120V between Y and neutral, 120V between Z and neutral, and 240VL between Y and Z. Y and Z add 100% because they are 180 degrees out of phase.  J   3-phase power is very different, with the 3 hot leads 120 degrees out ofJ phase. Because they aren't 180 degrees out of phase, 120 + 120 doesn't addJ up to 240, but only to 208. Don't worry about the math, as long as you re-/ member that 120 + 120 = 208 on 3-phase systems.t  J > 4) Bonus round:  If the UPS has a capacity of 75kVA AND the meter on theI > front says we're at 55% AND we don't want to go over 80%, then how mucheF > juice do we have left in our current setup?  Is it 208A (number fromI > previous question) multiplied by (80%-55%)?  That would be (208A * 25%) & > = 52 Amps at 208V.  Is that correct?  H   It gets more complicated than this due to power factor issues. See the2 answer to your question #6 below for more details.  F   Assuming this is a typical 3-phase UPS which wants identical loadingF on each phase leg, the number for each leg is 25KVA. Each leg is 120V,E so you're looking at about 200A per leg total capacity. Use the front"E panel meter (or high-current clamp-on meter at the UPS's main output)bF to see what current you're pulling on each leg. Since the display saysF 55% load, I'd expect to see about 110A on each leg (or at least on theD leg with the heaviest load). if you want to go to 80%, you could run' each leg (or the heaviest leg) to 160A.r  C   This completly handwaves over the stuff I mention in #6 regardingrC power factor, etc. - but if we assume the UPS is honestly reportingdA its load, taking power factor into consideration, you can use theiB numbers you get (measured load of 55%, calculated at 110A/leg) andE de-rate them to arrive at useful numbers (for loads comprised of sim-c% ilar equipment to what you now have).l  D   One thing you haven't mentioned is what sort of batteries you haveF in this unit and whether it is front-ending a backup power source likeD a generator. Increasing the load will decrease the run time, often aC lot more than you think. Your UPS manual should have graphs of loadrD vs. runtime, and it would be wise to study them in detail to see if - your proposed load leaves you enough runtime.   G > 5) Is there a "power distribution for dummies" page on the web that Ia7 > could read to bring myself up to speed on this stuff?d  F   Perhaps. You might find some of the other pieces of the APC web page> useful, and maybe your UPS vendor has some literature as well.  G > 6) What is the difference between "watts" and "VA"?  Why aren't UPSese > rated in watts?d  H   Glib answer: because then most UPS' would look as wimpy as they really are.  I   Seriously, VA is a simple formula - Volts * Amps. You get a nice numbertJ which is easy to derive and mostly useless for sizing purposes. VA = WattsE applies only for things like pure resistive loads (light bulbs, spaceeE heaters, and so forth). Since we're talking AC power which has a sinewK waveform, power supplies can do whatever they want to use it. Early switch-aF mode power supplies drew power only during some parts of the waveform.  C   Per the APC tech note I referenced above, this has caused concern D among the power companies and transmission equipment providers, and E much of the newer equipment is "power factor corrected". However, UPSAF manufacturers still tend to rate their equipment with VA = 1.4x Watts.  D   For plug-and-cord-connected UPS equipment, there is another reasonB they do this - NEC and UL requirements state that any given deviceA can only pull approximately 80% of the current allowed by a givenaD circuit. So you'll often see notes saying "for loads above 5KVA this( unit must be hardwired" (on a 6KVA UPS).  4         Terry Kennedy             http://www.tmk.com2         terry@tmk.com             New York, NY USA   ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2001 00:19:28 -0400i( From: Hamlyn Mootoo <univms@bigfoot.com>K Subject: Re: Computer Rooms and big UPSes: I need some electrical advice...s+ Message-ID: <3B4930D0.5E0656D5@bigfoot.com>k  F Keep in mind that if you plan to run at 80%, that this is steady-stateD load.  Should you lose power, and drain your batteries to zero, whenH power does come back on again (you might not be there when it does), theG current draw will be higher due to disk drives motors (non-linear load)aE drawing more power during startup.  Although storageworks controllers C sequence startup of the disk drives, if you have enough independent D cabinets in the room, the instantaneous draw could trip the Liebert.   HM   Scott Vieth wrote: >  > All: > H > I'm doing some planning regarding our current UPS capacity and how bigA > the next one should be.  We currently have a 75kVA Liebert uniteE > servicing our computer room.  The LCD panel on the front says it is H > running at 55%.  I'm trying to determine how much equipment we can addI > to the computer room before we hit 80% (a ceiling that we determined one > our own).  > I > We hired an electrician to come in with an ammeter to measure the powernD > consumption of some of our "typical" equipment racks.  I have someI > questions on how to interpret these numbers so I need someone from this F > group with an electrical background to help me out.  The electricianH > measured the current by tracing the circuits back to the breaker panelF > and putting the ammeter lead around the wire going directly into the
 > breaker. > ? > 1) We had an SW800 full of HSJ50s and disks plugged-in with asI > three-phase connection.  The electrician measured an average current onlI > phase 1 (I1) of 3.6A, an average current on phase 2 (I2) of 5.9A and aneF > average current on phase 3 (I3) of 6.7A.  Considering that this is aG > "three-phase 208V" setup, what is the power consumption of that rack?sC > Is it (3.6A + 5.9A + 6.7A) * 208V?  Or is it the highest of thoseTI > values, 6.7A, multiplied by 208V?  (Everything in the SW800 was pluggedo > into one PDU). > I > 2) I've got an ESA1200 (two PDUs inside) which uses a NEMA L6-20P plug.dB > That means two hot leads and a ground (I think).  The electricanI > measured 3.2A on I1 and 3.4A on I2.  This is for PDU number one in that J > rack.  The other PDU had these figures: 3.4A on I1 and 3.3A on I2.  WhatJ > is the total power consumption for that rack?  Is it (3.2A + 3.4A + 3.4A/ > + 3.3A) * 208V or is it (3.2A + 3.4A) * 208V?  > E > 3) When the electrician was trying to explain this stuff to me, the E > square root of three came up a few times in different calculations.yA > Where does the square root of three come from when dealing withqD > electrical power?  Is it because the UPS is outputting three-phaseH > power?  He said that the max capacity of our UPS is (75000 VA)/(208V *C > sqrt(3)) or right around 208 Amps at 208 Volts.  Is this correct?a > J > 4) Bonus round:  If the UPS has a capacity of 75kVA AND the meter on theI > front says we're at 55% AND we don't want to go over 80%, then how much F > juice do we have left in our current setup?  Is it 208A (number fromI > previous question) multiplied by (80%-55%)?  That would be (208A * 25%)-& > = 52 Amps at 208V.  Is that correct? > G > 5) Is there a "power distribution for dummies" page on the web that I:7 > could read to bring myself up to speed on this stuff?  > G > 6) What is the difference between "watts" and "VA"?  Why aren't UPSes> > rated in watts?  > F > I reeeally wish I would have paid more attention when I was studyingC > E.E. for three semesters in college before I switched to Computer  > Science.  Ha ha ha!! > 	 > Thanks,  >  > -Scott :^)   ------------------------------  $ Date: Sun, 8 Jul 2001 21:46:05 +0200> From: "Jean-Francois Marchal" <jean-francois.marchal@x9000.fr>9 Subject: DSNlink_NEW : Problem connecting to DSNlink hoste. Message-ID: <9iad7e$asj$1@reader1.imaginet.fr>  1 Here is the error mail from a DSNlink_NEW sessione, It's the first time I'm trying to use it ...( What can be wrong in the configuration ?  8 Establishing connection to DSNlink host - please wait... Checking license.2 Checking authorization.a= Establishing ITS connection to domain digital at node cscevt.t4 ITS session successfully established to node cscevt.1 Welcome to DSNLINK Interactive Text Search (ITS). " For a list of commands, type help. Opening ECO_MUP_CERT...i done. 3 There is no title list current. Use the LS command.s3 There is no title list current. Use the LS command. 2 This its session has been inactive for 15 minutes.6 Closing down the network connection to DSNlink host... Press Return to exit. B %DCL-W-SKPDAT, image data (records not beginning with "$") ignored _____ ? Message sent by DSNlink_NEW version V5.8 on node SX9071, using:4I Config file: X9000$ETC:[OpenVMS.Kits.dsnlink_new]DSNLINK_NEW_CONFIG.dat;4e Mail group: $ERROR$b& Since: 1-JUN-2001 (Friday, 1-JUN-2001)H History: DISK$SX9070_USR1:[X9000.ETC.OPENVMS.KITS.DSNLINK_NEW]DSNLINK_NEE Log file: DSA2:[X9000.ETC.][OPENVMS.KITS.DSNLINK_NEW]DSNLINK_NEW.LOG;m. Total connect time: 00:15:18, 0 reconnections.   Cheers Jean-Franois Marchalo X9000 - LYON (FR)e   ------------------------------   Date: 8 Jul 2001 23:20:41 +0200 * From: eplan@kapsch.net (Peter LANGSTOEGER)= Subject: Re: DSNlink_NEW : Problem connecting to DSNlink host7* Message-ID: <3b48cea9$1@news.kapsch.co.at>  o In article <9iad7e$asj$1@reader1.imaginet.fr>, "Jean-Francois Marchal" <jean-francois.marchal@x9000.fr> writes:d2 >Here is the error mail from a DSNlink_NEW session- >It's the first time I'm trying to use it ...a) >What can be wrong in the configuration ?   7 I don't know. I face the same problem since 1-Jul-2001.uH But since our support contract ended on 30-Jun-2001, I blamed it on that( and stopped the DSNLINK_NEW jobs at all.  K Based on your info I just checked DSIN by hand, and ITS is still accessible  for me (thanks Q for that ;-)e  D Seems that the remote end changed something (I think we use the sameG remote end here in good old europe). So better contact your service guyg yourself, just to be sure...   -- n< Peter "EPLAN" LANGSTOEGER           Tel.    +43 1 81111-2651; Network and OpenVMS system manager  Fax.    +43 1 81111-888n< <<< KAPSCH AG  Wagenseilgasse 1     E-mail  eplan@kapsch.netH A-1121 VIENNA  AUSTRIA              "I'm not a pessimist, I'm a realist"   ------------------------------  % Date: Sun, 08 Jul 2001 15:54:16 -0500 1 From: "David J. Dachtera" <djesys.nospam@fsi.net>h( Subject: Re: Experience with EMC storage' Message-ID: <3B48C878.920FAF58@fsi.net>i   Scott Vieth wrote: > - > I believe this will do what you require....i > : >  http://www.compaq.com/products/sanworks/sanmgt/scs.html   From that page:n    ; Q4: Which array controllers are supported by this solution?d8 A4: Command Scripter supports the following Compaq array     controllers:       - HSG60A     - HSG800     - HSZ703     - HSZ80   E Note that lack of HSJ support. There's still a *LOT* of CI out there, E more common than SCSI or FC/SF and they're likely to remain CI for assC long as those systems remain in service, before being replaced with  BillyBoxes. Same with DSSI.u   Close, but no cigar.   -- p David J. Dachterai dba DJE Systemsp http://www.djesys.com/  : Unofficial Affordable OpenVMS Home Page and Message Board: http://www.djesys.com/vms/soho/r  F This *IS* an OpenVMS-related newsgroup. So, a certain bias in postings is to be expected.  @ Feel free to exercise your rights of free speech and expression.  F However, attacks against individual posters, or groups of posters, are strongly discouraged.o   ------------------------------   Date: 8 Jul 2001 18:06:26 -0500h+ From: young_r@encompasserve.org (Rob Young)n( Subject: Re: Experience with EMC storage3 Message-ID: <3WCXpv4pivJj@eisner.encompasserve.org>e  V In article <3B46358B.926ACF9D@bigfoot.com>, Hamlyn Mootoo <univms@bigfoot.com> writes: >  >  > Bart Zorn wrote: >> e= >> It is kind of hard to believe. A positive story about EMC.sJ >> However, the part about the pre-sales rituals make me a bit suspicious. >> -O >> Still, for me as a consultant, I find it it hard to recommend EMC. The pricet > J > Well I went to the web site of the company that (I assume) you work for,I > and it seems that the two disk storage vendors clearly touted there aresH > Compaq and MTI (didn't even know they were still in business).  UnlikeE > you I am an INDEPENDENT consultant.  I do not sell EMC or Compaq orpH > anything.  I do not make my money on vigs from vendors.  EMC is a hugeH > purchase and a major investment.  If a company is considering EMC withG > it's high price, usually it's for a reason.  StorageWorks works quitebJ > well for certain companies who do not need the very powerful features of > an EMC array.t >   ; 	Give us a single advantage that EMC has over StorageWorks.r> 	By example.  This is worthy of a very vigorouos public debate: 	as there is a whole lot of smoke around this issue and no 	fire whatsoever!!!    > E > What do you mean by "doubtful implementation"?  Are you saying thatuI > caching doesn't work, or that EMC caching doesn't work? Please explain.hI > Oh, by the way.  Have you actually implemented/used [an] EMC array? YousC                    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^   ( 	Yes, hence the question from above. :-)  I > spoke about it from a distance, so I'm assuming that you have no directi > experience with one. >> hN >> I still am looking forward to both positive and negative stories about EMC. >> s  = 	I have both, which do you want?  And no, I will not trot out"@ 	anything here in public.  The Evil Machine has *VERY* big ears, 	Just ask Lyndon ;-)   				Rob/   ------------------------------   Date: 8 Jul 2001 18:15:56 -0500 + From: young_r@encompasserve.org (Rob Young)n( Subject: Re: Experience with EMC storage3 Message-ID: <NeAO+3EeOsr4@eisner.encompasserve.org>e  O In article <3B489706.77AD920@wi.rr.com>, Scott Vieth <svieth@wi.rr.com> writes:e >  >  > Koloth wrote:s > G >> 3) Does having the cached mirrored and the external batteries on thenF >> Compaq's HSG80 make it reliable enough to just use controller based0 >> mirroring versus host based volume shadowing? > K > I don't quite see the relationship between HBVS and mirrored cache in theo > controllers....s > M > The mirrored-cache only comes into play when you enable write-back caching.aG > You can run controller-based mirrors without having writeback cachinge
 > enabled. >   = 	Think so?  Try this as an experiment.  Tell your HSJ/HSZ/HSG > 	that it is using battery backup (not UPS) and then unplug the: 	battery such that it is showing a failed battery when you> 	run FMU.... now try creating a mirrorset.  Can't do it?  Why?G 	Because unbeknowst to the enduser, Raid1 on HSJ/HSZ/HSG uses writeback @ 	cache even when set to writethrough, or so I have been told andA 	yes I did have opporunity to perform the above experiment and no E 	you can't create a controller based mirrorset with failed batteries.s   				Rob1   ------------------------------   Date: 9 Jul 2001 00:35:48 -0500k+ From: young_r@encompasserve.org (Rob Young)V( Subject: Re: Experience with EMC storage3 Message-ID: <vboehnXQccBX@eisner.encompasserve.org>   V In article <3B45AA0B.7BFDE069@bigfoot.com>, Hamlyn Mootoo <univms@bigfoot.com> writes:F > Do you plan to use two, using SRDF to synchronize data with a backupG > data center? To me, disaster tolerance is one of the best features of F > the EMC boxes; that and BCV's which allow you great flexibility, and > save backup time.  e  < 	You wouldn't want SRDF as it makes absolutely no sense with= 	VMS.  SRDF is for broken/brain-dead OSes.  I think there may A 	be only one of those left, but I haven't done a complete survey.  	 = 	What you would do of course is use VMS volume shadowing withD 	your Symmetrixes.      7 > Unless you buy all of the software tools for managingeG > the EMC boxes, be prepared to feel a little "out of it", as there areoA > some operations EMC will want to do themselves (such as initialUG > configuration) and certain reconfigs.  Other than that, if you've gottJ > the $,$$$,$$$ to spend, then I would go for it.  To me, EMC is the RollsI > Royce of RAID.  Also on most EMC arrays there are GIGAbytes of cache in H > front of the actual disks, making these suckers FAST.  The last time IE > worked with them (a few years ago), they were just discussing fibreY5 > channel support, so I imagine they have that now.  s  ? 	They've had it for quite a while, various platforms of course.e   	[snip the grinder info]   				Robt   ------------------------------  $ Date: Sun, 8 Jul 2001 14:35:41 -0400' From: "Bill Todd" <billtodd@foo.mv.com>s Subject: Re: FUD( Message-ID: <9ia8uo$qul$1@pyrite.mv.net>  K I just received email from some religious nut who said he'd been willing to F follow the discussion right up to the point where I said "For Christ'sI sake..." - now *there's* a rational basis for disagreement on the issues.   J Given the degree of priority Balkanization by VMS's adherents, it's hardlyI surprising that Compaq believes it can get away with just about anything:dK everyone feels their own pet concerns are comparable in importance to VMS's E existing core markets, and won't support initial solutions that don'tc
 include them.e  < "Jordan Henderson" <jordan@lisa.gemair.com> wrote in message$ news:9i9vuc$plg$1@lisa.gemair.com...J > In article <9i8org$r7t$1@pyrite.mv.net>, Bill Todd <billtodd@foo.mv.com> wrote:   ...S  K > The market has changed substantially since IBM gained market dominance inpH > the late 60's with the 360 architecture.  This particular architecture5 > has mindshare due to long incumbency and stability.t  K Stability that has included absolute upward-compatibility in its evolution.tC VMS hasn't had that, but DEC made more credible efforts to ease the E VAX-to-Alpha transition (at a time when a major evolutionary step wasgK clearly required) than Compaq appears willing to make for the Alpha-to-IA64 D transition (a step which appears to be at least a sideways and quite possibly a backward one).p  K And with even a modicum of effort, VMS could have a very similar quality of'J mindshare:  it's been around about 2/3 as long as the 360 architecture hasL been and retains a great deal of respect (especially among those who seem to think it died years ago...).     Something unlikelyE > to be duplicated with any other entry in the market except possibly L > IA-32/64 (note that I include AMD here as they offer IA-32 compatibility). >nK > Even so, IBM has been working hard to maintain and renew the architectureeI > with Linux and Java initiatives.  Still, there has been a definite, but J > slow decline in the market share for this architecture for 20 years that > doesn't appear to be abating.o  K And *when* the market no longer supports the architecture in a way that can H be fixed by evolution, IBM will undoubtedly take steps to begin retiringK it - in close consultation with their customers.  Until then, they're still , actively developing and growing the product.   >cJ > Note that IBM abandoned their own, niche CICS architecture for AS400 forK > the commoditized Power architecture based AS400 systems and those systemsa > are doing quite well.   J And note that they maintained binary compatibility throughout that process6 such that all customers ever saw was smooth evolution.   >pF > >I'm afraid as long as there's reason to believe that a major market distinctK > >from the low-end desktop market will continue to exist, I don't see muchnG > >threat of marginalization in ignoring that desktop market.  You needcL > >inexpensive development systems, but DS10s handle that, even if somethingB > >about half their price would be nicer.  And lacking IA32 binaryD > >compatibility (which FX!32 never seemed to make up for) any otherD > >architecture (or OS) just isn't going to crack the Wintel desktop monopolyI > >at this late date (or any time in the recent past) - with the possiblehJ > >exception of Linux (whose attractions are not those a commercial vendor can  > >emulate). > >  > H > Fielding a lot of systems, particularly in the NT space, which is whatF > I was proposing, would have been the good way to establish a desktopJ > presence for Alpha.  The availability of these systems would have helped# > to establish Alpha/Linux as well.4  F Establishing Alpha/Linux as the 64-bit Linux platform-of-choice was anJ option until two weeks ago:  it *already was* the 64-bit Linux platform ofJ choice.  And it was still competitive with NT in the low-end server space.  K But those aren't the same as the desktop market - and while it sounds as ifnL you may be agreeing with this, your talk about applications and vigorous ISV  development suggested otherwise.  K I have no problem with the idea that low-end Alpha systems should exist:  IaJ think that's desirable.  But to suggest that Compaq could have establishedL them as a credible alternative without first demonstrating its commitment toE Alpha's core markets (that provide most of the profit that would havee+ allowed the platform to continue) is silly.t   >oE > Of course, this is all "coulda, woulda, shoulda" and who knows whatiH > really might have been?  A company that was willing to take real risks< > to push Alpha forward would have done something like this.  @ As an adjunct that could later be pursued aggressively if at all) well-received, but not as its first move.h     As it was,G > you still had to get past a small lecture about what Alpha representsrI > and why you would want Alpha (rather than commodity processors or otherrC > RISC offerings) to even get onto the RADAR of IT decision makers.n  F IT decision-makers are not the group you address with low-end productsF (unless they're Wintel-based):  they're the ones you reach by fielding rock-solid complete solutions.     HadiF > there been a significant number of fielded, inexpensive NT and LinuxD > machines running some kind of Alpha you wouldn't have this hurdle.  G Yes, you would.  In fact, if Alpha were known primarily for its low-endtJ offerings, it would have possibly made things worse in the market segments that are actually profitable.s     ITF > decision makers would know that Alpha is that processor architectureH > that runs apples-to-apples in commodity machines and has a big brother% > that has world beating performance.o  C As I said before, DEC lost the opportunity to make its own hardwareI@ 'commodity' in nature at least a decade ago.  Macs aren't even a 'commodity'.   >e >f > >>@ > >> This is why IBM/Motorola has cultivated the Macintosh Power > >> Architecture. > >(J > >I don't really see how that makes Power less 'marginalized' than Alpha: theeE > >Mac itself is on the margin compared with IA32 desktops.  And youre exampletJ > >of Solaris below also represents a situation where the resulting system maytI > >be inexpensive but the fact that it's running an OS that's well out oft theSA > >low-end Windows mainstream leaves the result marginal as well.  > >r >SJ > IT decision makers realize that IBM and Motorola have more investment inK > the Power architecture and Apple marketing keeps impressing on those sameN1 > people that it is a viable and power processor.e  J Yeah.  Right.  Let's hear from some of those 'IT decision makers' directly9 about how impressed they are by this when they make theirmJ mid-range-to-high-end decisions.  And about how they choose Macs for their
 low-end uses.?  H I don't know why I bother with this:  you're clearly in never-never-landJ with no intention of coming back.  OTOH, I'd hate to leave people with theL impression that lack of low-end initiatives might be why Alpha died when theD reason is so clearly attributable to Compaq's negligence (or worse).   >dB > What Sun has done with Solaris/x86 and their IA-64 ports is moreD > subtle, but it's along the same lines.  IT decision makers believeF > that Sun is a company that will make sure that their brand and theirC > flagship OS will be available in the future through highly public:$ > moves such as the IA-64 port, etc.  C That's a bit more credible.  Note, however, that Sun did this as an L *adjunct* to its core architecture rather than as a replacement for it - andH that it continues to place its emphasis on SPARC products.  I'd have hadI little but praise had Compaq done anything like the same thing (includingi. bringing its marketing up to Sun's standards).     Java everywhere has a lote? > to do with this strategy.  It's pushing mid-range and up, butK@ > maintaining a credible presence on the low end.  Something CPQ > had abandoned for Alpha.  G Sun is doing exactly what I've been suggesting Compaq should have done: B *first* establish a credible presence in the areas of its (and itsL products') core competencies, and *then* make modest forays into the low endH to see what may develop there.  Java is less a low-end-specific strategyL than a counter to MS distributed dominance via DCOM (since CORBA didn't seem) to be doing this effectively on its own).p   >.2 > >  This is why Sun kept alive Solaris on x86 and= > >> demonstrated IA-64 Solaris _over a year ago_ and why SunD> > >> attempted to put Sparc in a lot of embedded applications.C > >> It's why HP has been working with Intel on IA-64 for a decade.mA > >> It's why MIPS positioned the R4000 as the most popular videoa > >> game controller.  > >(L > >AFAICT, the only benefit higher-end MIPS products get from this is a more > >viable parent corporation.G > >E >  > Mindshare.  K Do you really believe that any significant percentage of people *know* whatk+ processor is inside their game controllers?e  7   MIPS could brag that they had the most fielded 64 bitc > system in the world.  H And just look how successful this has made them in the enterprise space.  -   This strategy needed an IT counterpart, but A > it certainly didn't _hurt_ the R4000 that these were in so manyu > homes. > D > >In sum, I see the marginalization argument as mostly theoretical: possibleJ > >in the abstract, but without much practical evidence of there being any real > >issue there.a > >i > D > I would agree that it's somewhat speculative about what could have@ > been.  It would have been bold, and boldness is _exactly_ whatC > Alpha needed, not more glossy brochures, roadmaps and eye-glazing. > presentations.  J I haven't been promoting those:  I've been promoting *effective* marketingD on a *significant* scale - as Compaq does for its PC-based products.  K Of course, as evidenced by the announcement two weeks ago, Compaq's idea ofp< 'bold' is sloughing off yet another asset in favor of Intel.   ...u  K > >It's not yet clear how Intel will obtain the higher processor margins ittI > >says its wants with IA64 if it's going to sell it into the lowest-end,8J > >highest-volume market (ignoring the reportedly poor performance of IA32> > >applications on IA64, which will be a real issue for years. > >t > H > Perhaps.  I think eventually you'll see a little-brother line of IA-64L > (and AMD-64) and a high-end line of IA-64 systems too.  The little-brotherL > implementations will piggy back on your development of high end, offerringF > last generation clock speeds and reduced cache hierarchies, but with. > associated lower margins and higher volumes.  I Then again, that's what Intel tried with Celeron, and wound up giving AMDd2 the boost it needed to become a lot more credible.  H Hard to tell what the future holds, but it's also entirely possible thatL with a vigorous Alpha presence plus AMD's ability to offer upward-compatibleD IA32 -> 64-bit migration IA64 would have had difficulty gaining wide. acceptance at all, eliminating such questions.   >f > >>C > >> DEC needed a low end strategy to get Alpha into a lot of handscF > >> and into a lot of applications.  Not doing this sealed it's fate, > >> ultimately. > >-J > >Alpha's fate was sealed solely by Compaq's deciding to drop it:  it hadK > >major profit potential since before Compaq acquired it, and continues toDI > >have it for *at least* several more years (under the worst assumptions@ about.I > >IA64's eventual inevitable dominance; under other assumptions, Alpha's:  > >future has no obvious limit). > >eE > >It didn't need anything more than it already had in the low end tos achievem; > >that potential, just an owner that wanted it to succeed.a > >  >dI > I dunno.  I think it was already marginalized.  What do you run on your K > Alphas?  Tru64, OpenVMS and Linux?  Tru64 continues to lose market share.k  L I'm pretty sure it was gaining market share until two weeks ago.  In fact, IK think it's been gaining, albeit slowly, for a long time.  A major reason itII took so long was because DEC jerked its Unix customer base around so much K with transitions from Ultrix to the OSF-based software and from VAX to MIPSyK to Alpha hardware (gee, I wonder if something similar might happen to VMS'sa acceptance).  G > OpenVMS might be holding it's market share or losing very slowly, butuF > it continues to lose ISV support, which can't bode well.  OpenVMS isF > similar to S/360, mindshare through incumbency and a slow decline inG > a customer base that is reluctant to introduce instability into their K > shops.  Some possibilities existed for Alpha/Linux, but only if you could D > get cheap commodity hardware into the hands of the hordes of Linux
 > developers.e  J It's really hard to see how you can justify a statement like the one aboveI given that Alpha was *already* the 64-bit darling of the Linux community.^L And Compaq wasn't the lowest-cost source of that hardware:  API was, and forJ many the price was quite right (though lower is always at least marginally better).  <   As it was, those Linux/Alpha developers were, for the mostE > part using systems that were 3 years old or more that had no marketoG > value and performed poorly over what they could put together for $500 # > with 1 year old Intel technology.-  K There's absolutely no way Alpha could compete on price with IA32, no matter@G how aggressively Compaq might have tried.  Even if it had had identical I hardware costs, the economies of scale in other areas would have dictated6K this:  look at the price difference between IDE and SCSI drives (which haveh/ very comparable hardware costs) for an example.e   >  > >>? > >> If nothing else, you have to have a processor architectureg< > >> in a lot of places only to support the mindshare angle. > >mH > >That's ridiculous.  Cray had plenty of mindshare - and Alpha for that matterL > >did as well.  So do non-low-end IBM systems.  You're offering platitudes,J > >not facts:  they can have relevance, but tend to be of secondary rather than > >primary importance. > >e > H > Cray had plenty of mindshare, again, due to incumbency.  Everyone knewK > that Cray dominated the supercomputer market for the last 35 years (goingyH > back to the CDC successes).  Cray _had_ plenty of mindshare, true, but; > with Seymour Cray now dead, I don't see any future there.   F The point is that never at any point did Cray have any presence in anyJ volume market - what you seem to consider the sine qua non of 'mindshare'.L And incumbency doesn't explain the mindshare Cray had from close to the very
 beginning.  J Alpha, as the premier-performing microprocessor for the past decade, had aI rather similar quality of mindshare:  it didn't need a mass market to getc8 it, it just needed an owner interested in exploiting it.   >i: > I've outlined why IBM continues to have mindshare above. >o > >  ITa@ > >> managers don't want to invest in something that may be gone > >> tomorrow. > >r' > >Now *that's* much closer to reality.T > > 3 > >  Nobody, and I mean nobody, believes that IA-64  > >> will be gone tomorrow,  > > L > >Intel does make mistakes, and is willing to walk away from them - witness > >the i860. > >b >uG > Don't bet that they'll walk away from IA-64.  If they have to retreathF > from IA-64, they will be a very different company than they are now.; > It will have meant that they lost their market dominance.o  G They don't have any market dominance to lose in this market space.  AndtK there's no inevitability about their getting it unless everyone hands it to,' them on a silver platter as Compaq has.l   > & > > which is the justification for CPQD > >> moving to IA-64 for everything.  If there were an active marketB > >> in commodity Alphas, people would feel similarly about Alpha. > >sL > >But there wasn't.  And there quite possibly never would have been, unlessJ > >DEC had been on the ball in making VMS the next-step-beyond-the-desktopJ > >standard starting before Alpha even existed to keep Windows corraled in theu > >low-end.m > > H > >SUN, IBM, HP, and once upon a time DEC proved beyond any doubt that aC > >commodity market is by no means a necessary condition for having-
 confidenceK > >in a vendor and in its (non-commodity) products (and I suspect there are@L > >good examples of situations in which it has proved not to be a sufficient > >condition as well). > >  >iD > "at one time" is the operative term here.  The market has changed.E > Today's risk avoiding IT manager buys commodity (or upscale systemsr! > based on commodity components).h  E Would you care to list such systems?  You're once again offering yourtI personal opinions about the future and this time even casting them in theb- present tense.  Are you really that confused?n  $   Nobody will get fired for speccing > IA-64.  J Same comment.  *IF* IA64 attains the absolute dominance you're predicting,# *THEN* your statement will be true.s   ...r  & > >  Maybe you could argue that the $4I > >> Billion could have been spent on marketing of mid-range and up Alphai > >systems,. > > C > >Absolutely.  Without that, nothing else would make a damn bit ofi
 differenceA > >(though I'd have split it between marketing and some visionaryi developmentcD > >efforts, since the latter are a much truer indicator of long-term
 commitment > >and people *are* watching). > >t >nJ > Do we really have any indication that DEC saved any expense on visionaryG > development?  Some problems can't be solved with just money.  Now, its1 > seems, you are retreating to the 'theoretical'.l  I The paucity of visionary development for VMS is anything but theoretical: L rather, its absence is clearly demonstrable.  Save for the Galaxy extensionsH (which while significant still fall under the category of supporting newC hardware more than major OS-specific initiatives), VMS has close torK stagnated for a very long time (XFC-style enhancements should have appeareddG soon after the Alpha port, for example:  they're a natural fit with thetI increase in address space).  Spiralog was an exception (I suspect largelyMF driven by the personal interest of its developers) - but as soon as itB required more funding to turn it into a real product, it got axed.   >vH > >> but I don't know what would have been better marketing than getting AlphasG > >> out onto the street giving people assurance that Alpha was here toa stay.o > >nL > >Demonstrating commitment to Alpha in its existing markets would have beenJ > >far more effective in generating such assurance than any other approach thatF > >in any way compromised that goal.  'On-the-street' people don't buyH > >mid-range systems, and the systems they *do* buy are not suitable for > >mid-range systems.r > >c >eG > All of the IT decision makers I know are also 'On-the-street' people. K > These people are more comfortable with the familiar, be it IBM mainframes G > that were old before they entered the industry or commodity processorrG > architectures.  Commitment is all about getting your name in front of J > people.  It's why GE has brand ads on Sunday news shows.  'Alpha inside'L > on the desktop would have gone a long way toward demonstrating commitment.  H Not without first having demonstrated commitment to the markets far moreF important to Alpha's profitability.  I don't know why that's so hard aJ concept to grasp, but suspect your personal priorities have made you blind$ to the wider realities in this area.   >tJ > >As I observed earlier, IBM mainframes have (and seem likely to continue toJ > >have) precisely zero 'on-the-street' presence - and they're credible as alli4 > >get-out.  Alphas could easily have been the same. > >a > D > Alpha could have easily established themselves with a huge body ofB > 40 year old COBOL programs that nobody wants to touch again (nowE > that the Y2K scare has passed)?  I think you fail to understand why 0 > IBM mainframes continue to have 'credibility'.  K That's a pretty silly interpretation of what I said.  But I'm getting tired- of explaining the obvious.   - bill   ------------------------------  $ Date: Sun, 8 Jul 2001 14:54:25 -0400' From: "Bill Todd" <billtodd@foo.mv.com>d Subject: Re: FUD( Message-ID: <9iaa1o$s2g$1@pyrite.mv.net>  E For people getting as tired of reading my sometimes-less-than-tactfulaF thoughts as I am of writing them, here's a nice change of pace (from aD response elsewhere) that expresses relevant sentiments about Alpha's) strengths relative to commodity products:   # news:slrn9kgk2a.neq.jd@poof.apk.neth   - bill   ------------------------------  # Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2001 01:53:39 GMTl. From: "Duane Sand" <duane.sand@mindspring.com>* Subject: Re: H-P EOLs PA-RISC ArchitectureA Message-ID: <D8827.166119$%i7.109154029@news1.rdc1.sfba.home.com>l   "andrew harrison wrote4 > Actually HP have a huge advantage over Compaq when0 > it comes to comparing migrating HP-PA to IA-640 > when compared to migrating Alpha to IA-64, the* > IA-64 can decode and run HP-PA binaries.  : Nope.  IA-64 microprocessor chips have no hardware ability. to directly decode and execute HP-PA binaries.> Emulation is all done via software decompilation/recompilation; on  the fly, via just-in-time techniques somewhat like whatr7 some Java systems use.  I  believe the only concessions 3 to HP-PA systems in the IA-64 hardware architecturet are-8   1) One optional mode of using the 64-bit address space# matches that used on HP-PA systems.d8   2) IA-64 supports HP-PA's 4 levels of priv-state-ness.4   3) IA-64 can emulate HP-PA's ring architecture for priv transitions.d4   4) Optional use of big-endian address conventions,% for all software above the PAL level.m   ------------------------------  $ Date: Sun, 8 Jul 2001 21:14:26 +0100, From: Peter Boyle <pboyle@holyrood.ed.ac.uk>  Subject: Re: IA64 Rocks My WorldH Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.4.33.0107082105220.23518-100000@holyrood.ed.ac.uk>   On Sat, 7 Jul 2001, mulp wrote:a   >s7 > "Nick Maclaren" <nmm1@cus.cam.ac.uk> wrote in message , > news:9i6etb$a5h$1@pegasus.csx.cam.ac.uk...C > > An indication of that is the vast majority of the supercomputer A > > contracts that Compaq got were based on ES40/ES45 and even DSI1 > > boards, usually with a Quadrics interconnect.> >c > That isn't true.  $ Garbage, Nick is completely correct.2 Look up, e.g. the SC series on the compaq website.  ; > The contracts were based on a credible belief that CompaqmK > would be able to deliver a future technology meeting specific performancetI > goals at a specific cost/performance ratio and Compaq's commitment to alC > contract that required they deliver or pay a significant penalty.n  G People don't buy multi-million dollar supercomputers based on "crediblehD belief" in the next generation. They buy them based on benchmarks of' their code on machines available *now*.t  E If the machine delivered doesn't pass the performance acceptance testmD they tell, e.g., SUN to take it back, and replace it with something,0 e.g. from Compaq, that does (APAC in Australia).   Don't ya love customer power :)h   Peter    >fL > The initial proposals used Wildfire for some and EV7 for others.  WildfireN > has been dropped because its current I/O capabilities are inadequate and theL > schedule and cost for fixing it means that Wildfire is less cost effective > than other platforms.n > N > Based on the statements while killing Alpha, it appears that EV7 has slippedM > again so that even the faster schedules promised are later than most of thet( > contracts, so EV7 must be out as well. > J > The quadrics solution does require really high I/O performance.  I don'tL > think that any of the Alpha platforms can meet the I/O requirement that is1 > wanted, but it must be sufficient for the need.e >N >, >w  $ Peter Boyle	pboyle@physics.gla.ac.uk   ------------------------------  $ Date: Sun, 8 Jul 2001 22:07:28 +0100, From: Peter Boyle <pboyle@holyrood.ed.ac.uk>  Subject: Re: IA64 Rocks My WorldH Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.4.33.0107082153220.23518-100000@holyrood.ed.ac.uk>  $ On Fri, 6 Jul 2001, Bill Todd wrote:   >a > > Not with GS320's, however. >iL > I remembered after writing the above that one or more of the installationsD > comprised (IIRC) ES rather than GS series nodes:  did all of them?  J All the middling to big wins of which I am aware are either the SC series,, basically ES4X + Quadrics or DS?0 + myrinet.  G In these big systems customers have already written either pure messagef: passing or intra-node threaded+ inter-node message passingC codes, otherwise they wouldn't scale (or indeed run on anything butdD Origins). Indeed many important customers will have SHMEM (supportedH by Quadrics) from t3d/t3e days with perhaps even Alpha assembler, making* the SC series arguably the substitute t3f.  J Very high cost 32 way NUMA nodes are a poor basis for a thousand processorC system. I don't know the list price, but you're probably looking at F over 32 Million for the 32 fully populated GS320's, BEFORE you buy theG (many ports aggregated per 32 way node) interconnect to support scalingd 32x32Gflop nodes.f  D You might as well buy the interconnect and stick cheap and trivially! independent memory systems in it.y   Petera  J > In any event, it tends to demonstrate faith in Alpha's core architectureJ > (ignoring what it says about the memory performance of the ES machines),C > which is its real differentiator and the aspect its designers goteN > impressively right at the start.  Anything else can be fixed if a false step$ > occurs (even cache corruption...). >e > - bill >u > >o	 > > Peter  > >u > >s > >e > >i >i >i >a  $ Peter Boyle	pboyle@physics.gla.ac.uk   ------------------------------  $ Date: Sun, 8 Jul 2001 16:18:32 -0400' From: "Bill Todd" <billtodd@foo.mv.com> * Subject: IA64 volume and low-end dominance( Message-ID: <9iaevf$39o$1@pyrite.mv.net>  C Multiple people have offered as IA64's manifest destiny a near-termgJ replacement of IA32 in the low-end (desktop) arena, and used the resultingL volume to suggest that IA64 will have unbeatable cost advantages everywhere.H Leaving aside the fact that the cost of the processor(s) is only a smallK portion of total system costs (especially outside the low end), Iet's firsth2 investigate the desktop migration question itself.  G It's worth remembering that very few current desktop applications wouldsK benefit *at all* from a 64-bit address space.  Of the remainder, most woulddH perform better if they handled their data explicitly (from disk, or fromG Xeon-style extended physical memory) rather than just letting it sprawltG across a larger address space paged sub-optimally by the OS (e.g., gameIG developers are typically willing to expend such effort for the improvede
 performance).l  L And of the even smaller application residue after those are removed, as longI as IA32 systems constitute even a large, let alone a dominant, portion ofdH the market, developers will when at all feasible tend to create a singleK version that will run both there and (perhaps emulated) on IA64.  Even whenoB a machine is dedicated to running a single application, until someL significant percentage of low-end machines have more than 2 GB of *physical*E memory (or more than 4 GB in cases where the OS doesn't take half theiG virtual address space for its own use, or more than 64 GB if Xeon-style B address extensions are used), it will be a very rare desktop-styleA application indeed that will see significant advantages in 64-bit @ addressing:  things like high-end servers and CAD are the likely' beneficiaries (just as they are today).h  L Contrast the above situation with the move from IA16 to IA32.  That move wasI hardware-technology-driven, not demand-driven:  for many years there were@J virtually *no* 32-bit desktop applications, despite that fact that typicalJ 16-bit applications had been standing on their heads for years to make useI of the megabytes of available physical memory (exactly the reverse of thejI situation today).  Users bought 32-bit hardware mostly because it offeredwI better performance (at little or no additional cost) running their 16-bitM OSs and 16-bit applications.  L By abandoning hardware upward-compatibility in IA64, Intel has significantlyL altered the circumstances from that earlier migration:  IA32 seems likely toH enjoy absolute performance advantages running 32-bit applications for atE least a while, and cost/performance advantages for even longer.  As a L result, the desktop (and even low-end server) IA32 market should continue toL be far larger than the 64-bit market, and developers will continue to createL new applications for the IA32 architecture until it *really* starts to crampL their style (hence the probability that an IA64-only 'killer app' will light a migration fire is reduced).   K In sum, while I can imagine that Intel would *like* IA64 to replace IA32 inpJ the mass market ASAP, if only to shut out AMD and simplify its own productH lines, it's hard to imagine that the market will let them.  Am I missing something critical here?   - bill   ------------------------------  % Date: Sun, 08 Jul 2001 17:55:14 -0700e* From: Rob Barris <rbarris@quicksilver.com>. Subject: Re: IA64 volume and low-end dominance< Message-ID: <rbarris-EC8A58.17551408072001@news.newsguy.com>  5 In article <9iaevf$39o$1@pyrite.mv.net>, "Bill Todd" . <billtodd@foo.mv.com> wrote:  E > Multiple people have offered as IA64's manifest destiny a near-termsC > replacement of IA32 in the low-end (desktop) arena, and used the h > resulting C > volume to suggest that IA64 will have unbeatable cost advantages '
 > everywhere. J > Leaving aside the fact that the cost of the processor(s) is only a smallH > portion of total system costs (especially outside the low end), Iet's  > first 4 > investigate the desktop migration question itself.  I    For a significant majority of "desktop people", the desktop means x86 mB software, either purchased shrinkwrap, downloaded off the net, or  written on-site.  G    I have read remarks that indicate that Itanium's performance on x86 h- code is uninspired.  But what about McKinley?   ,    Will McKinley pull off the combination of  ,    a) running x86 software at useful speeds,G    b) fitting into the power, audible, and thermal limits of a desktop,l,    c) costing less than $4000 per processor?  1    At present Itanium seems to miss on all three?t   Robn   ------------------------------  $ Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2001 00:31:02 +01001 From: "Chris Townley" <news@townleyc.demon.co.uk>yF Subject: Re: If you operate VMS systems, what really are your choices?A Message-ID: <994635819.28867.0.nnrp-14.d4e45fa5@news.demon.co.uk>   7 "cjt & trefoil" <cheljuba@prodigy.net> wrote in messagee% news:3B47F853.389A107D@prodigy.net...e > Christoph Gartmann wrote:n > >m > <snip> > > I > > Quite simple: a combination of 1 and 2. I don't buy processors, I buye OSesJ > > and software. So as long as I don't need more computing power I go for optionA > > 1. When I need more power, I buy what's available and fits my 
 requirements.sK > > If the VMS hardware sold at this point is Alpha-based, I buy Alphas. If  itL > > is Itanium-based I buy Itanium. Important to me is that I am able to mix' > > systems like with VAXen and Alphas.m >oB > You'll need different binaries, which could complicate your life
 considerably,oL > especially if your vendors decide this might be a good time to re-evaluate > their business models. >   = Different binaries is hardly a problem once things get going.   L I maintain both VAX and Alpha executables for our legacy logistics systems -I develop on VAX, build on Alpha. Only one VAX site in the UK, plus France.a) Germany and the rest of the UK are Alpha.   H We very rarely have any problem - the (very)limited Alpha only source isF kept separate, but this is mostly macro code - which I will not touch.   --
 Chris Townleyr chris@townleyc.demon.co.uk townleyc@spicers.ltd.uki   ------------------------------   Date: 8 Jul 2001 19:31:04 -0700 ( From: kparris@my-deja.com (Keith Parris)5 Subject: Re: network clustering - multiple interfacest= Message-ID: <cb85fed2.0107081831.3766767b@posting.google.com>   h "Martin Bondy" <mbondy1pjennings@starpower.net> wrote in message news:<9hj73t$1ic$1@bob.news.rcn.net>...L > We have several ES40's that are using network clustering as opposed HSJ's.J > Each ES40 has 3 network interfaces, 100BaseT, FDDI & Gigabit ethernet. IN > have been told that the clustering software tries to use any and all networkM > connections for communications between the ES40's.  We have special purpose N > hardware on the 100BaseT network which requires the highest possible networkL > performance.  I want to eliminate all "unnecesary" traffic on the 100BaseTK > network.  Does anyone know how to tell the clustering software not to usep > the 100BaseT interface?c  F The previous poster was correct -- compile and link LAVC$STOP_BUS.MAR,D which you can find in the SYS$EXAMPLES: directory.  It is documented2 in an appendix of the VMS Cluster Software manual.  4 > In fact it would be preferable if only the gigabitK > interface was used, as not only is it faster, but it is a private network F > and does not receive any traffic from "outside" computers. Thanks in
 > advance.  E Intuitively, one would expect Gigabit Ethernet to be faster, but thatfC is apparently not the case in practice, at least not for this first @ generation of host adapters.  See Verell Boaen's presentation onC cluster interconnects (one recent copy may be found in the DFW DaysnE 2001 archives pointed to by http://www.dfwcug.org)/ for more details.m  A If you have to do a lot of MSCP serving between nodes, the largeryA packet size of FDDI might be advantageous (you'd raise the SYSGENeF parameter size NISCS_MAX_PKTSZ to take advantage of that).  But at theF default 1498 byte packet size, Verell's tests showed the Fast Ethernet9 adapters outperformed FDDI and Gigabit Ethernet adapters.r  @ PEDRIVER can do a pretty good job of determining by itself whichD interconnect has the lowest actual latency in practice, so after youF use LAVC$STOP_BUS to eliminate SCS traffic on your 100BaseT network asD you wish, you could just let PEDRIVER pick which of the other two itE uses.  That allows the cluster to survive a failure of either FDDI orl& Gigabit Ethernet and continue working.   > PS. We are running 7.2.1.H  E 7.2-1H1, I assume.  In the same directory as Verell's CI presentationbC is one on SCACP, the new control tool in 7.3.  SCACP gives one moret> flexibility in controlling PEDRIVER's path-selection behavior.   Keitha   ------------------------------  # Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2001 02:35:24 GMTr. From: "Duane Sand" <duane.sand@mindspring.com>6 Subject: Re: Porting VMS (was Itanium, non-issue, ...)A Message-ID: <ML827.166155$%i7.109214887@news1.rdc1.sfba.home.com>e  1 "Duane Sand" <duane.sand@mindspring.com> claimed:i@ > > I don't know VMS at all, but have been involved in 3 (now 4)A > > porting efforts for NSK.  Seems likely that VMS can be portednD > > onto any stock version of any little-endian processor capable of> > > also running Unixes, at some performance-compromise level.     "Bob Koehler" replied:J > Not quite.  While many processors support the 4 modes VMS requires, UNIX9 > requires only 2, and some processors still have only 2.n  < IA-64 supports 4 levels; hopefully they will fit VMS's needs well enough.   ------------------------------   Date: 9 Jul 2001 02:41:51 GMT 5 From: jaltman@watsun.cc.columbia.edu (Jeffrey Altman)a$ Subject: Re: POSTs via SSL to Apache5 Message-ID: <9ib5lf$mgg$1@newsmaster.cc.columbia.edu>d  , In article <3B2E63B8.7BC7CDE1@videotron.ca>,/ JF Mezei  <jfmezei.spamnot@videotron.ca> wrote:y : Marty Kuhrt wrote:E : > collection of programs to do that.   I'm looking for a program tos= : > send POST requests _to_ a webserver so that I can test my  : > existing CGI stuff.- :  :  : N : Kermit does the job nicely for regular HTTP: but I am not sure if it has the : bility to do HTTPS:e  A Kermit does indeed support HTTP over SSL/TLS secured connections   when built with OpenSSL.  H  Jeffrey Altman * Sr.Software Designer      C-Kermit 7.1 Alpha availableJ  The Kermit Project @ Columbia University   includes Secure Telnet and FTPE  http://www.kermit-project.org/             using Kerberos, SRP, and  I  kermit-support@kermit-project.org          OpenSSL.  SSH soon to follow.a   ------------------------------  % Date: Sun, 08 Jul 2001 21:34:18 -0600d From: yyyc186@mindspring.com Subject: Re: Rdb troll; Message-ID: <3b492690$1$lllp186$mr2ice@nntp.mindspring.com>-  1 In <3B3CDB9D.DC93E6C9@virgin.net>, on 06/29/2001  5    at 08:48 PM, Alan Greig <a.greig@virgin.net> said:e       >Malcolm Dunnett wrote:m  E >>    The Rdb development group sent an email out ( presumably to allr? >> Rdb customers ) this morning talking about the announcement.- >>  E >I'm an RDB and DBMS customer and have not received any email. I havedF >spoken verbally to an Oracle RDB and he said something similar to theC >email you have quoted below. I need something more solid than thata >really.  I What we all need is to dump every Oracle product on every platform in ourrH shops.  Oracle has been cosistently de-improving RDB until they now haveA it just about down to the level of Oracle...a database that failsc* miserably in every aspect of business use.     >>G >>    It was very carefully worded to commit to nothing. It talks abouteD >> how the Rdb group was not aware of the plans until Monday morningG >> (this seems to contrast with the "Oracle Classic" folks being toutediF >> at the announcement as being "excited" about Tru64 on IPF - do theyG >> "excite" quickly or did they have some prior information?). They keyH( >> statement in the message seems to be: >>I >> "In the three years between today and the time that OpenVMS on ItaniumeK >> is scheduled to ship, both Oracle and our customers will have ample time,H >> to work with the new versions of the operating system, the compilers,F >> the middleware and the development tools.  In consultation with ourH >> customers, we will carefully evaluate which development strategy will$ >> offer them the greatest benefit." >>? >>   Perhaps they're concerned they won't get access to a Blissn >> compiler for IPF? >>J >>    I suppose one couldn't expect anything more given that the Rdb folksI >> were as surprised as any of us - but the way it reads it leaves OracleCG >> open to conclude that leaving Rdb as VAX/Alpha only is the "greatestaE >> benefit" to their customers. Hopefully it will be followed up ASAPm/ >> with a more definite statement of direction.t   >--a >Alan Greig      -- t; -----------------------------------------------------------e yyyc186@mindspring.com; -----------------------------------------------------------i   ------------------------------  $ Date: Sun, 8 Jul 2001 14:34:57 -0400' From: "Bill Todd" <billtodd@foo.mv.com>t: Subject: Re: Some thoughts on the recent turn of events...( Message-ID: <9ia8t7$qui$1@pyrite.mv.net>  ? "Robert Deininger" <rdeininger@mindspring.com> wrote in messageoF news:rdeininger-0807011222330001@user-2iveb78.dialup.mindspring.com...9 > In article <3B474299.AFCFEDB2@ui.urban.org>, Jim Beckere > <jbecker@ui.urban.org> wrote:e >nH > > Not exactly a reply to Ken's message -- I'm just swiping his subject > > line...h > >eI > > Our organization was, before the recent turn of events, just about torD > > buy another Alpha running OpenVMS. We're not a big shop, so thisJ > > wasn't a trivial decision. We like VMS and we like the Alpha, but whenA > > a vendor announces plans to discontinue one platform and porttF > > "everything" to another platform to be made by some other company,C > > it's just good business sense for us to re-assess our decision.  >t > <snip> >,H > You raised many good points.  Some of them are directly under compaq'sL > control.  I suggest you put the questions for Compaq in a nice letter, andE > send it to Rich Marcello.  Make it plain that your next alphaserver B > purchase is ON HOLD until you see concrete movement in the right
 > directions.-  H A somewhat more sophisticated version of a sentiment I just expressed in another reply.   >cJ > Keep in mind that it is less than 2 weeks since the public announcement.5 > You shouldn't expect concrete timetables yet, IMHO.0  K Of course not:  that would indicate that some forethought had gone into theaA effects dropping Alpha would have on VMS and how to address them.p   - bill   ------------------------------  % Date: Sun, 08 Jul 2001 20:38:37 -0400 ' From: Jim Becker <jbecker@ui.urban.org>h: Subject: Re: Some thoughts on the recent turn of events..., Message-ID: <3B48FD0D.56C35CFD@ui.urban.org>   Robert Deininger wrote:f [snip]J > Keep in mind that it is less than 2 weeks since the public announcement.5 > You shouldn't expect concrete timetables yet, IMHO.) [snip]  F Absolutely. I acknowledge completely that some of the things I "hoped"D to see aren't currently available. That's part of my point. A lot ofC what I'd want to see/know _can't_ be determined now, so I'm largelyp( left with guesswork and finger-crossing.   --
 Jim Becker+ The Urban Institute (http://www.urban.org/) ' Encompass (http://www.encompassus.org/)d. ESILUG (http://encompasserve.org/lugs/esilug/)   ------------------------------  # Date: Sun, 08 Jul 2001 19:57:06 GMTf4 From: "Terry C. Shannon" <terryshannon@mediaone.net>: Subject: Re: The death of VMS has been greatly exaggerated< Message-ID: <mW227.1157$vb6.1602841@typhoon.ne.mediaone.net>  4 "D.Webb" <david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk> wrote in message% news:9i9jvj$o6d$1@aquila.mdx.ac.uk...,F > In article <fmx17.7103$G_1.714731@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>,0 "mulp" <michaelpettengill@earthlink.net> writes: > >e9 > >"Main, Kerry" <Kerry.Main@compaq.com> wrote in message. >eL >news:BE56C50EA024184DAF48F0B9A47F5CF4AD7EDA@kaoexc01.americas.cpqcorp.net.. .l > >yK > >For example, I don't think that any of the people involved with vest are0 > >still around.  L Word has it that many of the software sorcerers have gone over to Transmeta.   ------------------------------   End of INFO-VAX 2001.377 ************************