1 INFO-VAX	Fri, 15 Nov 2002	Volume 2002 : Issue 631       Contents:# EVA and SPC and storage competition  Re: Jaw dropping EV7 systems MajorDomo for VMS - Re: New AlphaServer models (ES47, GS1280) ???  Re: Remote Console access  Synchronization VMS/Unix clocks 2 VAXStation 3100 ....not booting, speaks in tongues  F ----------------------------------------------------------------------    Date: 14 Nov 2002 11:36:39 -0600+ From: young_r@encompasserve.org (Rob Young) , Subject: EVA and SPC and storage competition3 Message-ID: <JsOuEcP7VRKV@eisner.encompasserve.org>   > In article <a-mcnbkVNd7MQk-gXTWc3Q@metrocast.net>, "Bill Todd"  <billtodd@metrocast.net> writes: > : > "Rob Young" <young_r@encompasserve.org> wrote in message/ > news:QtKgWNKRkUne@eisner.encompasserve.org...  >  > ...  > ? >> My concern today is pushing more IO.  I have report runs and @ >> month-ends that can always be speeded up.  The user community? >> is very impressed but I would say good systems management is = >> upping performance and reliability while wisely making the 6 >> most of your resources and planning for the future. >>  >> Check out page 4 on this PDF: >> >>N > http://www.storageperformance.org/Results/SPC-1/HP-EVA2C12D_2002-10-02/hp_EV# > A2C12D_ExecSummary_2002-10-02.pdf  > K > The first thing that caught my eye was the $100/raw GB price ($200/usable K > mirrored GB):  ouch!  And even those prices appear to include about a 35% K > discount (i.e., at list they're over $150/raw GB and $300/usable mirrored  > GB)! >   N         Much cheaper than the IBM storage at SPC.  More than the Dell storage.A         Much cheaper than Hitachi storage.  Much cheaper than EMC A         storage.  Sun?  Hard to tell.  They are playing a game by J         not breaking out prices for individual components.  Maybe SPC v1.4J         didn't/doesn't require a breakdown even in full disclosure.  Guess;         would be the Sun storage is more as they come in at K         $624000 with 48 - 73 GByte drives in their configuration.  !6 GByte * 	cache, so I could be off the mark on Sun!   >>E >> 20000 IOPS with an 8 millisecond response time.  That is fantastic < >> and something many of us can use to speed up report runs. > J > Let's see:  168 15Krpm drives with an average access time of under 6 ms.I > should yield close to 30K IOPS for small random reads without any queue K > optimization (i.e., at low load).  I guess it's the writes that drag down K > the average, though even a load composed solely of mirrored writes should K > yield close to 15K IOPS without benefit of queue optimization *or* stable  > write-back cache.  > H > So what is it about the box that you believe is 'fantastic', given the/ > innate capabilities of the underlying drives?  >   -         Part of the "fantastic" part comes in L         when you compare it to other "real life" storage systems on the SPC -         site.  It does better in performance.   I         It is rather tricky to compare differing platforms, so benchmarks I         like this came about.  There isn't anyone close in performance to !         the EVA submission - yet.   G         A bigger point totally trimmed... with the EVA you could easily M         carve a 9/18/36 GByte LUN capable of pushing thousands of IOPS.  That N         is the more fantastic part.  There are many of us with NT/2000 and VMSF         that have very hot and small databases and EVA is a great fit.  F         NT/2000?  I suppose you pick up Veritas to scatter a database.L         Storage Hardware in the next 12-24 months makes Veritas an expensiveJ         bolt-on I would suppose.  Meaning: virtualization with teeth, snap@         capabilities across datacenters, serverless backup, etc.  E         By the way, compare the Sun submission and the Veritas tax to G         get the numbers they are showing.  I suppose if you had a dozen M         Veritas equipped servers you would be paying 12 x $13000+ in Veritas           taxes.  G         Anti-Veritas positioning of EVA *should* be a big component in           pre-sales discussions.  4         No need for a Veritas tax for Win2000 + EVA.    #                                 Rob     K "Even if the biblical assertion is incorrect that where there is no vision, H  the people perish, it is difficult to think what could be the engine orJ  stimulus for social behavior in a nihilistic system committed only to theI  certainty of the passage of time, without any energetic relationship to  /  another principle or purpose."  --Lionel Tiger    ------------------------------    Date: 14 Nov 2002 09:54:58 -0600+ From: young_r@encompasserve.org (Rob Young) % Subject: Re: Jaw dropping EV7 systems 3 Message-ID: <zl$NCyYwigDt@eisner.encompasserve.org>   b In article <3DD3522B.A1C06AC2@vl.videotron.ca>, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vl.videotron.ca> writes: > Rob Young wrote:2 >> Paul DeMone (pdemone@igs.net) on 11/9/02 wrote: >> ---------------------------O >> I think the EV7 systems are going to cause a lot of jaws to drop, the POWER4 P >> design to be re-evaluated in a different, less positive light, and maybe evenQ >> stir up controversy again about Compaq killing Alpha in favour of IA64 (I mean 9 >> by people that aren't already obsessed by this topic).  >>  @ >>         Might I note he has his reputation on the line there. >  > K > It has often been said that HP won't want to flaunt EV7 systems and their T > performance, and even that they will delay their introduction as much as possible. >  > Is that really realistic ? > P > Let say that know they erred in killing Alpha, and know that the public knows.N >  Wouldn't it be better for them to be up front about it, release EV7 as soonL > as possible and at reap as much profits from it as they could and get some > limelight/PR from it  ?  > P > It would seem to me that hiding/delaying EV7 will only increase speculation onP > HP's real motives and certaintly not help in building the trust between HP and" > the unhappy VMS/Tru64 customers.    D 	There *may* be a myriad of reasons.  Paul speculates in a follow-upB 	that a lowered body count may be delaying things.  Either way, I I 	will wager that EV7 pre-shipping orders are quite good(1).  I personally B 	know about very large customers that are very impressed.  We haveB 	to acknowledge by now that much of the VMS base is overseas.  TheF 	growth is in (this is my speculation... I have no personal knowledge)G 	two key segments I would say.  SMS (not in U.S. yet, sheesh) and cell  B 	phone billing.  Both of those are very intensive growth oriented E 	segments.  Huge IO needs and very uptime centric, perfect for large   	VMS clusters.   				Rob   J (1)  pre-shipping ES40 orders were large.  In hindsight , it may have been? a lot of JSTARS purchases (speculation, no personal knowledge).    ------------------------------  % Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 11:20:32 -0800 % From: Dean Woodward <deanw@rdrop.com>  Subject: MajorDomo for VMS( Message-ID: <3DD3F780.4020404@rdrop.com>   Hoff Hoffman wrote: I >   As an alternative to DELIVER, there is a PIPE_MAILSHR utility and the H >   Majordomo server for OpenVMS.  To acquire a kit, send a mail messageJ >   to the SMTP address majordomo@lassie.ucx.lkg.dec.com, no subject line,B >   and include the following commands in the body of the message: > = >     get vms-majordomo-users PIPE_MAILSHR_ECO1_ZIP.UUENCODED = >     get vms-majordomo-users VMS_MAJORDOMO_FT6_ZIP.UUENCODED  > J >   PIPE_MAILSHR passes messages into the DCL PIPE command for processing.  G Has this been updated for TCPIP yet? Last time I had time to dink with  F it (not much), it was still UCX-based, and I didn't have enough time, - energy, or need to dink it into shape myself.    ------------------------------   Date: 14 Nov 2002 10:19:37 GMT7 From: sy18889@rabmbit.famrp.cosm (Bradford J. Hamilton) 6 Subject: Re: New AlphaServer models (ES47, GS1280) ???! Message-ID: <3n$96+MDbPwM@rabbit>   & Aren't these new machines MARVELous???   :-)   R In article <00A16F7B.A4815600.13@decus.de>, Michael Unger <unger@decus.de> writes: > Just found at  > 3 > http://www.compaq.com/alphaserver/acu/readme.html % > (AlphaServer Configuration Utility)  > " > New items, November 2002 release > ! > - New AlphaServer GS1280 models  > - New AlphaServer ES47 models  > > > Strange -- these new models are not mentioned anywhere else. > 	 > Michael  --   Bradford J. Hamilton& braMdhamAilPtoSn@aMtAtPbi.cSom		(home)& sMy1A88P89S@rabMbit.fAmPr.coSm		(work)  ; "All opinions that I express are my own, not my employer's"  "Lose the MAPS"    ------------------------------    Date: 14 Nov 2002 08:32:56 -0800% From: Bart.Zorn@xs4all.nl (Bart Zorn) " Subject: Re: Remote Console access= Message-ID: <a98cd882.0211140832.78e8df29@posting.google.com>   	 Hi, Bill,   > I would like to take you up on your offer. We have three GS160? systems, each with it's own billybox console. The three console ; systems are not even networked together as per the Wildfire  documentation.  > However, we must arrange for one or two OpenVMS systems to run- ConsoleWorks on and that will take some time.   E We also have Console Manager licenses around and that makes a serious  competition.  > If your offer is not time-limited, you may be hearing from me.  > Anyway, your statement DOES shed another light on the Wildfire	 consoles!    Regards,  	 Bart Zorn   h "Bill Johnson" <res0xcil@verizon.net> wrote in message news:<At_y9.4053$Dl.1789@nwrddc01.gnilink.net>...I > Hi All! I work for TECSys Development and some of our engineers pointed N > me to this thread today for follow-up. I must say first off, I worked on theK > agreement with Compaq to put our ConsoleWorks product on and NT based PC.  > L >     Frankly, while I did not agree with the thought of having a PC runningH > NT and our product on it managing the 1+million dollar box with a realF > operating system like OpenVMS or T64, we were TOLD by Compaq ProductM > Management that if we wanted to play we had to port our product to NT. Mind M > you - IT DID NOT RUN ON NT at the time! We had to port it from VMS to NT to  > make that happen.  > B >     For those of you who ACTUALLY have a GS BOX with an NT basedM > ConsoleWorks, and would like to UPGRADE to ConsoleWorks on OpenVMS or Tru64 E > Unix - Better yet any OTHER operating system we support, Contact me N > personally at b_johnson@tditx.com/nospam-please and I will see to it that ifM > you send TDi proof of ownership for the NT version, We will UPGRADE you for K > **FREE** to the same configuration of consoleworks on ANY OTHER operating  > system we support! > G >     And, YES we have scan files for ALL HP related Operating systems, ' > hardware and network gear like Cisco.  > L >     When you contact me for the FREE upgrade, please send your name, phoneM > number, company etc and YES, I will most likely have to have a sales person K > call you to confirm all the details etc, but that's because I travel alot , > working with customers and other partners. > K >     As a side note, we now have integrated consoleworks with BMC, brocade H > SAN switches and HSV controllers as well. More coming in the very near	 > future.  > 
 > Regards, >  > Bill Johnson > President/CEO  > TECSys Development > 1600 10th Street	 > Suite B  > Plano, Texas  75074  > http://www.tditx.com > 800-695-1258 >  >  >  >  >  >  > 4 > "Main, Kerry" <Kerry.Main@hp.com> wrote in messageN > news:BE56C50EA024184DAF48F0B9A47F5CF402660B21@kaoexc01.americas.cpqcorp.net. > ..2 > Re: secure access to remote console solutions... > E > >>> DO these wonders of modern mentation have any *tested* *secure* 6 > recomendations for replacing the LAT/TS consoles?>>> > - > Check out SSH offerings with ConsoleWorks - 4 > http://www.tditx.com/news_events_press.html#062502F > "...ConsoleWorks latest release features the ConsoleWorks secure Web> > server with Secure Socket Layer (SSL) and Secure Shell (SSH)H > capabilities. SSL provides an encrypted communication path between theG > Web browser and the ConsoleWorks Web server, and the SSH capabilities F > provide encryption between ConsoleWorks and the terminal server. TDIC > built the secure Web server to ensure that our customers have the G > highest level of security for their enterprise management software. "  > B > http://www.tditx.com/products_cwks_security.html - whitepaper on > security and console access  >  > Related article:A > http://www.fcw.com/fcw/articles/2002/1014/tec-mgt1-10-14-02.asp I > "...In June, TECSys Development LP added Secure Sockets Layer (SSL) and @ > Secure Shell (SSH) capabilities to its ConsoleWorks product, aF > Web-based, out-of-band management tool. Together, SSL and SSH enable@ > encrypted communication between the user's Web browser and theF > ConsoleWorks server, and between the ConsoleWorks server and managed > devices."  > 	 > Regards  >  > Kerry Main > Solutions Architect  > Hewlett-Packard (Canada) Co.# > Consulting & Integration Services  > Voice: 613-592-4660  > Fax   : 613-591-4477 > Email: Kerry.Main@hp.com >  >  > -----Original Message-----1 > From: Richard Brodie [mailto:R.Brodie@rl.ac.uk]   > Sent: November 6, 2002 8:33 AM > To: Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Com $ > Subject: Re: Remote Console access >  >  > ; > "Paul Repacholi" <prep@prep.synonet.com> wrote in message ) > news:87pttig975.fsf@prep.synonet.com...  > H > > The really nice thing about LAT, is that it is idiot resistant. TheyD > > can screw you over, but they have to work at it harder. DO theseI > > wonders of modern mentation have any *tested* *secure* recomendations & > > for replacing the LAT/TS consoles? > # > Well picking something at random: + > http://www.ute.de/vts_terminal_server.htm I > If you're just going to slap a remote Telnet box on the public network, H > that is making life easy for attackers. However, things have moved on,H > and if you care about security you don't provide remote console access > in the clear.    ------------------------------    Date: 14 Nov 2002 08:38:06 -0800( From: carlo.pettirossi@libero.it (Carlo)( Subject: Synchronization VMS/Unix clocks= Message-ID: <553e9e4b.0211140838.1b3a0773@posting.google.com>    Hi everyone,  C I have to synch a VMS and a Unix workstation. The VMS is taking the E date from a radio clock and it's set to the UTC time, at least that's  what it's shown entering   VMS_sh time    14-NOV-2002 15:25:38    9 Thru ntpdate I do the synch the Unix. This is the output:   4 14 Nov 16:25:39 ntpdate[10205]: ntpdate version=3.4x transmit(192.4.21.139) receive(192.4.21.139)  transmit(192.4.21.139) receive(192.4.21.139)  transmit(192.4.21.139) receive(192.4.21.139)  transmit(192.4.21.139) receive(192.4.21.139)  transmit(192.4.21.139) server 192.4.21.139, port 123 , stratum 1, precision -11, leap 00, trust 000. refid [LCL], delay 0.02611, dispersion 0.00017 transmitted 4, in filter 4E reference time:      c17e3eb3.72405000  Thu, Nov 14 2002 16:24:35.446 E originate timestamp: c17e3ef3.40899000  Thu, Nov 14 2002 16:25:39.252 E transmit timestamp:  c17e3ef3.41489000  Thu, Nov 14 2002 16:25:39.255   1 filter delay:  0.02611  0.02708  0.02611  0.02707 1                0.00000  0.00000  0.00000  0.00000 2 filter offset: -0.00389 -0.00340 -0.00389 -0.003402                0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000! delay 0.02611, dispersion 0.00017   F 14 Nov 16:25:39 ntpdate[10205]: adjust time server 192.4.21.139 offset	 -0.003891  stdin: END                    E The question now is: why does the vms doesn't send back the UTC time? . Where should I start from to get the utc time? thanks in advance    Carlo    ------------------------------    Date: 14 Nov 2002 09:01:19 -0800. From: brad.snyder@conectiv.com (fred_zeppelin); Subject: VAXStation 3100 ....not booting, speaks in tongues = Message-ID: <a4573c66.0211140901.7d0200e2@posting.google.com>   - We've a legacy VAX running a calibration lab.   % VAXStation 3100 M76 running VMS 5.5.1   ? It just coughed up a lung and decided to quit booting. Or boots 
 strangely.  F From a cold start, it runs thru the F....E...D... sequence fine, tries7 to boot from the default device, DKA300: (or whatever).   D Then, the normal stream of system/OPCOM messages seems to begin, butF they're in a weird character format, that looks almost like braille, aD series of dots in a rectangular box shape.  Then it fails to fire up DECWindows as it should.  E I've got a year old Standalone Backup (no system changes since), data > is backed elesewhere.   I haven't run the restore yet. NetworkD connectivity is down on this thing due to other causes, so I haven't" yet been able to try to TELNET in.   Any advice?      .... thanks ......brad   brad.snyder@conectiv.com   ------------------------------   End of INFO-VAX 2002.631 ************************