1 INFO-VAX	Mon, 26 Mar 2001	Volume 2001 : Issue 169       Contents:' Anyone know a SYBASE on OpenVMS expert? ! Backup Savesets on a WinPC system  Telnet Security ! Re: VMS source listings omittings , Re: Will the VIOC be fixed in VMS Alpha 7.3?  F ----------------------------------------------------------------------  # Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2001 20:54:02 GMT ' From: "Jean Norton" <jean@staffing.com> 0 Subject: Anyone know a SYBASE on OpenVMS expert?; Message-ID: <KVsv6.29024$8O6.5304408@typhoon.austin.rr.com>   H We need someone with SYBASE on OpenVMS knowledge to help with a securityG audit.  We have the OpenVMS part but need someone that knows the SYBASE ) internals for this very short assignment.    Jean Norton  jean@staffing.com 
 Austin, TX   ------------------------------  % Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2001 23:28:46 +0100 6 From: "John Cushnie" <john@dallambarn.freeserve.co.uk>* Subject: Backup Savesets on a WinPC system. Message-ID: <99lrsb$9no$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk>   Hi All,   G I have a WinPC with a DAT tape connected and lots of old OpenVMS BACKUP  tapes.L Is there any software out there I can use to open/modify the BACKUP savesets on the tapes ?  . Or is this only possible on an OpenVMS system.  # Thanks in advance for any pointers.    John Cushnie Email: cushnie@csi.com   ------------------------------  % Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2001 19:47:58 -0500   From: kuff@tessco.com (Hal Kuff) Subject: Telnet SecurityO Message-ID: <D342B7F188CF4AFA.987906EFBB0F306F.897AC1143C2A26DA@lp.airnews.net>   I    Anyone know of a method to get the foreign IP address logged on telnet H sessions with a box using Tcpware... We can do it via the firewall, but 6 were looking for something on the vms side as well....   ------------------------------   Date: 25 Mar 2001 14:34:16 CDT= From: wayne@tachysoft.xxx.412538.killspam.015a (Wayne Sewell) * Subject: Re: VMS source listings omittings. Message-ID: <nY7qEmmrWVVg@tachxxsoftxxconsult>  i In article <99kkl6$pjj$1@tyfon.itea.ntnu.no>, Roar =?iso-8859-1?Q?Thron=E6s?= <roart@nvg.ntnu.no> writes:    > ? > Redesign of Unix and Windows might not be that easy, or what?  >     J You can't *re*design something that was never designed in the first place.   --  O =============================================================================== M Wayne Sewell, Tachyon Software Consulting  (281)812-0738  wayne@tachysoft.xxx : http://www.tachysoft.xxx/www/tachyon.html and wayne.html  K change .xxx to .com in addresses above, assuming you are not a spambot  :-) O =============================================================================== O Dean Wormer to Flounder: "Fat, drunk, and stupid is no way to go through life."    ------------------------------  # Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2001 01:00:04 GMT $ From: Scott Vieth <svieth@wi.rr.com>5 Subject: Re: Will the VIOC be fixed in VMS Alpha 7.3? ) Message-ID: <3ABE94C6.C8372FF9@wi.rr.com>    Norm:   : Thanks for the info.  Are there any SYSGEN params that you- have to tune with the XFC (like VCC_MAXSIZE)?   C I noticed that the display says something about "Vols in No Caching  mode".D Can you tell it to avoid certain drives (like where your Oracle or M databases live)?   Thanks,   E -scott  :^) :^) :^) :^)   (very happy to hear that the braindead VIOC  has been fixed!)   norm lastovica wrote:   ( > "Brian Schenkenberger, VAXman-" wrote: > > T > > In article <3ABD4114.2150D591@wi.rr.com>, Scott Vieth <svieth@wi.rr.com> writes: > > >Hi: > > > J > > >Currently, the size of the VIOC on VMS Alpha is fixed at VCC_MAXSIZE.L > > >I thought I read a while back that a future version of VMS was going toC > > >let the VIOC grow and shrink as the system needed memory (like  > > >the VIOC does on VMS VAX).  > > > E > > >Is this fixed in VMS Alpha 7.3 or do I need to wait for a future 
 > > >version?  > > M > > Not really "fixed" bu revamped.  The eXtended File Cache (XFC) will be in M > > V7.3 and replaces the VIOC.  It's a far better caching system and reports ( > > to cache much more file system data. > = >         I've been field testing various 7.3 base levels for ? > quite some time now.  I have had very good luck with the XFC. @ > It caches way more data, self-tunes, doesn't use S0/S1 address= > space, etc. etc. etc.  I'd think that for some systems, XFC 2 > would be plenty enough reason to upgrade to 7.1.A >         Here's an example SHOW MEMORY/CACHE from my just-booted  > desk-top:  >  > TNA23:> sho mem/cache B >               System Memory Resources on 25-MAR-2001 13:30:14.15 > D > Extended File Cache  (Time of last reset:  5-FEB-2001 17:59:48.22)P >     Allocated (Mbytes)           66.55    Maximum size (Mbytes)         128.00P >     Free (Mbytes)                 0.12    Minimum size (Mbytes)           0.23Q >     In use (Mbytes)              66.42    Percentage Read I/Os              88% Q >     Read hit rate                   91%   Write hit rate                     0% P >     Read I/O count             1433372    Write I/O count               192133P >     Read hit count             1314257    Write hit count                    0P >     Reads bypassing cache          746    Writes bypassing cache           471P >     Files cached open              462    Files cached closed              559P >     Vols in Full XFC mode            0    Vols in VIOC Compatible mode       3P >     Vols in No Caching mode          0    Vols in Perm. No Caching mode      0   ------------------------------   End of INFO-VAX 2001.169 ************************