1 INFO-VAX	Tue, 01 Jul 2003	Volume 2003 : Issue 360       Contents:4 Re: $brkthruw from a symbiont returns SS$_DEVOFFLINE& Re: CNXMGRERR with V7.3-1 DSSI cluster: Re: Compaq Solutions Aliance - "Does" it still existing  ?6 Re: Compaq Solutions Aliance - Do it still existing  ?6 Re: Compaq Solutions Aliance - Do it still existing  ?6 Re: Compaq Solutions Aliance - Do it still existing  ?6 Re: Compaq Solutions Aliance - Do it still existing  ?6 Re: Compaq Solutions Aliance - Do it still existing  ? Re: cxx performance  Re: cxx performance  Re: cxx performance  Re: cxx performance ( Re: HP Powers More TOP500 Supercomputers( Re: HP Powers More TOP500 SupercomputersI Re: HP Webcast this morning on Next-Generation Intel Itanium 2 processors I Re: HP Webcast this morning on Next-Generation Intel Itanium 2 processors I Re: HP Webcast this morning on Next-Generation Intel Itanium 2 processors I Re: HP Webcast this morning on Next-Generation Intel Itanium 2 processors I Re: HP Webcast this morning on Next-Generation Intel Itanium 2 processors I Re: HP Webcast this morning on Next-Generation Intel Itanium 2 processors I Re: HP Webcast this morning on Next-Generation Intel Itanium 2 processors I Re: HP Webcast this morning on Next-Generation Intel Itanium 2 processors  Re: New OpenVMS-to-Itanium FAQ Re: New OpenVMS-to-Itanium FAQ RE: New OpenVMS-to-Itanium FAQ Re: New OpenVMS-to-Itanium FAQJ Re: OpenVMS Pearl - OpenVMS V8.0, first release on Itanium, ships today!!!J Re: OpenVMS Pearl - OpenVMS V8.0, first release on Itanium, ships today!!!P Re: OpenVMS Pearl - OpenVMS V8.0, first release on Itanium, ships today!!! today Re: Rethinking  V.M.S  Re: Running VMS off CD Re: Running VMS off CD Re: Running VMS off CD Re: Running VMS off CD Re: SIMH V3.0-0 releasedJ Re: Tri-architecture cluster demonstrated at DECUS Ottawa Technical UpdateJ Re: Tri-architecture cluster demonstrated at DECUS Ottawa Technical UpdateJ Re: Tri-architecture cluster demonstrated at DECUS Ottawa Technical Update  F ----------------------------------------------------------------------   Date: 1 Jul 2003 05:44:22 -0700 $ From: gspamtackett@yahoo.com (Galen)= Subject: Re: $brkthruw from a symbiont returns SS$_DEVOFFLINE = Message-ID: <bdc65a53.0307010444.589939ff@posting.google.com>   i gspamtackett@yahoo.com (Galen) wrote in message news:<bdc65a53.0306270708.415695a7@posting.google.com>... k > gspamtackett@yahoo.com (Galen) wrote in message news:<bdc65a53.0306270252.2c09d2f9@posting.google.com>...  > > Phillip Helbig <HELBPHI@sysdev.deutsche-boerse.com> wrote in message news:<01KXK0LMB11YAOKN0V@sysdev.deutsche-boerse.com>...M > > > > OpenVMS V7.3-1, about as current as it gets for now unless there's an N > > > > ECO we're missing (there are several out that we haven't installed but* > > > > none ring a bell regarding this).  > > > O > > > IIRC, the problem was introduced by a patch and corrected with a further  @ > > > patch.  So just install all patches and you'll be OK.  :-) > > < > > The V7.3 SYS ECO V2 and V3 both deal with a problem withH > > BRKTHRU/BRKTHRUW but I already had V3 installed before I stumbled on3 > > this problem. I don't see a V4 out there yet...  > > C > > I did install virtually all the other ECOs this morning without H > > improving things. (If I left any out, they're only needed to supportB > > hardware I don't have, and I even put in several of those. ForJ > > example, I'm using an AlphaStation 400/233 but I put in IIDRIVER and a* > > couple of EV7-related patches anyway). >  > The mystery deepens. > E > A little closer checking revealed that, since the patches I applied G > this morning, the $BRKTHRUW with BRK$C_USERNAME from a symbiont works ? > as intended PROVIDED that the target username's UIC is [1,4]. . > Otherwise it gives SS$_DEVOFFLINE as before.  B I don't know what has changed since last time I ran my symbiont--IE haven't rebooted or installed any patches, or changed my code--but it D now works. Obviously I changed something somewhere, but I can't tell what.    Well, at least it works now...   ------------------------------  $ Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2003 14:53:22 +0200< From: "Martin Vorlaender" <martin.vorlaender@pdv-systeme.de>/ Subject: Re: CNXMGRERR with V7.3-1 DSSI cluster 5 Message-ID: <bds09c$102s4c$1@ID-56200.news.dfncis.de>    Keith Parris wrote: B > "Martin Vorlaender" <martin.vorlaender@pdv-systeme.de> wrote...  [...snip...] > G > You might learn more from having someone analyze the crash dumps, but   @ I don't have anyone at hand, so I tried CCAT, but the CD versionA (4.0-2.0) doesn't have it. Looking into "Ask OpenVMS", I found an F article referring to VMS v5.3-2 (saying the problem is fixed in v5.4),E and one referring to a  VAX 6000 CI cluster (that one at least saying H the cause for CNXMGRERR was a "Sequence number mismatch between expected& and received cluster message packets".  F > in general, a CNXMGRERR -- Connection Manager-detected error (or theF > similar LCKMGRERR -- Lock Manager-detected error) bugcheck indicatesB > that the Connection Manager (or Lock Manager, respectively) codeG > detected bad data in an incoming SCS packet as it tried to decode it. G > This might be caused by data corruption of the packet in-flight (such B > that the ECC didn't catch it, or else the packet would have beenB > dropped), problems in memory on either end, code stomping on the* > packet as it resides in memory, or such.  " Thanks for the explanation, and...   < > I'd use SHOW CLUSTER/CONTINUOUS to identify which hardware? > interconnect the VMS$VAXcluster SYSAP connection is over, and F > scrutinize that interconnect.  If it helps during debugging, you canF > use SCACP to shift cluster traffic to another interconnect while you > do troubleshooting.    ...thanks for that suggestion.  E Sure enough, as soon as I stop cluster communication over the EIA and F EIB devices, node B crashes again (this time with INVRSPID, which - asD far as I understand - is similar to CNXMGRERR). So I'll have to look. deeper into the DSSI hardware & configuration.   cu,    Martin --  F   OpenVMS:                | Martin Vorlaender  |  VMS & WNT programmer3    The operating system   | work: mv@pdv-systeme.de F    God runs the           |   http://www.pdv-systeme.de/users/martinv/:    earth simulation on.   | home: martin@radiogaga.harz.de   ------------------------------  # Date: Tue, 01 Jul 2003 13:33:18 GMT 9 From: "Fred Kleinsorge" <my-last-name@stardotzko.dec.com> C Subject: Re: Compaq Solutions Aliance - "Does" it still existing  ? 1 Message-ID: <y4gMa.3669$FI.1622@news.cpqcorp.net>   7 "Dave Gudewicz" <k9jdk@NOSPAMarrl.net> wrote in message ) news:vg1v25iud99q09@corp.supernews.com... I > There are some who say that CDE and DECwindows are a bit outdated.  Not  much > going on in those 2 camps. > G > There are some who say that other X based GUI's have more development J > activity going on.  Take a look at KDE  and GNONE, 2 other popular GUI's and % > compare them w/ CDE and DECwindows.  >   E CDE is outdated.  No question about it.  But frankly, CDE is just the K desktop cruft.  I'd gladly not have lived through the gratuitous changes in & the Windows desktop since Windows 3.1.   ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 01 Jul 2003 00:18:05 -0400 ( From: David Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com>? Subject: Re: Compaq Solutions Aliance - Do it still existing  ? , Message-ID: <3F010B7D.7010404@tsoft-inc.com>   David J. Dachtera wrote:   > David Froble wrote:  >  >>David J. Dachtera wrote: >> >> >>>Tom Linden wrote: >>>  >>> G >>>>If you think you can avoid using windows (or mac perhaps) in todays J >>>>world you are swimming against a verey strong current.  My windows boxN >>>>has at least one window open (using Putty) to each cluster member, one forH >>>>for a router, one for the browser, and one for Outlook pop client to >>>>TCPIP5.1 smtp. >>>> >>>>What could easier? >>>> >>>>H >>>Believe it or else, there are folks here who find WhineBloze rather aJ >>>puzzlement, since they are hard-core VMS hackers. Forcing them to learnB >>>a new platform distracts them from their bread-and-butter work. >>> M >>There's nothing wrong with learning multiple systems, and a few things very  >>right with doing so. [snip]  >> > I > I'd have to do to you what my management does to me: what value does it D > add? ...and does that value outweigh the loss of productive (read:  > billable) time while learning? >  >   - I'm really very surprised with that response.    Do you believe in education?  E Do you stop learning once you've left your last education experience?   S If you cannot learn about new things, then you'll rather quickly become unbillable.   N I never said that an employer should pay you to learn new ideas.  Ever do any  such on your own?    Dave   --  4 David Froble                       Tel: 724-529-04504 Dave Froble Enterprises, Inc.      Fax: 724-529-0596> DFE Ultralights, Inc.              E-Mail: davef@tsoft-inc.com6 T-Soft, Inc.  170 Grimplin Road  Vanderbilt, PA  15486   ------------------------------  # Date: Tue, 01 Jul 2003 15:50:44 GMT # From: "John Smith" <a@nonymous.com> ? Subject: Re: Compaq Solutions Aliance - Do it still existing  ? H Message-ID: <o5iMa.33190$2ay.27879@news01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>  , <VAXman- @SendSpamHere.ORG> wrote in message* news:00A22274.D1372DAF@SendSpamHere.ORG...@ > In article <CIEJLCMNHNNDLLOOGNJIKEOOHHAA.tom@kednos.com>, "Tom  Linden" <tom@kednos.com> writes: > {...snip...} > ? > >So use another browser, or are you just complaining that the 	 available  > >browsers are relics?  > E > Relic, ancient artifact, prehistoric curio, etc. aside, that is not  the D > point.  Everytime this topic comes up, it erodes into the same old shit > about using Billy'$ warez. > E > I can do my on-line banking *securely* with NS 3.03b 128 bit!  What  isE > there that needs to be so tightly stuck up Micro$haft's output side  of= > its alimentary canal on HP's /DSPP pages such that I cannot 	 register?  > A > And why is it that everytime this topic arises here, instead of  tryingD > to get HP to relax it incestuous buggery of all things Micro$haft, you  > folks give up and cry uncle?    F One of the issues is that with the progression of time and the absenceE of a 'current' browser, it becomes less and less possible to properly . view sites that have come to embrace The Borg.  ? Netscape is slowly tilting in the wind as a viable alternative; D Mozilla on VMS is  not current enough. Soon VMS users become 'lockedD out' of sites simply because those sites have less and less interestB in adhering to W3C standards as opposed to implementing the latestF Microsoft "let's lock everyone into using our browser" by implementing a server-side 'feature'.   ------------------------------   Date: 1 Jul 2003 11:05:25 -0500 ; From: koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) ? Subject: Re: Compaq Solutions Aliance - Do it still existing  ? 3 Message-ID: <X$XnWUxGDP88@eisner.encompasserve.org>   n In article <o5iMa.33190$2ay.27879@news01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>, "John Smith" <a@nonymous.com> writes: > A > Netscape is slowly tilting in the wind as a viable alternative; F > Mozilla on VMS is  not current enough. Soon VMS users become 'lockedF > out' of sites simply because those sites have less and less interestD > in adhering to W3C standards as opposed to implementing the latestH > Microsoft "let's lock everyone into using our browser" by implementing > a server-side 'feature'.  F    So are you saying the Borg wins, somebody has to make Mozilla speakH    Borg, and Apple will have to make Safari speak Borg?  (Microsoft justE    announced it will do no more Explorer for Mac since Apple is doing     Safari.)    ------------------------------  # Date: Tue, 01 Jul 2003 16:51:06 GMT 9 From: "Fred Kleinsorge" <my-last-name@stardotzko.dec.com> ? Subject: Re: Compaq Solutions Aliance - Do it still existing  ? 1 Message-ID: <_ZiMa.3692$6Y.2378@news.cpqcorp.net>   . "John Smith" <a@nonymous.com> wrote in messageB news:o5iMa.33190$2ay.27879@news01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com... > . > <VAXman- @SendSpamHere.ORG> wrote in message, > news:00A22274.D1372DAF@SendSpamHere.ORG...B > > In article <CIEJLCMNHNNDLLOOGNJIKEOOHHAA.tom@kednos.com>, "Tom" > Linden" <tom@kednos.com> writes: > > {...snip...} > > A > > >So use another browser, or are you just complaining that the  > available  > > >browsers are relics?  > > G > > Relic, ancient artifact, prehistoric curio, etc. aside, that is not  > the F > > point.  Everytime this topic comes up, it erodes into the same old > shit > > about using Billy'$ warez. > > G > > I can do my on-line banking *securely* with NS 3.03b 128 bit!  What  > isG > > there that needs to be so tightly stuck up Micro$haft's output side  > of? > > its alimentary canal on HP's /DSPP pages such that I cannot  > register?  > > C > > And why is it that everytime this topic arises here, instead of  > tryingF > > to get HP to relax it incestuous buggery of all things Micro$haft, > you   > > folks give up and cry uncle? >  > H > One of the issues is that with the progression of time and the absenceG > of a 'current' browser, it becomes less and less possible to properly 0 > view sites that have come to embrace The Borg. > A > Netscape is slowly tilting in the wind as a viable alternative; F > Mozilla on VMS is  not current enough. Soon VMS users become 'lockedF > out' of sites simply because those sites have less and less interestD > in adhering to W3C standards as opposed to implementing the latestH > Microsoft "let's lock everyone into using our browser" by implementing > a server-side 'feature'. >   7 1) AFAIK Mozilla on VMS is hardly "not current enough".   H 2) Are you suggesting that somehow VMS has the clout to get Microsoft to# open source IE?  Or port it to VMS?    ------------------------------  # Date: Tue, 01 Jul 2003 16:57:47 GMT & From: John Reagan <john.reagan@hp.com>? Subject: Re: Compaq Solutions Aliance - Do it still existing  ? / Message-ID: <f4jMa.3693$RV.62@news.cpqcorp.net>    John Smith wrote:   ( > Mozilla on VMS is  not current enough.  F Lets see Mozilla 1.4 was announced on June 30th and right now on July G 1st, I'm downloading the PCSI kit for OpenVMS.  Or are you saying that  6 Mozilla.org isn't focusing on the correct feature set?     --   John Reagan ' Compaq Pascal/{A|I}MACRO Project Leader  Hewlett-Packard Company    ------------------------------    Date: 30 Jun 2003 23:01:16 -0700 From: ohm62@hotmail.com (OHM)  Subject: Re: cxx performance= Message-ID: <9d337b47.0306302201.35036222@posting.google.com>    I have to back this claim up!   C I am using a dual processor DS20E 500Mhz with 1Gb memory at work... B OpenVMS 7.3-1 with XFC enabled, Compaq C++ V6.5.  The O/S is fully7 tuned (autogen'ed about twice a month), all user quotas A over-dimensioned, since only a couple of users are ever logged at C once.  Relevant SYSGEN parameters were carefully reviewed.  Nothing ? else than C/C++ compilation runs on that box, dedicated to test F builds...  I am using STL templates (with local instantiation) quite a bit.  A My PC based collegues (using uniprocessor PentiumIV's 1Ghz 512Mb) A compile their 10 man year project (also using templates, although F maybe in slighly lesser extent) in about a half the time I need to getF my 1 man year project rebuilt.  This is particularly offensive, when I2 think about the relative costs of these systems...  B I had to report the situation to my management many times, as I doC believe this counter-performance impedes my work on a daily basis.  F However, it is hard to make a case and explain why a fairly recent andA still expensive hardware is so easily dominated by low cost boxes ? requiring no particular tuning skills to achieve so much better  performance.  E Please, HP, fix the darn thing!!!!  There is definitely a performance ; problem with this C++ compiler, otherwise a very good tool.   	   -- ohm.    ------------------------------  # Date: Tue, 01 Jul 2003 13:21:57 GMT 6 From: "Craig A. Berry" <craigberry@mac.com.spamfooler> Subject: Re: cxx performance@ Message-ID: <1e99b2b7f574092d1ade34986ec50dc0@free.teranews.com>  = In article <9d337b47.0306302201.35036222@posting.google.com>,   ohm62@hotmail.com (OHM) wrote:   G > Please, HP, fix the darn thing!!!!  There is definitely a performance = > problem with this C++ compiler, otherwise a very good tool.   C Forgive me if I've missed it, but I haven't noticed anyone talking  G about the demangler database in this thread.  That's one obvious place  F where a C++ compiler on VMS has to do a lot more work than a compiler F on other platforms, and very disk-intensive work at that.  I don't do A much with C++, but when I have occasionally built something I've  G definitely noticed how slow it is and always assumed name mangling was  D the reason.  I would try relocating the demangler database on a RAM F disk and see if that helps.  For more info, type $ HELP CXXDEMANGLE.  C If you can't relocate it for some reason, it's just an RMS indexed  G file, so it might be possible to tune the file, add a global buffer or  	 two, etc.    ------------------------------   Date: 1 Jul 2003 08:56:51 -0700 ) From: ejohnson@factset.com (Eric Johnson)  Subject: Re: cxx performance= Message-ID: <ef79676b.0307010756.7699e18e@posting.google.com>   b ohm62@hotmail.com (OHM) wrote in message news:<9d337b47.0306302201.35036222@posting.google.com>...  C > My PC based collegues (using uniprocessor PentiumIV's 1Ghz 512Mb) C > compile their 10 man year project (also using templates, although H > maybe in slighly lesser extent) in about a half the time I need to getH > my 1 man year project rebuilt.  This is particularly offensive, when I4 > think about the relative costs of these systems...  C I'm glad to hear someone else say this too.  So I'll beat it around 
 some more.  = VMS systems are expensive in total cost.  We all know that.   > Yes, I've heard all about the reduced total cost of ownership @ and how wonderful the total return of investment is.  That looks great on paper.   D But when push comes to shove, and you've got a PC with a semi-modernE C++ compiler than can outstrip an alpha system that costs two orders  B of magnitude more, its mildly frustrating.  Heck, it makes me want to compile on the PC.   A If you want VMS to continue to live, the developers tools have to G be treated with first class love, and this includes overall performance  of that tool for the developer.   D Perhaps the problem is in the EDG front end, perhaps its in the GEMMD code base.  I don't know.  I don't care.  I just want it an order ofD magnitude faster.  Especially given the extra zero on the price tag.  
 -Eric Johnson ! ejohnson @ nospam factset dot com    ------------------------------   Date: 1 Jul 2003 09:20:35 -0700 ) From: ejohnson@factset.com (Eric Johnson)  Subject: Re: cxx performance= Message-ID: <ef79676b.0307010820.67ba4ccc@posting.google.com>   ` "David J. Dachtera" <djesys.nospam@fsi.net> wrote in message news:<3F00F2F0.618F9703@fsi.net>... > Joshua Lehrer wrote: > > ] > > Nic Clews <sendspamhere@[127.0.0.1]> wrote in message news:<bdp5lo$d20$1@lore.csc.com>... L > > > From your description, I would place a priority on increasing the ACP_L > > > caches to bring the hit % as noted in AUTOGEN to or above 95% hit. I'd > > F > > I have no idea what that means.  I'm not a VMS engineer.  How do I7 > > check the value of this parameter and our hit rate?  > G > AUTOGEN tells you this in the AGEN$PARAMS.REPORT it produces when you 1 > run it. See the system manager's documentation.   D I ran monitor file_system_cache for a bit, and we average over 95%.    Our ACP_* values are...  SYSGEN>  SHOW ACP_*   A ACP_XQP_RES                     1          1         0          1  Boolean A ACP_REBLDSYSD                   0          1         0          1  Boolean A ACP_MULTIPLE                    0          0         0          1  Boolean    DA ACP_SHARE                       1          1         0          1  Boolean A ACP_MAPCACHE                 1180          9         2         -1  Blocks     DA ACP_HDRCACHE                 7200         36         8         -1  Blocks     DA ACP_DIRCACHE                 4800         22         4         -1  Blocks     DA ACP_DINDXCACHE               1200         26         2         -1  Blocks     DA ACP_WORKSET                     0          0         0         -1  Pagelets   DA ACP_FIDCACHE                   64         64         0         -1  File-Ids   DA ACP_EXTCACHE                   64         64         0         -1  Extents    DA ACP_EXTLIMIT                  100        100         0       1000  Percent/10 DA ACP_QUOCACHE                 2002         64         0       2337  Users      DA ACP_SYSACC                      9          8         0         -1  Directorie DA ACP_MAXREAD                    32         32         1         64  Blocks     DA ACP_WINDOW                      7          7         1         -1  Pointers   DA ACP_WRITEBACK                   1          1         0          1  Boolean    DA ACP_DATACHECK                   2          2         0         99  Bitmask    DA ACP_BASEPRIO                    8          8         4         31  Priority   DA ACP_SWAPFLGS                    6         15         0         15  Bitmask    D  I > How 'bout page file quota? (It's a user process parameter in AUTHORIZE: > > pgflquota. See also the system parameters pql_dpgflquota and > pql_mpgflquota.)  = This is pretty representative of what a developer would have.   9 Maxjobs:         0  Fillm:       225  Bytlm:        65000 9 Maxacctjobs:     0  Shrfillm:      0  Pbytlm:           0 9 Maxdetach:       0  BIOlm:       100  JTquota:     200000 9 Prclm:          10  DIOlm:       100  WSdef:         2048 9 Prio:            4  ASTlm:       100  WSquo:        16400 9 Queprio:         0  TQElm:       100  WSextent:     60000 9 CPU:        (none)  Enqlm:      5000  Pgflquo:    1000000   9 If you invoke the CXX v6.5 on a non-trivial C++ file with F /list/show=stat, you'll see that a considerable amount of time is lost> in the "Final" section, particularly "peepholing", and "object scheduling".  E Someone may need to smack around the EDG folks, because there's a ton E of time blown in the lex/parse/lower too which is probably beyond the  direct control of HP.    -Eric    ------------------------------  $ Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2003 03:07:50 -0400* From: "Bill Todd" <billtodd@metrocast.net>1 Subject: Re: HP Powers More TOP500 Supercomputers 2 Message-ID: <uyWdnfKyAb_NrpyiXTWJkw@metrocast.net>  > "Keith Parris" <keithparris_NOSPAM@yahoo.com> wrote in message7 news:cf15391e.0306301301.6ed41fbc@posting.google.com... > > keithparris_NOSPAM@yahoo.com (Keith Parris) wrote in message9 news:<cf15391e.0306241428.2185fab5@posting.google.com>... E > > With 159 entries, representing more than 30 percent of the posted F > > sites, HP has more installations on the TOP500 list than any other > > technology supplier. >   > It's also interesting to note: >  > HP has held the top spot   If you conveniently ignore NEC.   +  consecutively for the past three published  > lists.  G With a processor that is unfortunately slated for the scrap heap and on F which development started winding down 4 years ago when Curly took the reins.   - bill   ------------------------------   Date: 1 Jul 2003 10:26:58 -0700 1 From: keithparris_NOSPAM@yahoo.com (Keith Parris) 1 Subject: Re: HP Powers More TOP500 Supercomputers = Message-ID: <cf15391e.0307010926.1b4ebb55@posting.google.com>   d "Bill Todd" <billtodd@metrocast.net> wrote in message news:<uyWdnfKyAb_NrpyiXTWJkw@metrocast.net>...@ > "Keith Parris" <keithparris_NOSPAM@yahoo.com> wrote in message9 > news:cf15391e.0306301301.6ed41fbc@posting.google.com... G > > > With 159 entries, representing more than 30 percent of the posted H > > > sites, HP has more installations on the TOP500 list than any other > > > technology supplier. > > " > > It's also interesting to note: > > G > > HP has held the top spot consecutively for the past three published 
 > > lists. > ! > If you conveniently ignore NEC.   E NEC had 14 entries in the list (including the #1 slot), compared with E 159 for HP.  I think the postings were very clear that the "top spot" F HP was described as having held for the past 3 years was in having the; highest number of entries in the TOP500 list of any vendor.   I > With a processor that is unfortunately slated for the scrap heap and on H > which development started winding down 4 years ago when Curly took the > reins.  E There were a total of 23 entries in the list for Alpha, including the B #2 slot.  There were 127 for PA-RISC.  And Itanium has achieved 14< spots already, including one in the top 10 (#8) which is the- second-highest-ranking HP system represented.    ------------------------------   Date: 1 Jul 2003 02:34:33 -0700 ' From: icerq4a@spray.se (David Svensson) R Subject: Re: HP Webcast this morning on Next-Generation Intel Itanium 2 processors= Message-ID: <734da31c.0307010134.6e9fcf14@posting.google.com>   d "Bill Todd" <billtodd@metrocast.net> wrote in message news:<yYqcnUVMlqcrm5yiXTWJjg@metrocast.net>...K > Of course another question is whether that added SPECint performance will L > actually translate into anything worthwhile in real-world applications.  I  F Other benchmarks show that Itanium is good in real-world applications.  H > notice that your 4-processor SPECweb99_SSL result has not yet improvedH > (despite being run on an HP-UX base and hence presumably being able toE > benefit from the same compiler that one might suspect generated the K > SPECint_base score you refer to above:  SGI only managed to get 1077 with H > presumably the best compiler they had available to them) - and has nowL > dropped to third place behind not only the 4-processor 1.8 GHz Opteron butL > now the 4-processor 1.7 GHz POWER4+ as well.  And the dual-Madison results4 > remain only a smidge ahead of both Opteron and P4.  D HP claims SPECweb99_SSL 3702 for a 4-way rx5670, so it is improving.F The 4-way 1.7GHz POWER4+ result 3699 is achieved with special hardware, assistance (1 x IBM Crypto Accelerator 2058)   /David   ------------------------------  $ Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2003 06:48:18 -0400* From: "Bill Todd" <billtodd@metrocast.net>R Subject: Re: HP Webcast this morning on Next-Generation Intel Itanium 2 processors2 Message-ID: <fh6dnaqIJZxk-5yiU-KYvA@metrocast.net>  4 "David Svensson" <icerq4a@spray.se> wrote in message7 news:734da31c.0307010134.6e9fcf14@posting.google.com... 7 > "Bill Todd" <billtodd@metrocast.net> wrote in message . news:<yYqcnUVMlqcrm5yiXTWJjg@metrocast.net>...H > > Of course another question is whether that added SPECint performance willK > > actually translate into anything worthwhile in real-world applications.  I  > H > Other benchmarks show that Itanium is good in real-world applications.  L I haven't seen a benchmark compilation for Madison:  any pointers available?   > J > > notice that your 4-processor SPECweb99_SSL result has not yet improvedJ > > (despite being run on an HP-UX base and hence presumably being able toG > > benefit from the same compiler that one might suspect generated the H > > SPECint_base score you refer to above:  SGI only managed to get 1077 withJ > > presumably the best compiler they had available to them) - and has nowJ > > dropped to third place behind not only the 4-processor 1.8 GHz Opteron but F > > now the 4-processor 1.7 GHz POWER4+ as well.  And the dual-Madison results 6 > > remain only a smidge ahead of both Opteron and P4. > F > HP claims SPECweb99_SSL 3702 for a 4-way rx5670, so it is improving.  I It wasn't posted at spec.org last night, and as I noted I haven't seen it J elsewhere.  Interesting that it appears to have improved by about the sameC 10% HP-UX compiler speed-up that one could infer benefited SPECint.   H > The 4-way 1.7GHz POWER4+ result 3699 is achieved with special hardware. > assistance (1 x IBM Crypto Accelerator 2058)  G It would be interesting to see how it would do without that (just as it K would be interesting to see how Itanic would fare with less on-chip cache). J IIRC cryptographic acceleration is one of the features rumored to be moved on-chip in POWER5 next year.   - bill   ------------------------------  # Date: Tue, 01 Jul 2003 13:15:23 GMT 9 From: "Fred Kleinsorge" <my-last-name@stardotzko.dec.com> R Subject: Re: HP Webcast this morning on Next-Generation Intel Itanium 2 processors1 Message-ID: <LPfMa.3665$VK.2955@news.cpqcorp.net>   7 "Dave Gudewicz" <k9jdk@NOSPAMarrl.net> wrote in message ) news:vg1vepf5sd0fa4@corp.supernews.com... C > Heard the Madison stuff and saw the slides.  I think VMS got fair 	 attention  > this time around.  > C > Although also saw that the rx5670 (entry level 4-way) will not be 	 supported L > by VMS.  Wonder why?  Hope this isn't the start of another white-box AlphaG > campaign.  Remember the white Alpha boxes?  Most would rather forget.  >   J Not at all.  VMS is *only* supported on the rx2600 at present.  We will beJ filling out the offering as we get VMS to full production quality in 2004.L Since 4-way systems are a large part of VMS sales, you can rest assured that we will have a 4-way offering.   ------------------------------  # Date: Tue, 01 Jul 2003 13:20:34 GMT 9 From: "Fred Kleinsorge" <my-last-name@stardotzko.dec.com> R Subject: Re: HP Webcast this morning on Next-Generation Intel Itanium 2 processors0 Message-ID: <CUfMa.3666$7L.630@news.cpqcorp.net>  5 "Bill Todd" <billtodd@metrocast.net> wrote in message , news:fh6dnaqIJZxk-5yiU-KYvA@metrocast.net...  I > It would be interesting to see how it would do without that (just as it E > would be interesting to see how Itanic would fare with less on-chip  cache).  >   K Now there is a brilliant statement.  You're not gonna give up no matter how I much evidence you are wrong starts rolling over you.  If Intel shipped an K IA64 that consumed 1 watt, and ran twice as fast as anything else, I'm sure / you'd have some fallback to why it still sucks.    ------------------------------   Date: 1 Jul 2003 07:41:06 -0700 ' From: icerq4a@spray.se (David Svensson) R Subject: Re: HP Webcast this morning on Next-Generation Intel Itanium 2 processors< Message-ID: <734da31c.0307010641.d37a0a8@posting.google.com>  d "Bill Todd" <billtodd@metrocast.net> wrote in message news:<fh6dnaqIJZxk-5yiU-KYvA@metrocast.net>...6 > "David Svensson" <icerq4a@spray.se> wrote in message9 > news:734da31c.0307010134.6e9fcf14@posting.google.com... 9 > > "Bill Todd" <billtodd@metrocast.net> wrote in message 1 >  news:<yYqcnUVMlqcrm5yiXTWJjg@metrocast.net>... J > > > Of course another question is whether that added SPECint performance >  will M > > > actually translate into anything worthwhile in real-world applications.  >  I > > J > > Other benchmarks show that Itanium is good in real-world applications. > N > I haven't seen a benchmark compilation for Madison:  any pointers available?  @ http://www.intel.com/pressroom/archive/releases/20030630comp.htm click on Benchmarks on the left   J http://www.sgi.com/newsroom/press_releases/2003/june/altix_benchmarks.htmlI http://www.sgi.com/newsroom/press_releases/2003/june/altix_benchmarks.pdf   E http://www.hp.com/products1/itanium/performance/commercial/index.html ` http://www.hp.com/products1/itanium/performance/technical/HPTCIntegrityISVperformancesummary.pdfl http://www.hp.com/products1/itanium/pdfs/infolibrary/itanium_workstations_performance_june_25_2003_FINAL.pdf     > > L > > > notice that your 4-processor SPECweb99_SSL result has not yet improvedL > > > (despite being run on an HP-UX base and hence presumably being able toI > > > benefit from the same compiler that one might suspect generated the J > > > SPECint_base score you refer to above:  SGI only managed to get 1077 >  with L > > > presumably the best compiler they had available to them) - and has nowL > > > dropped to third place behind not only the 4-processor 1.8 GHz Opteron >  butH > > > now the 4-processor 1.7 GHz POWER4+ as well.  And the dual-Madison
 >  results8 > > > remain only a smidge ahead of both Opteron and P4. > > H > > HP claims SPECweb99_SSL 3702 for a 4-way rx5670, so it is improving. > K > It wasn't posted at spec.org last night, and as I noted I haven't seen it L > elsewhere.  Interesting that it appears to have improved by about the sameE > 10% HP-UX compiler speed-up that one could infer benefited SPECint.   N http://www.hp.com/products1/itanium/performance/commercial/spec_web99_ssl.html  J > > The 4-way 1.7GHz POWER4+ result 3699 is achieved with special hardware0 > > assistance (1 x IBM Crypto Accelerator 2058) > I > It would be interesting to see how it would do without that (just as itDM > would be interesting to see how Itanic would fare with less on-chip cache). L > IIRC cryptographic acceleration is one of the features rumored to be moved > on-chip in POWER5 next year.  F It would also be interesting to see those results without 128Mb cache.   /David   ------------------------------  # Date: Tue, 01 Jul 2003 15:34:43 GMTr# From: "John Smith" <a@nonymous.com>PR Subject: Re: HP Webcast this morning on Next-Generation Intel Itanium 2 processorsH Message-ID: <nShMa.33079$2ay.13913@news01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>  5 "Bill Todd" <billtodd@metrocast.net> wrote in messagen, news:yYqcnUVMlqcrm5yiXTWJjg@metrocast.net... > F > "Fred Kleinsorge" <my-last-name@stardotzko.dec.com> wrote in message. > news:vJ%La.3590$CI7.2373@news.cpqcorp.net... >l > ...m >pA > on that rotten corpse of an architecure IA64 - you know the onea: > > that we just announced systems from 1 CPU to 64 CPU's. >iC > But you've been pretty shy about announcing benchmark results fore anything@ > beyond 4 CPUs so far.  And IBM just beat out your 64-CPU TPC-C resultF > (again) - again using only 32 CPUs (on only 16 chips, each about the size of C > one Madison chip...) and offering that performance at a bit lowera cost perF > tpmC as well.  Kind of sounds like the GS80/160/320 all over again - but InB > guess that's what those jolly server guys who helped knife Alpha wanted.  >hB > Any place where I could find out what SuperDome memory latencies (both localfD > and remote) are?  I did find some information about both local andB > off-module peak bandwidth (not all that impressive, but at least you've > published them). >a >   The one with 1318h$ > > SpecInt2000 and 2106 SpecFP2000. >rD > Which mostly proves (again) that if you're willing to throw enough	 power and-E > chip area (especially cache) at the problem you can indeed make the0 barn > door fly, albeit inelegantly.)  F Somewhat similar to the F-4 Phantom II - proof that if you strap a big. enough engine to it, you can make a brick fly.   ------------------------------  # Date: Tue, 01 Jul 2003 16:49:41 GMT09 From: "Fred Kleinsorge" <my-last-name@stardotzko.dec.com>yR Subject: Re: HP Webcast this morning on Next-Generation Intel Itanium 2 processors1 Message-ID: <FYiMa.3691$hW.1802@news.cpqcorp.net>h  . "John Smith" <a@nonymous.com> wrote in messageB news:nShMa.33079$2ay.13913@news01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com... >c7 > "Bill Todd" <billtodd@metrocast.net> wrote in message . > news:yYqcnUVMlqcrm5yiXTWJjg@metrocast.net... > >i > >   The one with 1318e& > > > SpecInt2000 and 2106 SpecFP2000. > > F > > Which mostly proves (again) that if you're willing to throw enough > power andcG > > chip area (especially cache) at the problem you can indeed make the3 > barn! > > door fly, albeit inelegantly.  >hH > Somewhat similar to the F-4 Phantom II - proof that if you strap a big0 > enough engine to it, you can make a brick fly. >   E Yup.  Like the most successful ISA in history - the x86.  Frankly, ituL doesn't matter all that much how they did it, they have done it.  This brickH is now the baddest brick on the planet (oh, I'm sure we'll start gettingI into leapfrogging - but that's no different than Alpha's position).  ThisoI brick is also now flying in a suite of systems from workstations to largeiI mainframes, and available from the cheap system vendors like Dell, to ther* bet-your-business vendors like HP and IBM.  J So go on with your complaints.  It's sounding a lot like the "purists" whoH are still bitter over BetaMax losing to VHS, or who believe that digitalH sound can't compare to their old LP's and a tube amp.  Frankly, the onlyF ones who should really care overly much about the ISA are the compilerC writers, and the OS developers.  The C programmer, and the end usera shouldn't really care.   ------------------------------   Date: 1 Jul 2003 16:36:52 -0000 4 From: Doc.Cypher <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]>R Subject: Re: HP Webcast this morning on Next-Generation Intel Itanium 2 processors6 Message-ID: <20030701163652.21422.qmail@nym.alias.net>  9 On Tue, 01 Jul 2003, "John Smith" <a@nonymous.com> wrote:.6 >"Bill Todd" <billtodd@metrocast.net> wrote in message- >news:yYqcnUVMlqcrm5yiXTWJjg@metrocast.net...'  E >> Which mostly proves (again) that if you're willing to throw enoughs
 >power andF >> chip area (especially cache) at the problem you can indeed make the >barnn  >> door fly, albeit inelegantly. > G >Somewhat similar to the F-4 Phantom II - proof that if you strap a biga/ >enough engine to it, you can make a brick fly.    I can picture it now.e  2 Warning: DO NOT let children in this machine room!:          The IA-64 system's cooling fans will suck 'em in.   :)  N Seriously though, I hope the Texas presentations are going to get a little bit* more widespread coverage... Like Slashdot.     Doc. -- dK OpenVMS.         Eight out of ten hackers prefer *other* operating systems.s   ------------------------------   Date: 1 Jul 2003 07:47:37 -0500d; From: koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler))' Subject: Re: New OpenVMS-to-Itanium FAQs3 Message-ID: <SzRs0sBs72uT@eisner.encompasserve.org>s  q In article <cf15391e.0306301243.77f9536c@posting.google.com>, keithparris_NOSPAM@yahoo.com (Keith Parris) writes:c > D > For answers to these and many other questions that you might have,Q > visit http://www.hp.com/products1/evolution/alpha_retaintrust/openvms/faqs.htmlr  H    While there are many legitimate reasons not to do so, I was wonderingB    if we'd see this FAQ posted to the Usenet (comp.answers rings a	    bell).n  F    That could wake up the rest of the world in a way that will prevent6    those OpenVMS vs. VMS type questions we still hear.   ------------------------------  # Date: Tue, 01 Jul 2003 13:48:44 GMTt& From: John Reagan <john.reagan@hp.com>' Subject: Re: New OpenVMS-to-Itanium FAQM1 Message-ID: <0jgMa.3671$0M.1093@news.cpqcorp.net>k   Craig A. Berry wrote:G  H > Also in the language porting category (item 18), why is COBOL missing E > when it is listed on the separate products page as something being -	 > ported?-  E That is a typo.  COBOL should be included.  If you follow the links, t; you'll find COBOL info.  I've already sent mail about this.a     -- e John Reaganx' Compaq Pascal/{A|I}MACRO Project Leader2 Hewlett-Packard CompanyD   ------------------------------  $ Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2003 07:19:24 -0700# From: "Tom Linden" <tom@kednos.com> ' Subject: RE: New OpenVMS-to-Itanium FAQa9 Message-ID: <CIEJLCMNHNNDLLOOGNJIAECJHIAA.tom@kednos.com>   E Maybe you could also have them correct item 18 by adding PL/I  and 19 G (twice) by providing link to Kednos for questions on PL/I.  I doubt anyIF clear thinking person would seriously consider translating PL/I to C++G as even an option.  So you may wish to remove that as well as an option'H since it questions your credibility.  Reengineering yes, Translating no.   >-----Original Message------. >From: John Reagan [mailto:john.reagan@hp.com]% >Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2003 6:49 AMe >To: Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Com( >Subject: Re: New OpenVMS-to-Itanium FAQ >l >x >Craig A. Berry wrote: >0I >> Also in the language porting category (item 18), why is COBOL missing wF >> when it is listed on the separate products page as something being 
 >> ported? >fF >That is a typo.  COBOL should be included.  If you follow the links, < >you'll find COBOL info.  I've already sent mail about this. >s >x >--  >John Reagan( >Compaq Pascal/{A|I}MACRO Project Leader >Hewlett-Packard Company >  >---' >Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.k; >Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).eA >Version: 6.0.489 / Virus Database: 288 - Release Date: 6/10/2003d >i ---z& Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.: Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).@ Version: 6.0.489 / Virus Database: 288 - Release Date: 6/10/2003   ------------------------------   Date: 1 Jul 2003 09:46:10 -0700v1 From: keithparris_NOSPAM@yahoo.com (Keith Parris) ' Subject: Re: New OpenVMS-to-Itanium FAQ = Message-ID: <cf15391e.0307010846.72f19b53@posting.google.com>i  B "Craig A. Berry" <craigberry@mac.com.spamfooler> wrote in message E > I'd suggest a bit of proof-reading and fact checking.  There are a eH > number of small but distracting typos (e.g. in item 9), and also some * > misleading and incomplete information.    @ It would be most helpful when you spot errors like this that youC report them using the 'Feedback to Webmaster' link at the bottom ofnD each page.  I've found that mechanism gets things fixed, in a timely fashion.   ------------------------------   Date: 1 Jul 2003 07:43:58 -0500F; From: koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) S Subject: Re: OpenVMS Pearl - OpenVMS V8.0, first release on Itanium, ships today!!!-3 Message-ID: <afCMPuPGkQgC@eisner.encompasserve.org>h  q In article <857e9e41.0306300930.3b056994@posting.google.com>, susan_skonetski@hotmail.com (Sue Skonetski) writes:0   > Development Tools: > 	Cross Linker > 	Cross Librariane > 	Cross Message Compiler/ > 	Cross and Native Command Definition Utility   A    Does "Cross" mean I have to have an Alpha to run the IA64 tooldD    on, or is it like the current Linker which will handle either VAXI    or Alpha object to image linking while running on either VAX or Alpha?e   ------------------------------  $ Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2003 15:02:43 +0200< From: "Martin Vorlaender" <martin.vorlaender@pdv-systeme.de>S Subject: Re: OpenVMS Pearl - OpenVMS V8.0, first release on Itanium, ships today!!! 5 Message-ID: <bds0pq$10edot$1@ID-56200.news.dfncis.de>    Bob Koehler wrote:5 > susan_skonetski@hotmail.com (Sue Skonetski) writes:t >l >> Development Tools:/ >>  Cross Linkert >>  Cross Librarian >>  Cross Message Compilere0 >>  Cross and Native Command Definition Utility > C >    Does "Cross" mean I have to have an Alpha to run the IA64 toolo >    on,  C Yup, that's what I remember from the DECUS symposium presentations.s   cu,    Martin --F   OpenVMS:                | Martin Vorlaender  |  VMS & WNT programmer3    The operating system   | work: mv@pdv-systeme.de.F    God runs the           |   http://www.pdv-systeme.de/users/martinv/:    earth simulation on.   | home: martin@radiogaga.harz.de   ------------------------------  # Date: Tue, 01 Jul 2003 13:53:13 GMTe& From: John Reagan <john.reagan@hp.com>Y Subject: Re: OpenVMS Pearl - OpenVMS V8.0, first release on Itanium, ships today!!! todaym1 Message-ID: <dngMa.3672$0M.2893@news.cpqcorp.net>-   Bob Koehler wrote:  C >    Does "Cross" mean I have to have an Alpha to run the IA64 tooleF >    on, or is it like the current Linker which will handle either VAXK >    or Alpha object to image linking while running on either VAX or Alpha?a >   F The "cross" linker/librarian/etc. all must be run on an OpenVMS Alpha I system.  The V8.0 release also includes native linker/librarian, but all a1 the compilers are currently cross-compilers only.c  I This linker knows about Itanium only, it doesn't know about VAX or Alpha tE objects. While the Alpha and VAX object and image formats were close aH enough to allow one linker to accept either and produce either, the ELF H format used for the object and image formats on OpenVMS I64 are far too H different to make that reasonble.  The linker one of the few tools that $ was almost gutted and reimplemented.   -- g John Reagan ' Compaq Pascal/{A|I}MACRO Project Leaderl Hewlett-Packard Companyi   ------------------------------  * Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2003 14:24:49 +0000 (UTC). From: Dale Dellutri <ddelQQQlutr@panQQQix.com> Subject: Re: Rethinking  V.M.S, Message-ID: <bds5jh$qb8$1@reader1.panix.com>  Y On Sun, 29 Jun 2003 14:14:10 -0700 (PDT), Fabio Cardoso <fabiopenvms@yahoo.com.br> wrote:o5 > The VMS was developed 25 years ago when memory was w) > expensive and Virtual Memory an option. 4 > But do we need a Virtual Memory System nowadays ? 3 > May be we should think in another architecture as<9 > the memories are becoming cheaper. May be the VM Systemn: > can be improved or rethinked... What are the performance< > issues related in having the VM (paging, swapping, related5 > to disk I/O delay, etc ...) What do u think about ?,  C Also, remember that virtual memory provides another benefit even if @ all the processes need less than the real memory: no real memory? fragmentation caused by multiple independent running processes.m  E Before virtual memory (for example, think of the OSes that ran on therD IBM 360 series: DOS, OS/MFT, MVS without paging), the memory used byD each process had to be contiguous and real.  Thus, there were memoryD fragmentation problems among processes as they were placed / moved / removed from the system.  A Virtual memory eliminated the need to have contiguous real memoryf assigned to processes.  = Now all the fragmentation problems are within each process, aeB different kind of problem from the system manager's point of view.   -- l7 Dale Dellutri <ddelQQQlutr@panQQQix.com> (lose the Q's)e   ------------------------------   Date: 1 Jul 2003 09:46:11 -0000i4 From: Doc.Cypher <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> Subject: Re: Running VMS off CDe6 Message-ID: <20030701094611.22461.qmail@nym.alias.net>  G On Mon, 30 Jun 2003, "David J. Dachtera" <djesys.nospam@fsi.net> wrote:i >"Doc.Cypher" wrote: >> iO >> For those that have noticed I have an interest in remailers (duh!). The goodsN >> news is that the new Type-III remailer (Mixminion) is written in Python and$ >> will therefor be runnable on VMS. >> sM >> Any system such as that should be as secure as possible, and I'm wondering-7 >> about the possibility of booting and running off CD.  >>  O >> Has anyone done this?  If so, is XFC enough of a performance booster to makeoN >> this a viable proposition?  What would be a reasonable amount of memory for >> the system? >> o >> Thanks for any advice.t >oG >I'm sure it can be done, provided you are prepared to hack up your ownJH >bootable image. I've done it. It's not easy, and the time investment is
 >substantial.r  M It would be an interesting exercise, I'd probably be a lot more familiar withaD the boot process - and have a lot of coasters - by the end of it. :)  G >I'd have to question the reason why, however. What does a write-locked.A >system disk do for you? ...and are you prepared to deal with the6 >ramifications of that?o  M It should mean that physical access would be required - or intimate knowledge 7 of an undiscovered exploit - to compromise the machine.C     Doc. -- qK OpenVMS.         Eight out of ten hackers prefer *other* operating systems.r   ------------------------------  # Date: Tue, 01 Jul 2003 09:57:37 GMTa, From: "Bertil" <remove.baandersson@yahoo.se> Subject: Re: Running VMS off CDt3 Message-ID: <lWcMa.18458$dP1.34636@newsc.telia.net>t  H Once upon a time we had a VAXstation with three 100 Mbyte disks, running= "Desktop VMS". The system disk was the CD and the SYS$SYSROOT E had three parts. First a writeable part on disk then SYS$SPECIFIC anda5 SYS$COMMON on CD. From this boot node we booted threelD "VAXstation 2000?". You must have a writeable part for the logfiles!  F So, it's possible to boot (VAX/)VMS from CD, but I would not recommend it.    /Bertilr  D "Doc.Cypher" <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> skrev i meddelandet0 news:20030701094611.22461.qmail@nym.alias.net...I > On Mon, 30 Jun 2003, "David J. Dachtera" <djesys.nospam@fsi.net> wrote:d > >"Doc.Cypher" wrote: > >>L > >> For those that have noticed I have an interest in remailers (duh!). The goodL > >> news is that the new Type-III remailer (Mixminion) is written in Python andd& > >> will therefor be runnable on VMS. > >>E > >> Any system such as that should be as secure as possible, and I'm-	 wondering-9 > >> about the possibility of booting and running off CD.A > >>L > >> Has anyone done this?  If so, is XFC enough of a performance booster to makeL > >> this a viable proposition?  What would be a reasonable amount of memory for5 > >> the system? > >> > >> Thanks for any advice.) > >eI > >I'm sure it can be done, provided you are prepared to hack up your owncJ > >bootable image. I've done it. It's not easy, and the time investment is > >substantial.e >tJ > It would be an interesting exercise, I'd probably be a lot more familiar withF > the boot process - and have a lot of coasters - by the end of it. :) >oI > >I'd have to question the reason why, however. What does a write-lockedoC > >system disk do for you? ...and are you prepared to deal with the  > >ramifications of that?i >eE > It should mean that physical access would be required - or intimatee	 knowledgeu9 > of an undiscovered exploit - to compromise the machine.d >e >  > Doc. > -- rD > OpenVMS.         Eight out of ten hackers prefer *other* operating systems. >t >j >  >R >i >x >  >i   ------------------------------   Date: 1 Jul 2003 07:52:47 -0500 ; From: koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler)  Subject: Re: Running VMS off CDs3 Message-ID: <j3tMJ7aC2Wdj@eisner.encompasserve.org>o  b In article <lWcMa.18458$dP1.34636@newsc.telia.net>, "Bertil" <remove.baandersson@yahoo.se> writes: > H > So, it's possible to boot (VAX/)VMS from CD, but I would not recommend > it.e  E    We all do it when we boot the distribution CD to install VMS or to /    do what used to be called standalone backup.g   ------------------------------   Date: 1 Jul 2003 13:07:31 -0000 4 From: Doc.Cypher <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> Subject: Re: Running VMS off CDn5 Message-ID: <20030701130731.6995.qmail@nym.alias.net>l  K On 1 Jul 2003, koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) wrote:M= >In article <lWcMa.18458$dP1.34636@newsc.telia.net>, "Bertil"e& ><remove.baandersson@yahoo.se> writes: >> tI >> So, it's possible to boot (VAX/)VMS from CD, but I would not recommendl >> it. > F >   We all do it when we boot the distribution CD to install VMS or to0 >   do what used to be called standalone backup.   That much I already knew. :)  H I've found that booting from the install CD can be a particularly useful0 alternative to a minimum or conversational boot.     Doc. -- lK OpenVMS.         Eight out of ten hackers prefer *other* operating systems.r   ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 01 Jul 2003 15:53:48 +0200s$ From: Michael Unger <unger@decus.de>! Subject: Re: SIMH V3.0-0 released 6 Message-ID: <bdsfi3$1052df$1@ID-152801.news.dfncis.de>  , On 30-Jun-2003 03:33, Jason Armistead wrote:   > [...]  > G > Or, just ask the nice NetBSD/VAX people.  They've got the various VAX-8 > disk and tape capacities documented on their web site: > L > http://www.netbsd.org/Documentation/Hardware/Machines/DEC/vax/storage.html   Thanks for the pointer!.   > 9 > I found this using a quick Google search for "RA92 disk : > specifications" and it was the top ranked search result. >  > [...]    Michael    -- s  @ Please do *not* send "Security Patch Notifications" or "SecurityA Updates"; this system isn't running a Micro$oft operating system.n= And don't annoy me <mailto:postmaster@[127.0.0.1]> please ;-)i   ------------------------------   Date: 1 Jul 2003 07:38:27 -0500t; From: koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler)uS Subject: Re: Tri-architecture cluster demonstrated at DECUS Ottawa Technical UpdateM3 Message-ID: <qLVVcLA1TSNw@eisner.encompasserve.org>t  q In article <cf15391e.0306301019.1fb14925@posting.google.com>, keithparris_NOSPAM@yahoo.com (Keith Parris) writes:uH > A VMS cluster with VAX, Alpha, and Itanium systems was demonstrated at$ > the DECUS Ottawa Technical Update. > = > View of Cluster from system ID 58693  node: CTHX03           > 23-JUN-2003 21:18:32B > +----------------------------------------------------+---------+B > |                       SYSTEMS                      | MEMBERS |B > +--------+--------------------------------+----------+---------+B > |  NODE  |             HW_TYPE            | SOFTWARE |  STATUS |B > +--------+--------------------------------+----------+---------+B > | CTHX03 | AlphaServer ES40               | VMS V7.3 | MEMBER  |B > | CTHOPS | VAXstation 4000-60             | VMS V7.3 | MEMBER  |B > | I64CDN | HP rx2600                      | VMS X9TM | MEMBER  |B > +--------+--------------------------------+----------+---------+  A   Anyone notice anything that didn't work (other than the support    contract)?   ------------------------------   Date: 1 Jul 2003 07:40:31 -05000; From: koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) S Subject: Re: Tri-architecture cluster demonstrated at DECUS Ottawa Technical Update 3 Message-ID: <nLAUdnc$iCkV@eisner.encompasserve.org>   j In article <qo8AP2WLKLUgDuM3PuLSdEwRjGz6@4ax.com>, David Beatty <David.Beatty@qwertysasasdfgh.com> writes: > ? >     Hmmm ... I wonder if that means HP will decide to support 6 > VAX and Itanium in the same cluster, since it was my5 > understanding that they had not planned to do that.   =    They've said over and over again that they will do nothing @    intentional to break it, but they won't support it.  It would=    take a very large VAX customer to push them before I think     we'd see a change in that.t  G    And many of us were not suprised to see it demonstrated as a working !    but unsupported configuration.d   ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 01 Jul 2003 08:17:47 -0400o5 From: David Beatty <David.Beatty@qwertysasasdfgh.com>lS Subject: Re: Tri-architecture cluster demonstrated at DECUS Ottawa Technical Updatec2 Message-ID: <UXsBP66d7QTKzcahmEVW=Ogwffns@4ax.com>  C On Mon, 30 Jun 2003 20:45:00 GMT, brooks@cuebid.zko.dec.nospam (Rob  Brooks) wrote:  8 >David Beatty <David.Beatty@qwertysasasdfgh.com> writes: >> 1@ >>     Hmmm ... I wonder if that means HP will decide to support7 >> VAX and Itanium in the same cluster, since it was my-6 >> understanding that they had not planned to do that. >cD >It is *highly* unlikely that we'll _support_ VAXes and IA64 systemsM >together in a cluster.  We have said, however, that we're not planning to dotK >anything that would prevent a VAX-IA64 cluster.  For us, there is a ratheroP >large committment to qualification and validation for supported configurations;6 >that time and money is likely better spent elsewhere. >rE >As always, if someone has a strong business need  to see support forO8 >VAX-IA64 clusters, please contact andy.schneider at hp.  >     Thanks for the information, Rob.  It just makes a stronger6 case to split our current development environment into separate clusters.   David R. Beattyy   ------------------------------   End of INFO-VAX 2003.360 ************************