1 INFO-VAX	Thu, 03 Jul 2003	Volume 2003 : Issue 363       Contents: Re: Another ? on GNV6 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  ?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  ?5 Re: Compaq Solutions Aliance - Do it still existing ?  Re: cxx performance  Re: Enumerating logicals Re: Enumerating logicals Re: Enumerating logicals Re: Enumerating logicals@ Re: Hewlett-Packard said to be interested in buying software andP Re: HP Announces OpenVMS Evaluation Release Version 8.0 for	=?iso-8859-1?Q?ItaniP Re: HP Announces OpenVMS Evaluation Release Version 8.0 for	=?iso-8859-1?Q?Itani( Re: HP Powers More TOP500 Supercomputers Re: HP to drop hpux? Re: HP to drop hpux? Re: HP to drop hpux? Re: HP to drop hpux?J Re: HP Webcast this morning on Next-Generation Intel Itanium 2  processorsJ Re: HP Webcast this morning on Next-Generation Intel Itanium 2  processorsJ Re: HP Webcast this morning on Next-Generation Intel Itanium 2  processorsJ Re: HP Webcast this morning on Next-Generation Intel Itanium 2  processorsJ Re: HP Webcast this morning on Next-Generation Intel Itanium 2  processorsI 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 P Re: HP Webcast this morning on Next-Generation Intel Itanium 2 processors procesP Re: HP Webcast this morning on Next-Generation Intel Itanium 2 processors procesP Re: HP Webcast this morning on Next-Generation Intel Itanium 2 processors procesP Re: HP Webcast this morning on Next-Generation Intel Itanium 2 processors procesP Re: HP Webcast this morning on Next-Generation Intel Itanium 2 processors procesP Re: HP Webcast this morning on Next-Generation Intel Itanium 2 processors proces HP World (was HP to drop hpux?) # Re: HP World (was HP to drop hpux?) # Re: HP World (was HP to drop hpux?)  Re: Mount a backup /image  Re: Mount a backup /image  OpenVMS 7.3.1 Install problem. Re: Rethinking  V.M.S  Re: Rethinking  V.M.S  Re: Rethinking  V.M.S  Re: Rethinking  V.M.S  Re: Rethinking  V.M.S  Re: Rethinking  V.M.S  Re: Rethinking  V.M.S  Re: Rethinking  V.M.S  Re: Rethinking V.M.S Re: Rethinking V.M.S Re: Running VMS off CD Re: Running VMS off CD Selling at cheap pricing1 Re: Standard Digital Markup Language (SDML) DTD ? 1 Re: Standard Digital Markup Language (SDML) DTD ? 1 Re: Standard Digital Markup Language (SDML) DTD ? H Re: Subject: Reading long files in BASIC that appears to be "recordless"1 Re: TCPIP$SMTP_FROM: working on VAX but not ALPHA M The evils of IE (Was: Compaq Solutions Aliance - Do it still existing ?) ?)?) J Re: Tri-architecture cluster demonstrated at DECUS Ottawa Technical UpdateF Re: VAX support (was: Re: OpenVMS Technical Seminar Highlights (some))F Re: VAX support (was: Re: OpenVMS Technical Seminar Highlights (some))F Re: VAX support (was: Re: OpenVMS Technical Seminar Highlights (some))! VERY FUN FREE ADDICTIVE RPG  2614 ! VERY FUN FREE ADDICTIVE RPG  3218 % Re: VERY FUN FREE ADDICTIVE RPG  3218 % Re: VERY FUN FREE ADDICTIVE RPG  3218 % Re: VERY FUN FREE ADDICTIVE RPG  3218  what is VMS advanced Server  Re: what is VMS advanced Server   F ----------------------------------------------------------------------  # Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2003 18:18:02 GMT 4 From: brad@.gateway.2wire.net (Bradford J. Hamilton) Subject: Re: Another ? on GNV ) Message-ID: <ulFMa.254$Ix2.367@rwcrnsc54>   b In article <3f02eceb$0$49098$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl>, Bart Zorn <B.Zorn@xs4all.nospam.nl> writes:I >BASH gets probably installed as a DCL command verb. PRODUCT REMOVE does   >not undo that.  >  >You could do: > / >$ SET COMMAND/INPUT=SYS$LIBRARY:DCLTABLES.EXE- 8 >   /OUTPUT=SYS$COMMON:[SYSLIB]DCLTABLES.EXE BASH/DELETE > A >Then do a INSTALL/REPLACE SYS$LIBRARY:DCLTABLES.EXE or a reboot.  > 
 >Bart Zorn >   N Thanks for reminding me; I was supposed to fix this.  It was actually a symbolL defined in SYLOGIN; I removed it.  I'm still new in this particular job, and4 I'm still trying to get a handle on the environment.   <snip>  A _________________________________________________________________ 0 Bradford J. Hamilton			"All opinions are my own"? bMradAhamiPltSon-at-coMmcAast.nPeSt	"Lose the MAPS, and replace 3 (please note the new e-mail address)	'-at-' with @"    ------------------------------   Date: 2 Jul 2003 12:05:21 -0500 ; From: koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) ? Subject: Re: Compaq Solutions Aliance - Do it still existing  ? 3 Message-ID: <YRS+9QQFceLI@eisner.encompasserve.org>   m In article <G0BMa.27625$a51.2310@news02.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>, "John Smith" <a@nonymous.com> writes:  > H > My point was that with more and more web site developers *choosing* toH > support IE-specific features which are not necessarily W3C compatible,G > developers of other web browsers have to make a concious choice as to D > whether they will be 'standards based' thereby potentially runningF > into some of the same problems non-IE users hit when they browse theG > HP web site (as an example), or to follow MS and attempt to implement C > IE 'extensions' which may or may not peacefully co-exist with W3C  > standards. >   E    I think if I was writing a web browser, every time I ran into some G    MS-specific stuff on the page, I'd pop up a nasty-gram window, maybe C    as a pre-addressed email to some MS address, explaining that MS      software is at fault.  G    This would balance MS software's habit of making it look like non-MS E    software is faulty (witness my cousin's Project to HTML conversion A    that pops up a window blaming my browser for not being able to (    display what is actualy faulty HTML).  F    The question remains, what to do with stuff that's not so obviuosly	    wrong.    ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2003 13:44:16 -0400 * From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@istop.com>? Subject: Re: Compaq Solutions Aliance - Do it still existing  ? ) Message-ID: <3F0319EF.762B2DB1@istop.com>    "David J. Dachtera" wrote:G > Believe it or else, there are folks here who find WhineBloze rather a I > puzzlement, since they are hard-core VMS hackers. Forcing them to learn A > a new platform distracts them from their bread-and-butter work.   M It isn't a question of "learning" Windows. It is a question of having a small K desktop platform that requires more maintenance that the big system you are L supposed to maintain. A desktop should help you manage the large system, not the other way around.    ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2003 15:18:46 -0400 * From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@istop.com>? Subject: Re: Compaq Solutions Aliance - Do it still existing  ? ) Message-ID: <3F033016.29B568BC@istop.com>    John Smith wrote: H > My point was that with more and more web site developers *choosing* toH > support IE-specific features which are not necessarily W3C compatible,G > developers of other web browsers have to make a concious choice as to D > whether they will be 'standards based' thereby potentially running    N To be the devil's advocate, it is possible that those web designers don't evenL have a clue that they are building incompatible web sites. If they are usingN some microsoft software to designe/build the web site, they may never actuallyJ see the HTML and since they'd be testing this with Microsoft browser, they" would think all is fine and dandy.   ------------------------------  # Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2003 19:37:55 GMT # From: "John Smith" <a@nonymous.com> ? Subject: Re: Compaq Solutions Aliance - Do it still existing  ? H Message-ID: <nwGMa.44541$2ay.31314@news01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>  @ "Bob Koehler" <koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org> wrote in5 message news:YRS+9QQFceLI@eisner.encompasserve.org...  > In articleB <G0BMa.27625$a51.2310@news02.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>, "John Smith" <a@nonymous.com> writes:  > > < > > My point was that with more and more web site developers
 *choosing* to > > > support IE-specific features which are not necessarily W3C compatible, F > > developers of other web browsers have to make a concious choice as toF > > whether they will be 'standards based' thereby potentially runningD > > into some of the same problems non-IE users hit when they browse the ? > > HP web site (as an example), or to follow MS and attempt to 	 implement E > > IE 'extensions' which may or may not peacefully co-exist with W3C  > > standards. > >  > B >    I think if I was writing a web browser, every time I ran into someC >    MS-specific stuff on the page, I'd pop up a nasty-gram window,  maybe D >    as a pre-addressed email to some MS address, explaining that MS >    software is at fault. > B >    This would balance MS software's habit of making it look like non-MS< >    software is faulty (witness my cousin's Project to HTML
 conversionC >    that pops up a window blaming my browser for not being able to * >    display what is actualy faulty HTML).    F Sure that's satisfying but after the 3rd time the pop-up appears, your< carefully crafted program is uninstalled by the user (if youC remembered to include an uninstaller) and they go off to install IE = because 99% of the sites they frequent (VMS information sites > included, .....well maybe just HP's) are filled with Microsoft 'features'.     > >    The question remains, what to do with stuff that's not so	 obviuosly  >    wrong.   B Then you become a Microsoft bug chaser for a piece of software youB can't get any revenue for. Soon your diet consists of macaroni and> cheese (on a good day), and bread and water on the other days.   ------------------------------  # Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2003 21:04:51 GMT # From: "John Smith" <a@nonymous.com> ? Subject: Re: Compaq Solutions Aliance - Do it still existing  ? F Message-ID: <TNHMa.44682$2ay.590@news01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>  7 "JF Mezei" <jfmezei.spamnot@istop.com> wrote in message # news:3F033016.29B568BC@istop.com...  > John Smith wrote: < > > My point was that with more and more web site developers
 *choosing* to > > > support IE-specific features which are not necessarily W3C compatible, F > > developers of other web browsers have to make a concious choice as toF > > whether they will be 'standards based' thereby potentially running >  > E > To be the devil's advocate, it is possible that those web designers 
 don't evenD > have a clue that they are building incompatible web sites. If they	 are using A > some microsoft software to designe/build the web site, they may  never actually> > see the HTML and since they'd be testing this with Microsoft
 browser, they $ > would think all is fine and dandy.    3 And that's probably the truth in 80+% of the cases.   / Certainly FrontPage is going to be an offender. @ I wonder what other popular tools, ie Macromedia and others, do?   ------------------------------   Date: 2 Jul 03 23:44:06 +0200 ) From: p_sture@elias.decus.ch (Paul Sture) ? Subject: Re: Compaq Solutions Aliance - Do it still existing  ? ) Message-ID: <F$mClJBakOFc@elias.decus.ch>   W In article <3F010B7D.7010404@tsoft-inc.com>, David Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> writes:  > David J. Dachtera wrote: >  >> David Froble wrote: >>   >>>David J. Dachtera wrote:  >>>  >>>  >>>>Tom Linden wrote:  >>>> >>>>H >>>>>If you think you can avoid using windows (or mac perhaps) in todaysK >>>>>world you are swimming against a verey strong current.  My windows box O >>>>>has at least one window open (using Putty) to each cluster member, one for I >>>>>for a router, one for the browser, and one for Outlook pop client to  >>>>>TCPIP5.1 smtp.  >>>>>  >>>>>What could easier?  >>>>>  >>>>> I >>>>Believe it or else, there are folks here who find WhineBloze rather a K >>>>puzzlement, since they are hard-core VMS hackers. Forcing them to learn C >>>>a new platform distracts them from their bread-and-butter work.  >>>>N >>>There's nothing wrong with learning multiple systems, and a few things very >>>right with doing so. [snip] >>>  >>  J >> I'd have to do to you what my management does to me: what value does itE >> 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? > G > Do you stop learning once you've left your last education experience?  > U > If you cannot learn about new things, then you'll rather quickly become unbillable.  > P > I never said that an employer should pay you to learn new ideas.  Ever do any  > such on your own?  >   E Excuse me, but why should an employer NOT pay you to learn new ideas? D If they want some new technology and want it implemented quickly andF accurately, they should look to someone who can pick up that learning,? and apply it in the context of their their employer's business.    ------------------------------  * Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2003 15:01:00 -0700 (PDT). From: Fabio Cardoso <fabiopenvms@yahoo.com.br>? Subject: Re: Compaq Solutions Aliance - Do it still existing  ? @ Message-ID: <20030702220100.84928.qmail@web20204.mail.yahoo.com>  / --- JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@istop.com> wrote:  > "David J. Dachtera" wrote:I > > Believe it or else, there are folks here who find WhineBloze rather a K > > puzzlement, since they are hard-core VMS hackers. Forcing them to learn C > > a new platform distracts them from their bread-and-butter work.  > O > It isn't a question of "learning" Windows. It is a question of having a small M > desktop platform that requires more maintenance that the big system you are N > supposed to maintain. A desktop should help you manage the large system, not > the other way around.     E So, what is the problem of implementing virtual desktops as a ICA/RDP D service under OpenVMS ?  If there is the WSAnn: device for X/WindowsC why not implement a WICnn: or WRDnn:  devices controled by a server > process ? May be we should ask DNPG to develop hardware based 6 ICA/RDP Terminal Servers :-)  to connect OVMS systems.     Regards    FC     =====  ========================== Fbio dos Santos Cardoso OpenVMS System Manager Rio de Janeiro - Brazil  fabiopenvms@yahoo.com.br ==========================  " __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!?+ SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!  http://sbc.yahoo.com   ------------------------------  * Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2003 15:16:54 -0700 (PDT). From: Fabio Cardoso <fabiopenvms@yahoo.com.br>? Subject: Re: Compaq Solutions Aliance - Do it still existing  ? @ Message-ID: <20030702221654.88373.qmail@web20204.mail.yahoo.com>   People  ; I am not a software engineer, but I think as a dummy guy...   ? If it is possibile to implement a Virtual Machine (aka VMWARE)  < to run a OS (Windows/Java based) - is possible to implement 0 a light version of a VM just to run a program ?   ? I am saying: to run Internet Explorer or Netscape in a shielded F small Virtual Machine with a virtual desktop (ICA/RDP/VNC), instead of0 running the browser in our own operating system.   Did you copy it ?   A In OpenVMS we should have a VMnnnn: device (it with a "kernel" or 9 something which we could run a browser) and displaying it  in a virtual display.   J I think you are thinking I am nuts :-) I think it is my customer vision !      Regards    FC    @ --- Bob Koehler <koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org> wrote:O > In article <G0BMa.27625$a51.2310@news02.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>, "John ! > Smith" <a@nonymous.com> writes:  > > J > > My point was that with more and more web site developers *choosing* toJ > > support IE-specific features which are not necessarily W3C compatible,I > > developers of other web browsers have to make a concious choice as to F > > whether they will be 'standards based' thereby potentially runningH > > into some of the same problems non-IE users hit when they browse theI > > HP web site (as an example), or to follow MS and attempt to implement E > > IE 'extensions' which may or may not peacefully co-exist with W3C  > > standards. > >  > G >    I think if I was writing a web browser, every time I ran into some I >    MS-specific stuff on the page, I'd pop up a nasty-gram window, maybe E >    as a pre-addressed email to some MS address, explaining that MS   >    software is at fault. > I >    This would balance MS software's habit of making it look like non-MS G >    software is faulty (witness my cousin's Project to HTML conversion C >    that pops up a window blaming my browser for not being able to * >    display what is actualy faulty HTML). > H >    The question remains, what to do with stuff that's not so obviuosly >    wrong.  >      =====  ========================== Fbio dos Santos Cardoso OpenVMS System Manager Rio de Janeiro - Brazil  fabiopenvms@yahoo.com.br ==========================   ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2003 19:28:58 -0400 * From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@istop.com>? Subject: Re: Compaq Solutions Aliance - Do it still existing  ? ) Message-ID: <3F036AA9.5DC772EF@istop.com>    Paul Sture wrote: G > Excuse me, but why should an employer NOT pay you to learn new ideas? F > If they want some new technology and want it implemented quickly andH > accurately, they should look to someone who can pick up that learning,A > and apply it in the context of their their employer's business.   L In this day and age of disposable employees, I am not sure this applies muchN anymore. Companies just hire new consultants with the knowledge and experienceL in the new technology. They may not have the time to train old employees whoN would then start "inexperienced" on the new technology for a rushed project on a tight deadline.   M Where training becomes valuable/possible is when the old employee succeeds in J starting some pilot project which includes training, and this happens longJ enough before that pilot project turns into a rush major project, at whichR point, your in-house folks already have sufficient experience with the technology.   ------------------------------  $ Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2003 23:42:47 -0400  From: John Santos <JOHN@egh.com>> Subject: Re: Compaq Solutions Aliance - Do it still existing ?5 Message-ID: <1030702232315.2835A-100000@Ives.egh.com>   ) On Wed, 2 Jul 2003, Phillip Helbig wrote:   E > > > Netscape is slowly tilting in the wind as a viable alternative; J > > > Mozilla on VMS is  not current enough. Soon VMS users become 'lockedJ > > > out' of sites simply because those sites have less and less interestH > > > in adhering to W3C standards as opposed to implementing the latestL > > > Microsoft "let's lock everyone into using our browser" by implementing > > > a server-side 'feature'. > > J > >    So are you saying the Borg wins, somebody has to make Mozilla speakL > >    Borg, and Apple will have to make Safari speak Borg?  (Microsoft justI > >    announced it will do no more Explorer for Mac since Apple is doing  > >    Safari.)  > H > I agree.  While we can and should demand the availability of browsers H > which support the latest HTML standard, we should NOT demand browsers K > which support proprietary extensions.  Doing so is EXACTLY what the Borg   > wants us to do.  > K > If the site is not readable due to proprietary extensions, send an email  I > saying that still another customer has been lost due to this fact, and  H > hint that the number of customers lost who don't write such emails is  > probably much larger.     G In my experience, complaining to the webmaster often does no good.  The D webmaster is well aware that the site doesn't work with anything butD IE and couldn't care less.  You have to complain to his boss, or his boss's boss.  E For example, Jet Tools (power tool maker), has a very good reputation C for customer support, etc., but their web site http://jettools.com/ F ignore the flash plugin download request, and click on the "JET" logo:  4   The page you are trying to reach is not available.  J   Please make sure you are running the latest version of your web browser.H   We DO NOT support Netscape below version 6 or Internet Explorer below 
    version 5.   6   If you would like to download the latest version of ;   your web browser please visit one of the following sites:   D (This is a lie; I have three browsers on my PC at home and it didn'tA work with any of them:  IE 5 (the lie), Netscape 4.7something and H Opera (latest as of about a month ago).  Opera can claim to be somethingA else, including various versions of IE and Netscape that meet the A claimed criteria, but it wouldn't work with any setting.  Doesn't D work with Netscape 4.73 on my DEC Unix Alpha, but it actually *does*  work with Mozilla 1.3 on VMS...)  E I complained to the feedback address extracted from the source of the E web page, but never got any kind of response.  I think if I found the G right address for someone farther up the food chain, they might realize + they are losing customers and do something.   B (The site used to work fine on any browser, but they "improved" itC recently with more eye-candy.  There is nothing in the content that D warrants any kind of browser restriction.  It's just a collection ofA pictures and text descriptions of various power tools; they don't E sell direct, so there aren't even any shopping carts, and no need for  tracking, cookies, etc. etc.)    --   John Santos  Evans Griffiths & Hart, Inc. 781-861-0670 ext 539   ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2003 20:51:34 -0400 2 From: rdeininger@mindspring.com (Robert Deininger) Subject: Re: cxx performanceL Message-ID: <rdeininger-0207032051350001@user-105n86c.dialup.mindspring.com>  E In article <bduhph$10v0uk$1@ID-120847.news.dfncis.de>, "John Travell"  <john@travell.uk.net> wrote:    G >If you are running a recent version of OpenVMSAlpha the concerns about 4 >MAXPROCESSCNT and BALSETCNT are no-longer relevant.  E Almost.  On V7.3-1, process working set lists are still in S0 space.  H That's a chunk of memory that scales roughly like MAXPROCESSCNT * WSMAX.  F Without adult supervision, AUTOGEN tends to think uncommitted physicalG memory should be used for more/bigger process working sets.  On systems F with lots of memory (say 100 GB or so), AUTOGEN can tune for roughly aH thousand very large processes, with working set lists by far the largestH consumer of S0 space.  In some cases, there isn't enough S0 left for the* rest of the workload, and things get ugly.  F These problems vanish (or at least go dormant) in V7.3-2 (now in field@ test), because the working set lists have moved out to S2 space.   ------------------------------  # Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2003 18:13:19 GMT # From: hoff@hp.nospam (Hoff Hoffman) ! Subject: Re: Enumerating logicals 0 Message-ID: <3hFMa.3797$3h2.75@news.cpqcorp.net>  w In article <cf1e4c34b5e5257f11fbd437841229b8@free.teranews.com>, "Johan Nilsson" <johan.nilsson@esrange.ssc.se> writes:   E :is there a way to programmatically enumerate all logical definitions K :contained in a specific logical name table, without resorting to parse the  :output of show log/table=xxx .   ?   No wildcard-capable logical name API interface exists for any C   version of OpenVMS, and the only existing mechanism that provides <   this is the kernel-mode code within SHOW LOGICAL itself.    B   There are various previous discussions of this, with discussions   arising roughly yearly.   C   Parsing the output of any DCL commands is generally not supported E   and is generally not recommended -- the command output contents and $   output format can and does change.  D   What are you up to?  (You might be implementing something odd hereB   and there may be an alternative approach, or you might be using 0   logical names in a way that was not intended.)    N  ---------------------------- #include <rtfaq.h> -----------------------------K     For additional, please see the OpenVMS FAQ -- www.hp.com/go/openvms/faq N  --------------------------- pure personal opinion ---------------------------E         Hoff (Stephen) Hoffman   OpenVMS Engineering   hoff[at]hp.com    ------------------------------  * Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2003 19:19:10 +0000 (UTC), From: lewis@PROBE.mitre.org (Keith A. Lewis)! Subject: Re: Enumerating logicals . Message-ID: <bdvb7e$ndk$1@newslocal.mitre.org>  y hoff@hp.nospam (Hoff Hoffman) writes in article <3hFMa.3797$3h2.75@news.cpqcorp.net> dated Wed, 02 Jul 2003 18:13:19 GMT: x >In article <cf1e4c34b5e5257f11fbd437841229b8@free.teranews.com>, "Johan Nilsson" <johan.nilsson@esrange.ssc.se> writes: > F >:is there a way to programmatically enumerate all logical definitionsL >:contained in a specific logical name table, without resorting to parse the  >:output of show log/table=xxx . > @ >  No wildcard-capable logical name API interface exists for anyD >  version of OpenVMS, and the only existing mechanism that provides= >  this is the kernel-mode code within SHOW LOGICAL itself.     L Hoff, you and your employer may not approve of Lnmlookup, but it does exist!  K I've been using it in our main VMS app since 1996.  Back then I got it from L ftp://ftp.hhs.dk/misc/lnmlookup.zip.  I have been keeping up with the latestH versions of VMS (7.3-1 now), and I have never needed to update LnmlookupK (although I have had to rebuild/reinstall it after certain VMS upgrades).     E >  What are you up to?  (You might be implementing something odd here C >  and there may be an alternative approach, or you might be using  1 >  logical names in a way that was not intended.)   F I'll tell you what I use it for.  Our app is a heterogeneous system ofL 30-300 VMS processes which use VMS mailboxes to communicate.  We use logicalH names to point to the MBA device names.  When the app was already fairlyI mature, I started work on a subsystem which would monitor the rest of the J system for various failures.  MBA devices are well-suited for this becauseF using the opcount and the queue length data, you can calculate messageK throughput.  My monitoring subsystem scans the logical name table for names K which match a pattern and creates a table of mailboxes for which it gathers I stats.  Only the monitoring subsystem needs Lnmlookup, because all of the D other subsystems know where they're supposed to read and write theirH messages, so they can just to a straight TRNLNM.  But for the monitoringG subsystem, Lnmlookup has been incredibly useful.  It really ought to be , incorporated into the utility library, IMHO.  I The legacy mailbox monitoring tool which I inherited parsed the output of 
 SHOW LOGICAL.   + --Keith Lewis              klewis$mitre.org > The above may not (yet) represent the opinions of my employer.   ------------------------------  # Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2003 20:58:37 GMT 4 From: "Johan Nilsson" <johan.nilsson@esrange.ssc.se>! Subject: Re: Enumerating logicals @ Message-ID: <20bc3ed8a83868376748e32ba67efcd8@free.teranews.com>  0 "Hoff Hoffman" <hoff@hp.nospam> wrote in message* news:3hFMa.3797$3h2.75@news.cpqcorp.net...I > In article <cf1e4c34b5e5257f11fbd437841229b8@free.teranews.com>, "Johan / Nilsson" <johan.nilsson@esrange.ssc.se> writes:  > G > :is there a way to programmatically enumerate all logical definitions I > :contained in a specific logical name table, without resorting to parse  the ! > :output of show log/table=xxx .  > A >   No wildcard-capable logical name API interface exists for any E >   version of OpenVMS, and the only existing mechanism that provides < >   this is the kernel-mode code within SHOW LOGICAL itself. > D >   There are various previous discussions of this, with discussions >   arising roughly yearly.  > E >   Parsing the output of any DCL commands is generally not supported G >   and is generally not recommended -- the command output contents and & >   output format can and does change.  I Perhaps, but I might resort to this anyway - I'd just pick up the logical 0 names and then use sys$trnlnm to get the values.   > F >   What are you up to?  (You might be implementing something odd hereC >   and there may be an alternative approach, or you might be using 2 >   logical names in a way that was not intended.) >   # I don't know how odd it is, but ...   L I'm trying to use the make replacement Jam, available from www.perforce.com.I It's usable for OpenVMS (with a few quirks), but under other environments K (Win32, *nix, ...) it automatically imports the environment variables which J obviously can't be done under VMS. Ok ... well, it can .. but there aren'tL really many of them and I don't believe that they are user definable. I knowK that getenv does lookup logical names, but I'd need to load them at startup - and not dynamically during program execution.   I As a replacement I was looking into support for loading the contents of a K specific logical name table instead, controlled by a command-line option or  in a Jamfile; e.g.:    jam "-sVMSIMPORT=LNM$PROCESS"    // Johan   ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2003 20:23:02 -0500 1 From: "David J. Dachtera" <djesys.nospam@fsi.net> ! Subject: Re: Enumerating logicals ' Message-ID: <3F038576.92AB5FA0@fsi.net>    Hoff Hoffman wrote:  > y > In article <cf1e4c34b5e5257f11fbd437841229b8@free.teranews.com>, "Johan Nilsson" <johan.nilsson@esrange.ssc.se> writes:  > G > :is there a way to programmatically enumerate all logical definitions M > :contained in a specific logical name table, without resorting to parse the ! > :output of show log/table=xxx .  > A >   No wildcard-capable logical name API interface exists for any E >   version of OpenVMS, and the only existing mechanism that provides < >   this is the kernel-mode code within SHOW LOGICAL itself. > D >   There are various previous discussions of this, with discussions >   arising roughly yearly.  > E >   Parsing the output of any DCL commands is generally not supported G >   and is generally not recommended -- the command output contents and & >   output format can and does change. > F >   What are you up to?  (You might be implementing something odd hereC >   and there may be an alternative approach, or you might be using 2 >   logical names in a way that was not intended.)  H Well, for starters, just about any DCL proc.'s intended to help automateC system management must currently rely on parsing the output of SHOW D LOGICAL as this is currently the only mechanism available in vanilla VMS, supported or not.   More specific?   See:/ http://www.djesys.com/freeware/vms/freedisk.zip   C This uses F$DEVICE() which does, oddly enough, have better wildcard  support than SHOW DEVICE.   H Now, suppose I wanted to display the capacity/utilization of disks whereG the LOGVOLNAM (P3 to the MOUNT command) started with, say "BACK_". With E SHOW LOGICAL, I can use the expression "BACK_*". F$TRNLNM(), however, @ returns nothing, as does F$DEVICE(). If F$TRNLNM() *DID* supportH wild-card lookups, I could get what I need without having to spend extra> time hacking/cobbling DCL to work-around this missing piece of functionality.  D So, if there *IS* an alternative (supported?) to parsing output from/ SHOW LOGICAL, some of us out here are all ears.    --   David J. Dachtera  dba DJE Systems  http://www.djesys.com/  ( Unofficial Affordable OpenVMS Home Page: http://www.djesys.com/vms/soho/    ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2003 13:40:36 -0400 * From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@istop.com>I Subject: Re: Hewlett-Packard said to be interested in buying software and ) Message-ID: <3F031914.75535CDC@istop.com>    Bill Gunshannon wrote:F > was a record for every single high-school junior and senior who tookC > the SAT, PSAT or ACT and for others who requested information and H > were thus manually entered into the system.  It could probably be doneH > without a DBMS, but I wouldn't want to be the guy trying to code it or< > the person waiting for the result of a query in that case.    N Out of curiosity, why would individual record lookups on a RMS indexed file beM so much longer than in Oracle ? If the RMS file is properly created, and withqM sufficient global buffers set for the file, wouldn't you get performance that 9 is equal or superior to Oracle (or RDB) for that matter ?s  N Seems to me that the "true" DBMS systems add a lot of layers to the processingL which I see as overhead. Reading a record in a cobol record definition (or CI structure) is a hell of a lot faster than having that record processed bynN Oracle to match the view, then have each field extracted and possiby converted" and then put into the user record.  M Interestingly, ALL-IN-1 has "phantom datasets". Think of it as a table into a L much larger file, and this table essentially contains a list of RFAs. So theJ first time you do some sort of search/extraction of records, it spends theG time to find them, but after that, you have quasi direct access to your  selected records.?  F In what ways are true database systems much faster at accessing data ?   ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2003 14:04:04 -0400 * From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@istop.com>Y Subject: Re: HP Announces OpenVMS Evaluation Release Version 8.0 for	=?iso-8859-1?Q?Itania) Message-ID: <3F031E92.4018B751@istop.com>a   Kenneth Farmer wrote:PJ > VAX platform, evolved to 64-bit AlphaServer systems and will soon becomeK > available on the HP Integrity Servers including the high-end HP SuperdomeW	 > server.   D In the past, VMS had a competitive advantage by having its own superL computers, allowing stuff like galaxy etc etc. One can argue that Wildfire,s> performance wasn't all that great, but it was still something.  K However, if VMS is now going to be forced to use the same supercomputers asbN HP-UX, will VMS have *any* advantage over HP-UX when running on the same "unix centric" boxes ?  M Or will HP produce VMS-specific Superdomes that will allow VMS to make use ofe6 all its galactic features that others won't yet have ?   ------------------------------  # Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2003 18:44:37 GMTb4 From: brad@.gateway.2wire.net (Bradford J. Hamilton)Y Subject: Re: HP Announces OpenVMS Evaluation Release Version 8.0 for	=?iso-8859-1?Q?Itani , Message-ID: <pKFMa.19681$926.1736@sccrnsc03>  V In article <3F031E92.4018B751@istop.com>, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@istop.com> writes: >Kenneth Farmer wrote:K >> VAX platform, evolved to 64-bit AlphaServer systems and will soon becomeoL >> available on the HP Integrity Servers including the high-end HP Superdome
 >> server. >PE >In the past, VMS had a competitive advantage by having its own super M >computers, allowing stuff like galaxy etc etc. One can argue that Wildfire,sh? >performance wasn't all that great, but it was still something.e >eL >However, if VMS is now going to be forced to use the same supercomputers asO >HP-UX, will VMS have *any* advantage over HP-UX when running on the same "unixe >centric" boxes ?D >eN >Or will HP produce VMS-specific Superdomes that will allow VMS to make use of7 >all its galactic features that others won't yet have ?a  N JF, you might be interested in looking at the presentation mentioned by Keith;K there is a mention in there that some of the high-end boxes will run HP-UX, K Linux, and Windows in separate "partitions" (gee, I wonder who came up with D *that* brilliant idea???	:-)).  No mention of whether (Open)VMS willM play in this space as well; the folks who are involved in the current porting(K effort may wish to comment, or to seek clarification from their management.)  A _________________________________________________________________e0 Bradford J. Hamilton			"All opinions are my own"? bMradAhamiPltSon-at-coMmcAast.nPeSt	"Lose the MAPS, and replace 3 (please note the new e-mail address)	'-at-' with @"F   ------------------------------   Date: 2 Jul 2003 14:06:55 -0500M- From: Kilgallen@SpamCop.net (Larry Kilgallen)-1 Subject: Re: HP Powers More TOP500 Supercomputerse3 Message-ID: <1CyU84c5VN1r@eisner.encompasserve.org>.  f In article <3f03030c.756436326@news.eircom.net>, wallacethinmintr@eircom.net (Russell Wallace) writes:C > On 1 Jul 2003 16:04:00 -0700, keithparris_NOSPAM@yahoo.com (Keithn > Parris) wrote: > G >>But Intel has a pretty good track record of backing the architecturesT* >>which eventually win in the marketplace. > 
 > Do they? > B >>They backed the Ethernet standard, along with Digital and Xerox. > ! > Lots of people backed Ethernet.T  A In the beginning there were only three, Digital, Intel and Xerox.    ------------------------------   Date: 2 Jul 2003 15:04:33 -0700.1 From: keithparris_NOSPAM@yahoo.com (Keith Parris)e Subject: Re: HP to drop hpux?s= Message-ID: <cf15391e.0307021404.741d1c39@posting.google.com>n  m bob@instantwhip.com (Bob Ceculski) wrote in message news:<d7791aa1.0306191512.61365658@posting.google.com>...	# > it says here that its a rumor ...i  D A false rumor, at that.  Here's what Scott Stallard had to say about, HP-UX and its longevity in Monday's Webcast:  B "We have a leadership position -- the world's best Enterprise UnixB with HP-UX, according to D.H. Brown.  The huge market segment.  We? think it's growing.  And we will continue to invest there.  OurYD customers need a lasting platform for 15, 20, 30 years out there, to? really drive on those mission-critical applications for HP-UX."o   ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2003 15:35:29 -0700o& From: Greg Cagle <gregc@gregcagle.com> Subject: Re: HP to drop hpux?a/ Message-ID: <vg6nk286jn9b7c@corp.supernews.com>r   Keith Parris wrote:o  o > bob@instantwhip.com (Bob Ceculski) wrote in message news:<d7791aa1.0306191512.61365658@posting.google.com>...  > # >>it says here that its a rumor ...e >  > F > A false rumor, at that.  Here's what Scott Stallard had to say about. > HP-UX and its longevity in Monday's Webcast: > D > "We have a leadership position -- the world's best Enterprise UnixD > with HP-UX, according to D.H. Brown.  The huge market segment.  WeA > think it's growing.  And we will continue to invest there.  OurmF > customers need a lasting platform for 15, 20, 30 years out there, toA > really drive on those mission-critical applications for HP-UX."n  B Oh, no, Keith. You can't trust Stallard. This is the kind of thing: "they" *always* say just before the axe falls. 8^) 8^) 8^)   --  
 Greg Cagle gregc at gregcagle dot com   ------------------------------  # Date: Thu, 03 Jul 2003 03:01:54 GMTo# From: "John Smith" <a@nonymous.com>- Subject: Re: HP to drop hpux?,H Message-ID: <C0NMa.45809$2ay.19278@news01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>  > "Keith Parris" <keithparris_NOSPAM@yahoo.com> wrote in message7 news:cf15391e.0307021404.741d1c39@posting.google.com...a5 > bob@instantwhip.com (Bob Ceculski) wrote in messagee9 news:<d7791aa1.0306191512.61365658@posting.google.com>...a% > > it says here that its a rumor ...t >eF > A false rumor, at that.  Here's what Scott Stallard had to say about. > HP-UX and its longevity in Monday's Webcast: >sD > "We have a leadership position -- the world's best Enterprise UnixD > with HP-UX, according to D.H. Brown.  The huge market segment.  WeA > think it's growing.  And we will continue to invest there.  OurdF > customers need a lasting platform for 15, 20, 30 years out there, toA > really drive on those mission-critical applications for HP-UX."m    B Not so long ago the considered opinion was that Tru64 was the best= enterprise unix, and HP-UX hasn't progressed much since then.     B BTW - Do you think you could get Stallard to say, "The huge marketD segment.  We're growing it 12-15% per year without advertising.  And? we will continue to invest there.  Our customers need a lastingtA platform for 15, 20, 30 years out there, to really drive on those + mission-critical applications for OpenVMS."a  F It might be nice to see Scotty all lathered-up about VMS the way he is about HP-UX.   ------------------------------  $ Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2003 00:30:48 -0400* From: "Bill Todd" <billtodd@metrocast.net> Subject: Re: HP to drop hpux? 2 Message-ID: <dsOdnTd3YYgdLJ6iU-KYuQ@metrocast.net>  . "John Smith" <a@nonymous.com> wrote in messageB news:C0NMa.45809$2ay.19278@news01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com... >m@ > "Keith Parris" <keithparris_NOSPAM@yahoo.com> wrote in message9 > news:cf15391e.0307021404.741d1c39@posting.google.com...c7 > > bob@instantwhip.com (Bob Ceculski) wrote in messagee; > news:<d7791aa1.0306191512.61365658@posting.google.com>...e' > > > it says here that its a rumor ...a > >5H > > A false rumor, at that.  Here's what Scott Stallard had to say about0 > > HP-UX and its longevity in Monday's Webcast: > >nF > > "We have a leadership position -- the world's best Enterprise UnixF > > with HP-UX, according to D.H. Brown.  The huge market segment.  WeC > > think it's growing.  And we will continue to invest there.  OuryH > > customers need a lasting platform for 15, 20, 30 years out there, toC > > really drive on those mission-critical applications for HP-UX."s >  > D > Not so long ago the considered opinion was that Tru64 was the best > enterprise unixr  B Ah - you beat me to it.  But what you failed to note was that thatI considered opinion came, IIRC, from none other than D. H. Brown:  I guessML they've decided that since Tru64 really isn't competing any more they shouldL start looking at the also-rans for another first-place candidate (or perhaps; it's just a matter of who funded that particular paper...).   H Tru64 was also the fastest-growing enterprise Unix, until the Alphacide. Way to go, Curly.o   - bill   ------------------------------  # Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2003 22:39:22 GMT , From: "Dale Hammer" <dalehammer@indy.rr.com>S Subject: Re: HP Webcast this morning on Next-Generation Intel Itanium 2  processorse9 Message-ID: <uaJMa.339580$VP.54274714@twister.neo.rr.com>   7 "JF Mezei" <jfmezei.spamnot@istop.com> wrote in messagea# news:3F032AA7.5DFF33F4@istop.com...ML > They mention supporting multiple OS on a single server. They mention Unix,5 > Linux and Windows all running on the same platform.a >oH > Does this mean that they plan on allowing instances of H-UX, Linux and Windowsf( > running concurrently on the same box ?  F Yes, as long as the operating systems are in separate hard partitions.   Regards, Dale Hammera HP NA Superdome Program Manager    ------------------------------  # Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2003 23:44:14 GMTr4 From: brad@.gateway.2wire.net (Bradford J. Hamilton)S Subject: Re: HP Webcast this morning on Next-Generation Intel Itanium 2  processors0, Message-ID: <i7KMa.22062$926.2060@sccrnsc03>  h In article <uaJMa.339580$VP.54274714@twister.neo.rr.com>, "Dale Hammer" <dalehammer@indy.rr.com> writes: > 8 >"JF Mezei" <jfmezei.spamnot@istop.com> wrote in message$ >news:3F032AA7.5DFF33F4@istop.com...M >> They mention supporting multiple OS on a single server. They mention Unix, 6 >> Linux and Windows all running on the same platform. >>I >> Does this mean that they plan on allowing instances of H-UX, Linux ando >Windows) >> running concurrently on the same box ?e >eG >Yes, as long as the operating systems are in separate hard partitions.e >i	 >Regards,y >Dale Hammer  >HP NA Superdome Program Manager >b >d   Hi Dale,  N Will OpenVMS be able to "play" in this space, as well?  After all, the concept7 of hard partitioning (Galaxy) came from digital/COMPAQ.   A _________________________________________________________________e0 Bradford J. Hamilton			"All opinions are my own"? bMradAhamiPltSon-at-coMmcAast.nPeSt	"Lose the MAPS, and replace 3 (please note the new e-mail address)	'-at-' with @"4   ------------------------------  # Date: Thu, 03 Jul 2003 03:01:21 GMTa, From: "Dale Hammer" <dalehammer@indy.rr.com>S Subject: Re: HP Webcast this morning on Next-Generation Intel Itanium 2  processorsc9 Message-ID: <50NMa.360528$VP.54461901@twister.neo.rr.com>   A "Bradford J. Hamilton" <brad@.gateway.2wire.net> wrote in messageh& news:i7KMa.22062$926.2060@sccrnsc03...I > In article <uaJMa.339580$VP.54274714@twister.neo.rr.com>, "Dale Hammer"   <dalehammer@indy.rr.com> writes: > >s: > >"JF Mezei" <jfmezei.spamnot@istop.com> wrote in message& > >news:3F032AA7.5DFF33F4@istop.com...I > >> They mention supporting multiple OS on a single server. They mentions Unix, 8 > >> Linux and Windows all running on the same platform. > >>K > >> Does this mean that they plan on allowing instances of H-UX, Linux andk
 > >Windows+ > >> running concurrently on the same box ?c > >yI > >Yes, as long as the operating systems are in separate hard partitions.r > >t > >Regards,r > >Dale Hammer" > >HP NA Superdome Program Manager > >w > >e >i
 > Hi Dale, >tH > Will OpenVMS be able to "play" in this space, as well?  After all, the concept 9 > of hard partitioning (Galaxy) came from digital/COMPAQ.   J Yes, the plans are also to support OpenVMS in a separate hard partition asD soon as it is available on the itanium based cell board architecture servers.   Regards, Dale Hammer        >lC > _________________________________________________________________l0 > Bradford J. Hamilton "All opinions are my own"A > bMradAhamiPltSon-at-coMmcAast.nPeSt "Lose the MAPS, and replace 5 > (please note the new e-mail address) '-at-' with @"    ------------------------------  $ Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2003 00:18:59 -0400* From: "Bill Todd" <billtodd@metrocast.net>S Subject: Re: HP Webcast this morning on Next-Generation Intel Itanium 2  processorsc2 Message-ID: <lvCcnfzUXKQmM56iXTWJjg@metrocast.net>  A "Bradford J. Hamilton" <brad@.gateway.2wire.net> wrote in message'& news:i7KMa.22062$926.2060@sccrnsc03...   ...   H > Will OpenVMS be able to "play" in this space, as well?  After all, the conceptc9 > of hard partitioning (Galaxy) came from digital/COMPAQ.   K My impression is that the concept (and implementation) of hard partitioning F long predates any DECpaq implementation:  it has been a feature of IBM? mainframes for quite a while, and I think moved into some otherh/ non-mainframe systems before it came to DECpaq.e  I Galaxy's significant contribution was IIRC softer partitioning, includingtK the ability to migrate individual processors dynamically from one partitiongH to another in tens of microseconds, thus opening the door to *extremely*K fine-grained dynamic load-balancing.  So one good question would be whether = the Itanic MP hardware will continue to support this feature.t   - bill   ------------------------------   Date: 2 Jul 2003 23:30:31 -0500a+ From: young_r@encompasserve.org (Rob Young)rS Subject: Re: HP Webcast this morning on Next-Generation Intel Itanium 2  processorso3 Message-ID: <UV$E95da8cBc@eisner.encompasserve.org>D  _ In article <lvCcnfzUXKQmM56iXTWJjg@metrocast.net>, "Bill Todd" <billtodd@metrocast.net> writes:  > C > "Bradford J. Hamilton" <brad@.gateway.2wire.net> wrote in message ( > news:i7KMa.22062$926.2060@sccrnsc03... >  > ...i > I >> Will OpenVMS be able to "play" in this space, as well?  After all, the_	 > concepty: >> of hard partitioning (Galaxy) came from digital/COMPAQ. > M > My impression is that the concept (and implementation) of hard partitioning:H > long predates any DECpaq implementation:  it has been a feature of IBMA > mainframes for quite a while, and I think moved into some other 1 > non-mainframe systems before it came to DECpaq.> > K > Galaxy's significant contribution was IIRC softer partitioning, includingiM > the ability to migrate individual processors dynamically from one partitionoJ > to another in tens of microseconds, thus opening the door to *extremely*M > fine-grained dynamic load-balancing.  So one good question would be whetherl? > the Itanic MP hardware will continue to support this feature.  >   : 	As Clair Grant says as a mantra:  "It is in the console."? 	One hopes they can tweek the console to their heart's content.t  : 	And yes, hard partitions , LPARs and most everything else= 	predated Galaxy.  It isn't about hard partitions.  Remember,h( 	it was/is Galaxy Software Architecture:  D http://h18000.www1.hp.com/products/quickspecs/10724_na/10724_na.HTML 	p+ 	Reading the patent applications shows they0: 	were very aware of things that predated them and why they> 	didn't want to do a hypervisor (LPAR) and other neat details.   				Robm      ------------------------------   Date: 2 Jul 2003 11:12:22 -0700e1 From: keithparris_NOSPAM@yahoo.com (Keith Parris) R Subject: Re: HP Webcast this morning on Next-Generation Intel Itanium 2 processors= Message-ID: <cf15391e.0307021012.602beaeb@posting.google.com>   v keithparris_NOSPAM@yahoo.com (Keith Parris) wrote in message news:<cf15391e.0306300745.7b697c07@posting.google.com>...B > HP solutions based on next generation Intel Itanium 2 processors  C For folks who missed the original webcast, you can veiw a replay at F your convenience at http://www.hpbroadband.com/program.cfm?key=july1AP   ------------------------------  # Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2003 19:18:36 GMTr& From: Rick Jones <foo@bar.baz.invalid>R Subject: Re: HP Webcast this morning on Next-Generation Intel Itanium 2 processors2 Message-ID: <geGMa.3806$Cf2.1141@news.cpqcorp.net>  ) Bill Todd <billtodd@metrocast.net> wrote:tV >> ftp://ftp.pc.ibm.com/pub/special/serverperformance/pb_x360_specweb99_ssl_june03.pdf >>V >> ftp://ftp.pc.ibm.com/pub/special/serverperformance/pb_x255_specweb99_ssl_june03.pdf  B > How abjectly bletcherous!  That's only about 20% better than theF > best dual-processor P4/Xeon scores with only 512 KB of on-chip cacheC > (vs. 2 MB for the MPs tested above), and those dual P4/Xeons only=C > had a 9% faster clock (though presumably 533 MHz FSBs vs. the 400:A > MHz FSB in the Xeon MPs).  Then again, ISTR that the IA32s haveRE > always had somewhat less than impressive scaling in this benchmark.0 >AD > Apropos of another completely unrelated conversation about the new> > 2.8 GHz Xeon MPs, does this indicate that they're still only9 > available with the 400 MHz FSB (and hence PC1600 memory  > performance)?s  D I have no idea what the FSB frequency is for those systems.  Some ofE the stuff online at IBM might say.  That, or when the "FDR's" for the B SPECweb99_SSL figures go up on www.spec.org perhaps they will say.  
 rick jones -- nG oxymoron n, commuter in a gas-guzzling luxury SUV with an American flagTF these opinions are mine, all mine; HP might not want them anyway... :)A feel free to post, OR email to raj in cup.hp.com  but NOT BOTH...h   ------------------------------  # Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2003 19:12:25 GMTe& From: Rick Jones <foo@bar.baz.invalid>R Subject: Re: HP Webcast this morning on Next-Generation Intel Itanium 2 processors2 Message-ID: <t8GMa.3805$Cf2.2066@news.cpqcorp.net>  ) Bill Todd <billtodd@metrocast.net> wrote:e5 > "Rick Jones" <foo@bar.baz.invalid> wrote in message-. > news:KxqMa.3718$oA1.3628@news.cpqcorp.net...> >> I'll have to leave the back of the envelope calculations toC >> guesstimate how much of the p655's SPECweb99_SSL score came from3+ >> the SSL accelerator card to the readers.3  D > While I doubt that they included the accelerator just for the hell > of itb   Indeed, that is unlikely.l  B > any such calculations should also take into account that severalE > other aspects of the platform were significantly upgraded (off-chip 5 > cache speed, I/O bandwidth, and I forget what else)t  A An increase in off-chip cache speed would seem to suggest that itrC would be more likely for IBM to get the full clock boost going fromS? the 1.45 to the 1.7 GHz POWER4+ CPUs.  The caches in POWER werek@ already "big" for some definition of big.  (We still do not have? explicit public data on the cache size after which it no longercC matters for SPECweb99_SSL) The boost in CPU frequency was 17%.  Then4 boost in SPECweb99_SSL score was 86% (1988 to 3699).  F I'm not sure that a boost in I/O bandwidth matters all that much here.E On the wire a SPECweb99_SSL op is roughly the same as a SPECweb99 op. F The workingset for a given SPECweb99* result is the same size.  A p630D has a published SPECweb99 score of 6895, (IIRC published at the sameC time as its SPECweb99_SSL score, using an in-kernel accelerator formB HTTP) which suggests it had more than enough I/O bandwidth for the> SPECweb99_SSL stuff even at the levels published for the p655.  D >> To get to 3700, based on the currenly published 1.8 GHz result ofE >> 3498, they need just shy of another 6%.  Going from 1.8 GHz to 2.0sF >> GHz increases clock by just over 11%.  The published 64-bit 1.8 GHzF >> figure was 3498 SPECweb99_SSL.  The published 64-bit 1.4 GHz figure; >> was 3124.  So, when clock increased just shy of 29%, theeC >> SPECweb99_SSL score increased by just shy of 12%, less than halfhF >> the clock. All else holds, looks tight to get there on clock alone.  B > Certainly a fair observation.  But I didn't suggest that OpteronF > would *take over* the lead, just that Itanic's lead would evaporate.  D 3700 is not taking over the lead, it is basically matching the lead.B The first thing that pops into my head when someone says somethingF evaporates is that something is gone.  So, I picked 3700. A nice round( figure between IBM's 3699 and HP's 3702.  F > While suggesting that *any* evaporation would justify this statementD > would certainly be stretching the point, if at least *most* of the? > lead evaporates I won't feel that my comment was unjustified.4  C How close to 3700 do you believe a four-CPU, 2.0 GHz Opteron system  would have to get to justify?h  
 rick jones -- e. a wide gulf separates "what if" from "if only"F these opinions are mine, all mine; HP might not want them anyway... :)A feel free to post, OR email to raj in cup.hp.com  but NOT BOTH...e   ------------------------------  # Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2003 19:23:23 GMTy& From: Rick Jones <foo@bar.baz.invalid>R Subject: Re: HP Webcast this morning on Next-Generation Intel Itanium 2 processors2 Message-ID: <LiGMa.3807$Cf2.2578@news.cpqcorp.net>  * Daniel Gustafsson <daniel@mimer.se> wrote:2 I guess that depends on whether or not Apple wantsC > Going from 8MB L3 to 32MB L3 give a pretty significant speedup in C > SPECfp2000 on POWER4+ 1450Mhz. 8MB L3 gives 984 and 32MB L3 givest > 1091.-  F I suspect that parts of SPECfp2000 are addressing "things" larger thanD SPECweb99_SSL.  The "average" URL being requested and thus encrypted> is on the order of 14-15KB - the full distribution of URL's isA described somewhere on www.spec.org.  I'm not sure what the cachesA footprint for SSL key generation might be - perhaps some academic C papers out there discuss the various algorithms.  The SPECweb99_SSL + documentation states what ciphers are used.l  
 rick jones -- OB firebug n, the idiot who tosses a lit cigarette out his car windowF these opinions are mine, all mine; HP might not want them anyway... :)A feel free to post, OR email to raj in cup.hp.com  but NOT BOTH...l   ------------------------------  $ Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2003 22:42:02 -0400* From: "Bill Todd" <billtodd@metrocast.net>R Subject: Re: HP Webcast this morning on Next-Generation Intel Itanium 2 processors2 Message-ID: <OeCdnQnBMY2fBZ6iXTWJiw@metrocast.net>  D "Fred Kleinsorge" <my-last-name@stardotzko.dec.com> wrote in message+ news:mwBMa.3758$cS1.162@news.cpqcorp.net...l >t7 > "Bill Todd" <billtodd@metrocast.net> wrote in messagew. > news:0BudncjFdqTCk5-iXTWJkA@metrocast.net... > >-L > > Nope.  I suspect that if/when the Alpha team finally rescues Itanic from > itsmH > > current core in 3 - 4 more years I'll have nothing left to disparage here= > > except cHumPaq's ethics (and the occasional dimwit post).4 > >8 >eF > You would reduce the occasional part by at least half if you stopped
 > posting.  L I'm happy to leave such judgements to people whom I respect.  And don't give& a shit about the judgements of others.   - bill   ------------------------------  $ Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2003 23:23:18 -0400* From: "Bill Todd" <billtodd@metrocast.net>R Subject: Re: HP Webcast this morning on Next-Generation Intel Itanium 2 processors2 Message-ID: <JKWcna0eVM0wPJ6iXTWJhQ@metrocast.net>  3 "Rick Jones" <foo@bar.baz.invalid> wrote in messages, news:t8GMa.3805$Cf2.2066@news.cpqcorp.net...+ > Bill Todd <billtodd@metrocast.net> wrote:o   ...r  D > > any such calculations should also take into account that severalG > > other aspects of the platform were significantly upgraded (off-chip 7 > > cache speed, I/O bandwidth, and I forget what else)  >aC > An increase in off-chip cache speed would seem to suggest that itwE > would be more likely for IBM to get the full clock boost going from<' > the 1.45 to the 1.7 GHz POWER4+ CPUs.   C Since a quick check of IBM's Web site doesn't unearth more detailedaK information, it's difficult to say with any certainty.  The platform scaled-I *slightly* super-linearly with clock rate from 1.3 GHz to 1.7 GHz in both F SPECint and SPECfp, and somewhat more (though not really dramatically), super-linearly in a couple of Linpack tests.  H In any event, since IIRC you seemed to be suggesting not long ago that aD small change in Zeus version might have contributed significantly toE differences in SPECweb99_SSL scores in another context, it would seem , reasonable to retain the same attitude here.   ...t  F > >> To get to 3700, based on the currenly published 1.8 GHz result ofG > >> 3498, they need just shy of another 6%.  Going from 1.8 GHz to 2.0:H > >> GHz increases clock by just over 11%.  The published 64-bit 1.8 GHzH > >> figure was 3498 SPECweb99_SSL.  The published 64-bit 1.4 GHz figure= > >> was 3124.  So, when clock increased just shy of 29%, theoE > >> SPECweb99_SSL score increased by just shy of 12%, less than halfiH > >> the clock. All else holds, looks tight to get there on clock alone. >fD > > Certainly a fair observation.  But I didn't suggest that OpteronH > > would *take over* the lead, just that Itanic's lead would evaporate. >.F > 3700 is not taking over the lead, it is basically matching the lead.D > The first thing that pops into my head when someone says somethingH > evaporates is that something is gone.  So, I picked 3700. A nice round* > figure between IBM's 3699 and HP's 3702. >rH > > While suggesting that *any* evaporation would justify this statementF > > would certainly be stretching the point, if at least *most* of theA > > lead evaporates I won't feel that my comment was unjustified.o >sE > How close to 3700 do you believe a four-CPU, 2.0 GHz Opteron systemi > would have to get to justify?   @ Certainly over 3600, and I'd like to see 3650 to be comfortable:L eliminating 3/4 of the current (5.8%) gap is more than sufficient to justifyH the term 'evaporation' in my book, and 1.5% - 3% performance differencesJ hardly seem worthy of much discussion (though for that matter a differenceE of 10% or more can easily get lost in the noise of other fairly minora  non-performance-related issues).   - bill   ------------------------------  $ Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2003 23:26:59 -0400* From: "Bill Todd" <billtodd@metrocast.net>R Subject: Re: HP Webcast this morning on Next-Generation Intel Itanium 2 processors2 Message-ID: <J1ydnez2yKAXP56iXTWJgA@metrocast.net>  3 "Rick Jones" <foo@bar.baz.invalid> wrote in messageh, news:geGMa.3806$Cf2.1141@news.cpqcorp.net...   ...r  F > I have no idea what the FSB frequency is for those systems.  Some of$ > the stuff online at IBM might say.  K It does (in the .pdfs you cited):  400 MHz.  Which is why I asked if the MP-K was available with any faster FSB or was still stuck there in all versions.s   - bill   ------------------------------  $ Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2003 23:40:24 -0400* From: "Bill Todd" <billtodd@metrocast.net>R Subject: Re: HP Webcast this morning on Next-Generation Intel Itanium 2 processors2 Message-ID: <t9ScnQdNKtUyOJ6iXTWJiA@metrocast.net>  6 "Daniel Gustafsson" <daniel@mimer.se> wrote in message7 news:de4cfd03.0307020445.541ed943@posting.google.com...a7 > "Bill Todd" <billtodd@metrocast.net> wrote in message . news:<teicneuOq_8B35-iXTWJgA@metrocast.net>...7 > > "Rick Jones" <foo@bar.baz.invalid> wrote in messagea0 > > news:cDkMa.3696$K41.2289@news.cpqcorp.net... > > >iJ > > > I guess we aren't worrying too much about cache these days, or wouldF > > > have mentioned that the 1.7 GHz POWER4+ has a 128 MB L3 cache :) > >sH > > It would be interesting to see how it would do without that, and theI > > soon-to-arrive PC970 (and the Apple versions of it, up to 2 GHz) thato has noL > > off-chip L3 and only 512 KB of on-chip L2 should provide at least a clue inL > > that regard (my impression is that they will be available in MP servers, butr8 > > who knows whether they'll appear in this benchmark). >nC > Going from 8MB L3 to 32MB L3 give a pretty significant speedup inoC > SPECfp2000 on POWER4+ 1450Mhz. 8MB L3 gives 984 and 32MB L3 givese > 1091.n >v >pL http://www.specbench.org:/cpu2000/results/res2003q2/cpu2000-20030407-02073.h tml  > L http://www.specbench.org:/cpu2000/results/res2003q2/cpu2000-20030407-02065.h tmlm  D Hmmm.  About 5% SPECfp improvement for each doubling - even with theL relatively slow off-chip eDRAM cache.  My vague recollection is that some ofH the CPU2000 tests have footprints up to close to 200 MB, so perhaps thisI isn't too surprising; as Rick noted, there may be a lower upper limit fore SPECweb99_SSL.   >sF > This machine probably have other changes but POWER 1.5Ghz with 128MB > L3 gets 1398.  >rL http://www.specbench.org:/cpu2000/results/res2003q2/cpu2000-20030505-02142.h tmli  D Hmmm again:  about a 13% improvement for each of two more cache-sizeE doublings (since the clock rate advanced about 3%).  Either some very.I important tests suddenly completely fit in cache (and had access patterns-D that did not cache well otherwise), or something else (such as otherL platform changes - though they didn't seem to affect the SPEC results I just4 looked at on IBM's Web site like that) was going on.  @ Attempting to analyze benchmark patterns is kind of fun, but tooJ time-consuming for me to continue this particular investigation right now.- But thanks for adding some information to it.a   - bill   ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2003 14:15:24 -0400a* From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@istop.com>Y Subject: Re: HP Webcast this morning on Next-Generation Intel Itanium 2 processors procese) Message-ID: <3F032139.84513FDB@istop.com>p   Tom Linden wrote:  > 5 > could only access HP's Rich Media Portal with IE6.0h    K With Windows media player, you can skip all of the crud from HP_website andl% open the first presentation directly:o  , http://hpmsstream1.com/784_3226/784_3226.wmv   ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2003 14:47:50 -0400 * From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@istop.com>Y Subject: Re: HP Webcast this morning on Next-Generation Intel Itanium 2 processors procesa) Message-ID: <3F0328D5.D1214689@istop.com>n   Keith Parris wrote:n8 > Not true anymore -- the floodgates seem to be opening. > = > Here's a small list of customers for HP Itanium 2 systems.    F Well, any HP-UX customer is forced to migrate to IA64. So that list of customer isn't "impressive".H Since HP-UX has/had a large market share, you can expect IA64 to replace! Pa-Risc systems already deployed.s  K And eventually, they'll also be able to list NASDAQ, NYSE as IA64 customers = because these won't have any choice for their tandem servers.t  I The real test will come when HP competes against IBM and SUN to acquire ad *NEW* customer.a   ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2003 14:52:12 -0400(* From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@istop.com>Y Subject: Re: HP Webcast this morning on Next-Generation Intel Itanium 2 processors procesn) Message-ID: <3F0329DC.ED09DE76@istop.com>    Fred Kleinsorge wrote:E > > Although also saw that the rx5670 (entry level 4-way) will not bee > supportedg  L > Not at all.  VMS is *only* supported on the rx2600 at present.  We will beL > filling out the offering as we get VMS to full production quality in 2004.  E Can you elaborate "supported" ????? Isn't VMS on IA64 still very much-6 vapourware *from the point of view of customers* ????   M We know you guys have been playing with it and have succesfully booted VMS onbM some mythical IA64 box, but as long as no VMS customer can purchase some IA64 K based box running VMS, then it is all vapourware, just as 64 bit windows onr Alpha has remained vapourware.   ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2003 14:55:35 -0400u* From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@istop.com>Y Subject: Re: HP Webcast this morning on Next-Generation Intel Itanium 2 processors procesh) Message-ID: <3F032AA7.5DFF33F4@istop.com>i  J They mention supporting multiple OS on a single server. They mention Unix,4 Linux and Windows all running on the same platform.   N Does this mean that they plan on allowing instances of H-UX, Linux and Windows& running concurrently on the same box ?   ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2003 15:11:06 -0400m* From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@istop.com>Y Subject: Re: HP Webcast this morning on Next-Generation Intel Itanium 2 processors procesi) Message-ID: <3F032E4A.D1E8C42E@istop.com>a   Fred Kleinsorge wrote:J > sound can't compare to their old LP's and a tube amp.  Frankly, the onlyH > ones who should really care overly much about the ISA are the compilerE > writers, and the OS developers.  The C programmer, and the end userl > shouldn't really care.  J Yes, the 8086 was transformed from a game controller into some respectableN enterprise chip. And that is quite an achievement from Intel. But it took thenM over 15 years to get that chip some respectability, and Intel required "Alphau< inspiration" to get its Pentium 3 to get decent performance.  J The 8086 is still the "industry standard". IA64 is a proprietary chip usedN mainly by HP, with other vendors just offering token systems to please Intel.   H Look at it from the customer's point of view: your vendor lies about theL reasons for murdering Alpha, and commits to a platform that isn't ready yet,N and because that chip is still struggling and nowhere near the "promised" "lowI cost, industry standard", we see HP and Intel still struggling to justifye their move to IA64.a  H Combine this with the fact that prior to Alphacide , Digits kept showingL slides with very compelling arguments on why IA64 was too bloated to be able0 to keep up with Alpha and even Power over time.   L Intel was able to transform 8086 into something respectable with brute forceK and lots of money because the 8086 had a huge volume. But how will Intel beVL able to justify the brute force and continued massive spending to keep a lowB volume IA64 chip up to snuff with its own 8086 (let alone Power) ?  N HP and Compaq are not credible and have not done anything to gain the trust ofL customers they acquired. How much complaining to Fiorina, Blackmore etc  wasG necessary for them to mention VMS in their webcast ? If we stop putting>K pressure on these mandarins, will they continue to mention VMS or will they.C revert to their real plans (as has always happened in the past) ? ?b    L Sure, that web cast, which is cheap/free advertising is very slanted to makeL HP look great with its new products. If you listen to it while forgetting itN is advertising, you might easily be brainwashed into thinking IA64 is the nextE best thing since sliced bread. But when you keep in mind that you are I listening to the web equivalent of an infomercial, you get to see all theoC propaganda and unsubstantiated claims in there. (for instance, someh2 customer/actor stating IA64 is industry standard).   ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2003 15:31:41 -0400o* From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@istop.com>Y Subject: Re: HP Webcast this morning on Next-Generation Intel Itanium 2 processors procesi) Message-ID: <3F03331D.7D33771E@istop.com>    JF Mezei wrote:i. > http://hpmsstream1.com/784_3226/784_3226.wmv  	 Comments:u  J How many times can HP "re-launch" IA64 as a totally new chip before peopleK start to think IA64 is vapourware ?  Wasn't Itanium-II launched last year ?s    H (I realise that later on in the infomercial, one realises that HP is nowM launching a new line of sellable products (integrity servers). It sure took a_F long time for HP to transform Itanium 2 launched last year into a realF product, when you compare their wintel servers which adopt a new intel+ variation of the 8086 in a matter of weeks.e   ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2003 16:07:42 -0700a& From: Greg Cagle <gregc@gregcagle.com>( Subject: HP World (was HP to drop hpux?)/ Message-ID: <vg6pgdnkanvf3f@corp.supernews.com>    Greg Cagle wrote:V  D > Oh, no, Keith. You can't trust Stallard. This is the kind of thing< > "they" *always* say just before the axe falls. 8^) 8^) 8^)  @ Following up to myself here, I'd like to invite everyone to come= to HP World and talk to the people in question directly. They < will all be present at one point or another. Registration is now open, btw.   --  
 Greg Cagle gregc at gregcagle dot com   ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2003 20:46:51 -0400e* From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@istop.com>, Subject: Re: HP World (was HP to drop hpux?)) Message-ID: <3F037CE5.A0ACFE62@istop.com>:   Greg Cagle wrote:eB > Following up to myself here, I'd like to invite everyone to come? > to HP World and talk to the people in question directly. Theyc> > will all be present at one point or another. Registration is > now open, btw.  H It doesn't really matter what HP publicly says. Fact is that since LinuxN became "soupe du jour",  manufacturers who have a proprietary Unix have chosenJ to keep certain doors opened in case Linux displaces their own proprietary0 unix. This, instead of nipping Linux in the bud.  H The minute a manufacturer wants to be seen as a player in Linux, its own' proprietary Unix is put into question. u  I *IF* HP starts to put too much emphasis on Linux, then rumours that HP isiJ killing HP-UX will keep on surfacing. This is exactly what killed Digital.G Digital wanted to keep the door opened for NT in case NT displaced VMS.<J Digital was too keen on NT and signaled the death of VMS, and in doing so,0 starved Digital of its revenus, thus its demise.  H What I find intertesting is neither HP nor IBM (not sure about SUN) haveJ decided to actively pit their own proprietary Unix against Linux. It seemsN that they have decided that criticising Linux is politically impossible.  What? happens if you refuse to say bad things about your competitor ?   J Again, best example of the VMS marketplace. Digital, Compaq and now HP areM refusing to say bad things about VMS' competitors and look at where VMS is atAQ today. Meanwhile, all other manufacturers are having a field day at VMS' expense.   I Linux could do to HP-=UX and AIX and possibly Solaris what NT did to VMS.i   ------------------------------  $ Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2003 00:26:24 -0400* From: "Bill Todd" <billtodd@metrocast.net>, Subject: Re: HP World (was HP to drop hpux?)2 Message-ID: <U1CdnZ_Nz4nlLZ6iXTWJkQ@metrocast.net>  7 "JF Mezei" <jfmezei.spamnot@istop.com> wrote in messager# news:3F037CE5.A0ACFE62@istop.com...u   ...R  L > Again, best example of the VMS marketplace. Digital, Compaq and now HP areL > refusing to say bad things about VMS' competitors and look at where VMS is at > today.  J I suspect that a great many people here couldn't care less whether HP saidJ bad things about VMS's competition:  they'd likely be deliriously happy ifH HP would just start saying good things about VMS in some conspicuous and on-going manner.   - bill   ------------------------------  # Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2003 18:23:09 GMTs# From: hoff@hp.nospam (Hoff Hoffman) " Subject: Re: Mount a backup /image2 Message-ID: <hqFMa.3799$3h2.2092@news.cpqcorp.net>  Q In article <3f030c3a$0$29623$626a54ce@news.free.fr>, "vn" <zool@zool.com> writes: L :Is it possible to mount a saveset on a tape, saved with backup /image, like :a device ?   F   I would not want to try this approach.  (The contents of the savesetC   are not directly structured like a disk, so the work involved in XB   translating the BACKUP checksums and structures back into a disk   would be non-trivial.T  H   It is often expedient to keep disk-to-disk BACKUPs around for a while,G   while also rolling versions out to BACKUP savesets on archival media.tE   And with spare disks around, reloading an image saveset back in is iC   quite simple and quite fast -- and users can then self-select the C   files directly rather than having to provide the operator(s) with-4   (sometimes incorrect :-) lists of requested files.    > :Or is there any solution to recover a single file in a backup' :/image without restore an entire disk?Y    H   Yes.  Please take the time to read through the BACKUP documentation inL   the system manager's essentials manual and the system management utilitiesK   manual, paying particular attention to the BACKUP command examples in the.J   latter manual, and please also specifically see the documentation of theI   /SELECT qualifier.  (The existing documentation specifically points outl6   how to select specific files from a BACKUP saveset.)     MOUNT/FOREIGN mkcu:    thenG   BACKUP mkcu:saveset.bck/SAVE/SELECT=target-spec ddcu:[output-spec...]n   orD   BACKUP mkcu:saveset.bck/SAVE/SELECT=target-spec ddcu:[output-spec]   or   BACKUP...x  J   To use BACKUP correctly, you really need to know how to use the utility,E   and such knowledge is usually best acquired from the documentation.u  I   For pointers to the online documentation, please see the FAQ.  (See they   sig for the FAQ URL.)r      N  ---------------------------- #include <rtfaq.h> -----------------------------K     For additional, please see the OpenVMS FAQ -- www.hp.com/go/openvms/faqwN  --------------------------- pure personal opinion ---------------------------E         Hoff (Stephen) Hoffman   OpenVMS Engineering   hoff[at]hp.coml   ------------------------------  $ Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2003 22:58:14 +0100" From: "Rolona" <nospam@nospam.com>" Subject: Re: Mount a backup /image; Message-ID: <EBIMa.297$iI6.97@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk>t   Try $help backup/selectnK To mount a tape like a serial disk, the files need to be "copy"ed to it not-
 "backup"ed    % "vn" <zool@zool.com> wrote in messagel. news:3f030c3a$0$29623$626a54ce@news.free.fr... > Hi,c > H > Is it possible to mount a saveset on a tape, saved with backup /image, likeJ > a device ? Or is there any solution to recover a single file in a backup( > /image without restore an entire disk? >3 > Thanks >. > Victor >n >n >p >t   ------------------------------  $ Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2003 22:06:00 -0700$ From: "Eric Bruno" <eric@ebruno.org>' Subject: OpenVMS 7.3.1 Install problem.l0 Message-ID: <poydnYB0C6BSJJ6iU-KYgw@comcast.com>  : Well I think I found the line that is hanging the install.A If reboot the system after the install locks up and boot the diskH? it does an autogen complains about some missing files but runs.-  I If I try to manually install products they complain VMS is not installed.eI Digging around the forums/newsgroups using information from various postsr2 I determined that a PCSI database was not present.   So I did the following:>    (  $DIRECTORY/DATE/SIZE SYS$SYSTEM:*.PCSI*    This showed show NO files.d  0  $DIRECTORY/DATE/SIZE SYS$COMMON:[000000]*.PCSI*    This showed these four files:  3     DEC-AXPVMS-OPENVMS-V0703-1-5.PCSI$DESCRIPTION;1e+     DEC-AXPVMS-OPENVMS-V0703-1-5.PCSI$TLB;1e/     DEC-AXPVMS-VMS-V0703-1-2.PCSI$DESCRIPTION;1r'     DEC-AXPVMS-VMS-V0703-1-2.PCSI$TLB;1    When I enter>      $ PRODUCT REGISTER PRODUCT VMS/SOURCE=SYS$COMMON:[000000] orB      $ PRODUCT REGISTER PRODUCT/LOG VMS/SOURCE=SYS$COMMON:[000000]  J it just hangs I have left the machine in this state for several hours, not difference.oK I can however ctrl Y/ctrl C out of this.Could there be an SRM variable thathE needs to be set beforebootup?Is there a way to force PCSI database toy initialize?i  
 Background  - I have an Aspen Durango II (164LX) Alpha box._- I am having problem installing OpenVMS 7.3.1.l0 I have upgraded the SRM to 5.8 which is the must( current version available for the 164LX.   Here is what happens.  Power on the system@) Boot dka400 which is cd.  OpenVMS starts.e% I go though the configuration process , The install starts and gets to 60% point and4 just freezes no message no response at the keyboard.  ; I have tried installing with and with out DECnet,TCP, Motif@: ...etc.  I have gone through and tied to install a minimum. OS. The completion goes to 90% and then hangs.  7 Is there way to get log or trace info out of install to76 see where it's hanging?  The box may not run 7.3.1 but( right now I can't tell why it's hanging.     Eric Bruno.p   ------------------------------  # Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2003 18:19:29 GMT ' From: Don Sykes <anonymous@pacbell.net>e Subject: Re: Rethinking  V.M.S+ Message-ID: <3F03225E.AC8837D3@pacbell.net>e  C In spite of what others have said this deserves some consideration.c? While it's true it would not be practical in all situations, intH environments where there are not a lot of processes running, this may beE possible. As you stated, paging, swapping, related to disk I/O delay,pC could be eliminated, but so could all the cycles related to addressSD translation, working sets and the like. Taken together, the resourceC utilization required for all this is not trivial and eliminating ite% could speed things up significantly.  E Perhaps a variant of VMS (maybe like ELN) could be developed to allowdC such a streamlined approach where it made sense. Or perhaps virtuall< management could be applied only as needed, sort of like theF page/non-page pools the kernel maintains. Of course there are a myriadF of elements to consider, but if I were looking to develop a VMS++ (not3 WNT, mind you) I would look closely at this option.-1 I'm sure all the COV readership will agree :):):)9   --     Have VMS, Will Traveld Wire paladin, San Francisco:   (paladinATalphaseDOTcom)     Fabio Cardoso wrote: >  > People > 4 > The VMS was developed 25 years ago when memory was) > expensive and Virtual Memory an option.r3 > But do we need a Virtual Memory System nowadays ?c3 > May be we should think in another architecture as"9 > the memories are becoming cheaper. May be the VM Systemr: > 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 ?h > 	 > Regardsr >  > FC >  > =====r > ========================== > Fbio dos Santos Cardoso > OpenVMS System Manager > Rio de Janeiro - Brazils > fabiopenvms@yahoo.com.br > ========================== > $ > __________________________________ > Do you Yahoo!?- > SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!o > http://sbc.yahoo.com   ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2003 15:24:45 -0400g* From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@istop.com> Subject: Re: Rethinking  V.M.S) Message-ID: <3F03317D.C9BF2EB3@istop.com>-  M Is virtual memory critical to allowing shareable images to exist as shareablev6 images ? (eg: same copy mapped to multiple processes ?  D I know that on old macs, turning off virtual memory increases memoryE requirements for each application. (probably due to the need for eachtI "process" to have its own private copy of MACos's equivalent to shareable  images (extensions).   ------------------------------  * Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2003 14:55:20 -0700 (PDT). From: Fabio Cardoso <fabiopenvms@yahoo.com.br> Subject: Re: Rethinking  V.M.S? Message-ID: <20030702215520.7864.qmail@web20201.mail.yahoo.com>d  	 Don Skyes.  
 YOU GOT IT ! s  F I liked all the explanations in this newsgroup, mainly Hoff Hoffman's G Virtual Memory message. May be I didn't explained very well, but I was nE asking in my post about the delay of the Virtual Memory operation in nC paging/swapping, and not condemning the VMS architecture of memory c@ management. Of course I  understood all the benefits of the VMS E memory subsystem as explained by a lot of internals experienced guys,oA but what I was trying to ask if in the virtual memory could have l? some kind of performance improvement if eliminated the trinity wA CPU x IO x Memory (Virtual Memory) - may be it never will change. H I had the idea to post this message after reading the last Top500 list! C So, OVMS is not good in term of performance - Just RAS (reliabiliy/t availability/security) ? i     Regardsn   FC e, --- Don Sykes <anonymous@pacbell.net> wrote: > E > In spite of what others have said this deserves some consideration. A > While it's true it would not be practical in all situations, inTJ > environments where there are not a lot of processes running, this may beG > possible. As you stated, paging, swapping, related to disk I/O delay,AE > could be eliminated, but so could all the cycles related to address-F > translation, working sets and the like. Taken together, the resourceE > utilization required for all this is not trivial and eliminating itr' > could speed things up significantly. -G > Perhaps a variant of VMS (maybe like ELN) could be developed to allowPE > such a streamlined approach where it made sense. Or perhaps virtual7> > management could be applied only as needed, sort of like theH > page/non-page pools the kernel maintains. Of course there are a myriadH > of elements to consider, but if I were looking to develop a VMS++ (not5 > WNT, mind you) I would look closely at this option.-3 > I'm sure all the COV readership will agree :):):)m >  > -- s >  > Have VMS, Will Travelc > Wire paladin, San Franciscoo >  > (paladinATalphaseDOTcom) >  >  > Fabio Cardoso wrote: > > 
 > > People > > 6 > > The VMS was developed 25 years ago when memory was+ > > expensive and Virtual Memory an option.f5 > > But do we need a Virtual Memory System nowadays ?f5 > > May be we should think in another architecture asc; > > 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, related7 > > to disk I/O delay, etc ...) What do u think about ?f > >  > > Regards  > >  > > FC > > 	 > > =====  > > ========================== > > Fbio dos Santos Cardoso > > OpenVMS System Manager > > Rio de Janeiro - Brazila > > fabiopenvms@yahoo.com.br > > ========================== > > & > > __________________________________ > > Do you Yahoo!?/ > > SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!i > > http://sbc.yahoo.com     =====m ========================== Fbio dos Santos Cardoso OpenVMS System Manager Rio de Janeiro - Brazilt fabiopenvms@yahoo.com.br ==========================  " __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!?+ SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!  http://sbc.yahoo.com   ------------------------------  * Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2003 15:07:31 -0700 (PDT). From: Fabio Cardoso <fabiopenvms@yahoo.com.br> Subject: Re: Rethinking  V.M.S@ Message-ID: <20030702220731.63367.qmail@web20203.mail.yahoo.com>   What lastest OSes ?   : The commercial Windows NT/2000 is a Dave Cutler project ! > It's not like VMS because of some patents problems, I believe.  ; Unix is 35 years old and Linux is a well-done-copy of Unix,>6 see the shells, file systems, etc... nothing changing.4 I dont see difference between both OSes, in terms of3 system management, just in kernel modes. What it ise) not important for 99% of the customers ! i  ? All theory of the 60s and 70s implemented in operating systems.aA There is nothing new in operating systems, just refurbish them !  < VMS is good because it was projected.. the X community never; was seated in a room to discuss about Unix because they aren: spreaded worldwide... nobody owns, nobody is worried about5 the customer - better buy soft to manage the systems.    Regardsp   FC OH --- Beach@yahoo.com, UNEXPECTED_DATA_AFTER_ADDRESS@.SYNTAX-ERROR. wrote:7 > The latest OS all have page files and virtual memory.r > M > Could you imagine one day they will even have files systems that are shared 	 > between C > systems with file locking at the record level, transparent to thed > user/programmer.4 > That was VMS Clustering, still never been equaled. >  > Beach Runner.e >  > Dale Dellutri wrote: > ; > > On Sun, 29 Jun 2003 14:14:10 -0700 (PDT), Fabio Cardoso8# > <fabiopenvms@yahoo.com.br> wrote:s8 > > > The VMS was developed 25 years ago when memory was- > > > expensive and Virtual Memory an option.P7 > > > But do we need a Virtual Memory System nowadays ?t7 > > > May be we should think in another architecture asr= > > > the memories are becoming cheaper. May be the VM SystemS> > > > can be improved or rethinked... What are the performance@ > > > issues related in having the VM (paging, swapping, related9 > > > to disk I/O delay, etc ...) What do u think about ?  > >0G > > Also, remember that virtual memory provides another benefit even ifjD > > all the processes need less than the real memory: no real memoryC > > fragmentation caused by multiple independent running processes.4 > >EI > > Before virtual memory (for example, think of the OSes that ran on theoH > > IBM 360 series: DOS, OS/MFT, MVS without paging), the memory used byH > > each process had to be contiguous and real.  Thus, there were memoryH > > fragmentation problems among processes as they were placed / moved / > > removed from the system. > >tE > > Virtual memory eliminated the need to have contiguous real memory  > > assigned to processes. > >aA > > Now all the fragmentation problems are within each process, awF > > different kind of problem from the system manager's point of view. > >e > > --; > > Dale Dellutri <ddelQQQlutr@panQQQix.com> (lose the Q's)h >      =====t ========================== Fbio dos Santos Cardoso OpenVMS System Manager Rio de Janeiro - Brazila fabiopenvms@yahoo.com.br ==========================  " __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!?+ SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!  http://sbc.yahoo.com   ------------------------------  * Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2003 15:10:13 -0700 (PDT). From: Fabio Cardoso <fabiopenvms@yahoo.com.br> Subject: Re: Rethinking  V.M.S@ Message-ID: <20030702221013.87614.qmail@web20204.mail.yahoo.com>   David-   YOU GOT IT, TOO !   : As I explained in anothe message, the question was related2 to paging/swapping IO.  But is not time to develop> algorythms to improve the RAM defragmentation or better use ofB memory instead of paging/swapping and consuming IO bus bandwidth ?  @ Just a quesion of a System Manager ! I am not Software Engineer.   RegardsB   FC 3= --- David McKenzie <david.mckenzie@paradigm-shift.biz> wrote:O > Hmmm,0 > E > going past the semantics, and the words of the question, there is aoJ > different point of view. Why not just look at the concept of addressableL > storage. VM implies that there is a process that swaps or pages, one couldM > take the view that it is all storage and performance enhancemant would dealeN > with the fact that some is quicker than others. This may well be implementedH > as VM is now, but ot doesn't have to be. After all look at the logicalI > absurdity of placing a page file on a ram disk. Because it looks like a I > disk, it needs page file, because it is fast, it acts like memory. I doaJ > think we are stuck in a paradigm where mechanism, and implementation areK > seen as wedded together. Surely the reality is that address space is just-: > that, and where and how it is stored is a sub construct. >  > = > "Fabio Cardoso" <fabiopenvms@yahoo.com.br> wrote in messaget< > news:20030629211410.38560.qmail@web20204.mail.yahoo.com...
 > > People > >r > >.6 > > The VMS was developed 25 years ago when memory was+ > > expensive and Virtual Memory an option.@5 > > But do we need a Virtual Memory System nowadays ?c5 > > May be we should think in another architecture ask; > > the memories are becoming cheaper. May be the VM Systemh< > > can be improved or rethinked... What are the performance> > > issues related in having the VM (paging, swapping, related7 > > to disk I/O delay, etc ...) What do u think about ?t > >) > > Regards  > >  > > FC > >t > >c > >a	 > > =====t > > ========================== > > Fbio dos Santos Cardoso > > OpenVMS System Manager > > Rio de Janeiro - Brazil  > > fabiopenvms@yahoo.com.br > > ========================== > >-& > > __________________________________ > > Do you Yahoo!?/ > > SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!R > > http://sbc.yahoo.com >  >      =====  ========================== Fbio dos Santos Cardoso OpenVMS System Manager Rio de Janeiro - Brazil. fabiopenvms@yahoo.com.br ==========================   ------------------------------  * Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2003 15:21:09 -0700 (PDT). From: Fabio Cardoso <fabiopenvms@yahoo.com.br> Subject: Re: Rethinking  V.M.S@ Message-ID: <20030702222109.54536.qmail@web20202.mail.yahoo.com>  3 May be the Page/Swap file should be implemented as  @ a device instead of a file .... so it could be pur in memory andA manage and realocate itself - even i na cluster, etc ...  insteadgB of having the IO management and memory subsystem working together.   Memory --> IO ---> Disk !    or a  & Memory --> Memory (PAGEnn:  / SWAPnn:)     Yes ?y   Regardse   FC .  > --- Phillip Helbig <HELBPHI@sysdev.deutsche-boerse.com> wrote:K > > After all look at the logical absurdity of placing a page file on a ramgI > > disk. Because it looks like a disk, it needs page file, because it is J > > fast, it acts like memory. I do think we are stuck in a paradigm whereI > > mechanism, and implementation are seen as wedded together. Surely thenG > > reality is that address space is just that, and where and how it ise > > stored is a sub construct. . > G > Interesting point.  However, it is nice to know what is a "real disk"lC > (or, at least, which shadow sets have at least one real disk as azG > member!) so that it is clear what data will remain when the power is t > switched off.g > D > It is also nice to know, for performance reasons, what is on what J > physical disk, which is one reason why I dislike the unix idea of mount I > points etc.  One can always hide this information via logical names if e > necessary.     =====t ========================== Fbio dos Santos Cardoso OpenVMS System Manager Rio de Janeiro - Brazilo fabiopenvms@yahoo.com.br ==========================  " __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!?+ SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!s http://sbc.yahoo.com   ------------------------------  # Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2003 23:20:10 GMTo' From: Don Sykes <anonymous@pacbell.net>i Subject: Re: Rethinking  V.M.S+ Message-ID: <3F0368DA.E5675378@pacbell.net>v   JF Mezei wrote:t > O > Is virtual memory critical to allowing shareable images to exist as shareablef8 > images ? (eg: same copy mapped to multiple processes ? >   > It's problematic, but not critical. Processes could still haveA discontiguous memory assignments, they just wouldn't be pageable.   F > I know that on old macs, turning off virtual memory increases memoryG > requirements for each application. (probably due to the need for eachpK > "process" to have its own private copy of MACos's equivalent to shareabley > images (extensions).  H That may be true because it was based on an older OS that had no virtualD memory construct in the first place. Virtual memory management was aG ingenious solution to addressing memory you didn't have physically, but4F such a solution was great mostly because memory was so expensive - notG so today. IIRC back in the 70's you paid thousands of dollars for 100k!J   -- y   Have VMS, Will Travele Wire paladin, San Franciscoa   (paladinATalphaseDOTcom)   ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2003 19:46:53 -0500w/ From: Chris Scheers <chris@applied-synergy.com>  Subject: Re: Rethinking  V.M.S3 Message-ID: <3F037CFD.2CAD11F0@applied-synergy.com>z   Don Sykes wrote: >  > JF Mezei wrote:i > > Q > > Is virtual memory critical to allowing shareable images to exist as shareable-: > > images ? (eg: same copy mapped to multiple processes ? > >r > @ > It's problematic, but not critical. Processes could still haveC > discontiguous memory assignments, they just wouldn't be pageable.t > H > > I know that on old macs, turning off virtual memory increases memoryI > > requirements for each application. (probably due to the need for each M > > "process" to have its own private copy of MACos's equivalent to shareablei > > images (extensions). > J > That may be true because it was based on an older OS that had no virtualF > memory construct in the first place. Virtual memory management was aI > ingenious solution to addressing memory you didn't have physically, butHH > such a solution was great mostly because memory was so expensive - notI > so today. IIRC back in the 70's you paid thousands of dollars for 100k!   G The original MacOS did not have virtual memory for a couple of reasons:5  E 1) It was based on the 68000 processor, which did not support virtualmG memory.  In particular, it could not always restart an instruction that B was aborted by a page fault.  That support was added in the 68010.  , 1b) There was no memory management hardware.   2) Mass storage was a floppy.4  D 3) It was felt that 128Kb would be enough to handle anything the Mac would ever do.    @ As a result, multiple simultaneously executing programs would beG relocated so they could coexist in the same memory space.  Furthermore,mG the memory manager did not keep track of who "owned" a block of memory, E so there was no good way to clean it up when a program exited.  ThesemG decisions were at a very low level in the MacOS design and hampered the 1 implementation of virtual memory for a long time.y  H FWIW: The original MacOS did support swapping. (You can't really call itB paging, because it was not page based.)  Before accessing a memoryH "chunk", you need to lock it.  You unlock it when you are not using it. F Unlocked chunks can be flushed to disk and reloaded on demand, perhapsD at a different address.  This is a software implementation of memory management hardware.  G -----------------------------------------------------------------------d$ Chris Scheers, Applied Synergy, Inc.  C Voice: 817-237-3360            Internet: chris@applied-synergy.com f   Fax: 817-237-3074    ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2003 13:53:39 -0400t* From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@istop.com> Subject: Re: Rethinking V.M.S ) Message-ID: <3F031C21.BBC948F7@istop.com>i  ; re: giving up virtual memory since real memory is so cheap.i  E When one thinks about the 4 memory protection levels for VMS, is this0K dependant on virtual memory being active ? Or could such a scheme work withs
 real memory ?t  M When my poorly written application tries to write a word to address 0 becausetG a pointer hasn't been initialised,  at what level, how and why does theo> operating system decide that I am not allowed to write there ?  I Is it correct to assume that when I write to address 0, this is a virtual M address ? Does it get translated to a hardware address because the OS decides   I am not allowed to touch that ?   ------------------------------  $ Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2003 13:05:23 -06006 From: "Michael D. Ober" <obermd-@-alum-mit-edu-nospam> Subject: Re: Rethinking V.M.S20 Message-ID: <T1GMa.30$Ez4.66445@news.uswest.net>  L Don't confuse VM with a swap file.  You can run some VM systems without swap files.  I As for the protection levels, this is built into the processor itself and L usually requires the processor's VM subsystem be active.  Writing to addressF 0 is caught by the processor, which then notifies the OS of an invalid' memory access via an asyncrhonous trap.   
 Mike Ober.  7 "JF Mezei" <jfmezei.spamnot@istop.com> wrote in messages# news:3F031C21.BBC948F7@istop.com...d= > re: giving up virtual memory since real memory is so cheap.t >MG > When one thinks about the 4 memory protection levels for VMS, is this-H > dependant on virtual memory being active ? Or could such a scheme work with > real memory ?R >HG > When my poorly written application tries to write a word to address 0e becausegI > a pointer hasn't been initialised,  at what level, how and why does theh@ > operating system decide that I am not allowed to write there ? >eK > Is it correct to assume that when I write to address 0, this is a virtuallG > address ? Does it get translated to a hardware address because the OS  decides " > I am not allowed to touch that ?   ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2003 12:36:22 -0700 % From: Dean Woodward <deanw@rdrop.com>v Subject: Re: Running VMS off CDu( Message-ID: <3F033436.3000102@rdrop.com>   Paul Sture wrote:s  H > A drive with a write protect button would be a handy thing to have for@ > a project like this. It could save a lot of time and coasters.  . CD-RW. Burn, test, re-think, re-image, repeat.   ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2003 12:42:23 -0700o% From: Dean Woodward <deanw@rdrop.com>g Subject: Re: Running VMS off CD ( Message-ID: <3F03359F.7090701@rdrop.com>   David J. Dachtera wrote:I > If you've got lots of RAM, I suppose you could hack up a /STARTUP proc.iC > that copies the distribution up to a RAMdisk before assigning keytD > logicals and such and then proceeding, ... but then there goes the
 > write-lock.o  I The advantage here lies in what happens when you power-cycle the box. If 1D it booted from read-only media and copied stuff to RAMdisk, all the  cracker's efforts go *poof*...  D If you run purely from RO media, then the system is invulnerable to B having files loaded/changed/replaced. Exploits that tweak running G software are still possible, which leads me to a mildly amusing vision  F of script kiddies trying to crack a VMS box that way. Not saying it's / impossible, but I bet it'd be damn frustrating.u   ------------------------------  $ Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2003 21:42:20 -0400, From: "David Turner" <dbturner@islandco.com>! Subject: Selling at cheap pricingm/ Message-ID: <vg72p075fg1d9d@news.supernews.com>o  G (A lot of this stuff we don't normally sell, so 30 day warranty applies" where we mark an *)      Vaxstation 4000-90a.
 Graphics card  64Mb Memoryd   US$ 600a   Vaxstation 4000-96*a
 Graphics carda 64Mb Memoryi   US$ 2650   Microvax 4000-108*	 No memoryt   US$ 3000   Exabyte Mammoth1 Table Top $900r Exabyte 8505 Table Top $400   ) MTI Dual DLT7000 5 Slot Autoloader $1500*a (SCSI UW Single Ended Pedestal)'   DLTIII Tapes $5 each degaussed  . BA353-AA narrow 3 SBB Table Top Enclosure $250  # KZPSC-AA 1 Channel RAID Ctr PCI $85s   RZ28-VA $50 # RZ29L-VA $100 (Very hard to find !)o   Call us as detailed beloww             -- David B Turner Island Computers US Corp.  2700 Gregory St, Suite 180 Savannah GA 314046 Tel: 912 4476622 Fax: 912 2010402 http://www.islandco.comP dbturner-at-hpaq.net (Change the -at- to @ to reply)t   ------------------------------   Date: 2 Jul 2003 14:08:24 -0500h- From: Kilgallen@SpamCop.net (Larry Kilgallen)V: Subject: Re: Standard Digital Markup Language (SDML) DTD ?3 Message-ID: <wWSy1SRo1PxS@eisner.encompasserve.org>   X In article <3f030b8a$1@obsidian.gov.bc.ca>, "Alder" <MUNDDGNTDYTV@spammotel.com> writes:L > Anyone know if there is a public one out there somewhere and where to find > it ?  $ I have no idea what a DTD is, but...  G ...I believe the only implementation of SDML is DEC Document, availablen* from and maintained by Touch Technologies.   ------------------------------  $ Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2003 15:10:07 -0700* From: "Alder" <MUNDDGNTDYTV@spammotel.com>: Subject: Re: Standard Digital Markup Language (SDML) DTD ?+ Message-ID: <3f03583e$1@obsidian.gov.bc.ca>f   Thanks, Larry.  J The DTD, or Document Type Definition, is merely a formal definition of theG tags and attributes of a markup language.  For example, the DTD for thet! XHTML 1.0 Strict looks like this:n  C http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/REC-xhtml1-20020801/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtdm  L I was hoping someone with DECdocument experience could point me to a similar6 document reference.  Googling has produced no results.  
 Thanks again,    Alderr  : "Larry Kilgallen" <Kilgallen@SpamCop.net> wrote in message- news:wWSy1SRo1PxS@eisner.encompasserve.org...u5 > In article <3f030b8a$1@obsidian.gov.bc.ca>, "Alder"i$ <MUNDDGNTDYTV@spammotel.com> writes:I > > Anyone know if there is a public one out there somewhere and where ton find > > it ? >4& > I have no idea what a DTD is, but... > I > ...I believe the only implementation of SDML is DEC Document, available , > from and maintained by Touch Technologies.   ------------------------------  # Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2003 22:46:51 GMTt# From: hoff@hp.nospam (Hoff Hoffman)g: Subject: Re: Standard Digital Markup Language (SDML) DTD ?2 Message-ID: <vhJMa.3834$yC2.2803@news.cpqcorp.net>  X In article <3f03583e$1@obsidian.gov.bc.ca>, "Alder" <MUNDDGNTDYTV@spammotel.com> writes:K :The DTD, or Document Type Definition, is merely a formal definition of ther+ :tags and attributes of a markup language.    I   I am not aware of any publicly available DTD for DECdocument.  Manuals,eE   certainly, but DIGITAL never offered a DTD for the package.  (There G   were some converters around that skirted this area and may well have  $   had internal DTD-like structures.)  G   Being at least partitially TeX based, you might also be able to prisedI   at least some certain related information out of the product TeX files.s  G   You might want to discuss this with Touch Technologies, the owners of-G   DECdocument -- I do not know if the Touch folks follow the newsgroupsFB   -- as Touch would know what is presently available in this area:  .     http://www.ttinet.com/tti/decdocument.html    N  ---------------------------- #include <rtfaq.h> -----------------------------K     For additional, please see the OpenVMS FAQ -- www.hp.com/go/openvms/faqcN  --------------------------- pure personal opinion ---------------------------E         Hoff (Stephen) Hoffman   OpenVMS Engineering   hoff[at]hp.come   ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2003 17:30:13 -0700h7 From: Randy Park <rjpark.nspaam@mindspring.nospaam.com>sQ Subject: Re: Subject: Reading long files in BASIC that appears to be "recordless"h8 Message-ID: <4pt6gv421g7l65aabeq74l0drqge8afedr@4ax.com>  = I've been out of touch for a couple of days otherwise I would  have responded sooner.  < I can send you some code that calls RMS directly from BASIC.< When you do this you do not have to specify an ORGANIZATION,2 RECORDSIZE, or a RECORDTYPE.  You let RMS open theC file, and it tells you the relevant information about the file.  MyV= routines pass back this information to the caller.  There aredE callable routine for opening a file, closing a file, reading records,t etc.  ? If I send you these routines, you will have to cut out a lot ofn< extraneous stuff, but it should be pretty obvious what needs; to be removed.  This will be much easier than attempting tob	 call QIO.b  . Send me an email if you want them.  Remove the= 'x' characters from this address:  rxjxparkx@mindxspringx.com    ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2003 15:28:44 -0400M* From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@istop.com>: Subject: Re: TCPIP$SMTP_FROM: working on VAX but not ALPHA) Message-ID: <3F03326B.E7D59D63@istop.com>V  / Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply wrote:, > H > I have a VAX and ALPHA in the same cluster, both with TCPIP 5.0A.  TheJ > TCPIP$SMTP_FROM logical works as documented on the ALPHA, but not on the > VAX. .  I I use that logicalk with success on tcpip 5.3 VAX. But with 5.0, I recallEN having tried it, and it seemed to honour only the host name, not the username,' but never extensively tested it at 5.0.i  N Also, have you tried it from an account that has big privileges such as sysprvS ? I have mine setup such that the logical will only work from a privileged account.h   ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2003 19:54:56 -0500u/ From: Chris Scheers <chris@applied-synergy.com>eV Subject: The evils of IE (Was: Compaq Solutions Aliance - Do it still existing ?) ?)?)3 Message-ID: <3F037EE0.18688E2E@applied-synergy.com>(   JF Mezei wrote:j >  > John Smith wrote:iJ > > My point was that with more and more web site developers *choosing* toJ > > support IE-specific features which are not necessarily W3C compatible,I > > developers of other web browsers have to make a concious choice as tovF > > whether they will be 'standards based' thereby potentially running > P > To be the devil's advocate, it is possible that those web designers don't evenN > have a clue that they are building incompatible web sites. If they are usingP > some microsoft software to designe/build the web site, they may never actuallyL > see the HTML and since they'd be testing this with Microsoft browser, they$ > would think all is fine and dandy.    # I believe that this is mostly true.i  ? If you study IE, you will find that it actually follows the W3C  standards pretty well.  = Because of this, Microsoft claims that IE is standards based.l  G The problem is that IE also has various non-standard implementations of F functions that already have W3C defined implementations.  So there are2 two (or more) different ways to do the same thing.  ? Microsoft's HTML generators tend to generate the IE proprietaryeF constructs.  This causes problems with browsers that "only" handle the W3C standard implementation.  G Off hand, I can't think of anyone that uses Microsoft's HTML generators ) who tests with any browser other than IE.t  G -----------------------------------------------------------------------P$ Chris Scheers, Applied Synergy, Inc.  C Voice: 817-237-3360            Internet: chris@applied-synergy.com s   Fax: 817-237-3074K   ------------------------------  * Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2003 16:45:27 -0700 (PDT). From: Fabio Cardoso <fabiopenvms@yahoo.com.br>S Subject: Re: Tri-architecture cluster demonstrated at DECUS Ottawa Technical Updatet@ Message-ID: <20030702234527.97174.qmail@web20208.mail.yahoo.com>   Sounds nice !   > But for me it is most important the VAX to Itanium portability@ than the Alpha to Itanium ! There are thousands of VAX dinosaurs asking to be extinct ! t   RegardsF   FC w6 --- Keith Parris <keithparris_NOSPAM@yahoo.com> wrote:H > 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 > +--------+--------------------------------+----------+---------+     =====  ========================== Fbio dos Santos Cardoso OpenVMS System Manager Rio de Janeiro - Brazils fabiopenvms@yahoo.com.br ==========================  " __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!?+ SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!r http://sbc.yahoo.com   ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2003 13:55:22 -0400u* From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@istop.com>O Subject: Re: VAX support (was: Re: OpenVMS Technical Seminar Highlights (some))u) Message-ID: <3F031C88.390C8800@istop.com>e   Phillip Helbig wrote:sI > If commercial folks are on VAX with support instead of ALPHA, then thisY; > is very probably because they need a "stable" platform.  R  L Not necessarily, Remember that Bob GQ Palmer decided to not-port much of theM software running on VAX to Alpha.  FMS forms management was to have been such1L a software until tPalmer was told of the stupidity of killing FMS. There areF many other packages that didn't get rescued and are still on VAX only.   ------------------------------  # Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2003 21:07:38 GMT/& From: John Reagan <john.reagan@hp.com>O Subject: Re: VAX support (was: Re: OpenVMS Technical Seminar Highlights (some))n2 Message-ID: <uQHMa.3827$zs2.2397@news.cpqcorp.net>   JF Mezei wrote:i   > N > Not necessarily, Remember that Bob GQ Palmer decided to not-port much of theO > software running on VAX to Alpha.  FMS forms management was to have been suchhN > a software until tPalmer was told of the stupidity of killing FMS. There areH > many other packages that didn't get rescued and are still on VAX only.  H While I have no proof, I seriously doubt that GQ Bob wasted time making D specific product decisions.  I would guess that the real killer was H somewhere between GQ Bob and the FMS team.  Now, that person might have C been following generic orders from Bob, but I wouldn't say that he v "decided to not-port FMS".   -- a John Reagan ' Compaq Pascal/{A|I}MACRO Project Leader. Hewlett-Packard Companyo   ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2003 17:24:49 -0400t* From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@istop.com>O Subject: Re: VAX support (was: Re: OpenVMS Technical Seminar Highlights (some)) ) Message-ID: <3F034D99.D0475F86@istop.com>o   John Reagan wrote:I > While I have no proof, I seriously doubt that GQ Bob wasted time makingeE > specific product decisions.  I would guess that the real killer wasc- > somewhere between GQ Bob and the FMS team. a  I I would think that the product decisions were made high enough inside then@ organisation that the decider had no real clue on their impact.   L Killing FMS without Killing ALL-IN-1  (it was the ALL-IN-1 group who rescuedH FMS apparently since A1 relies on FMS extensively). And of course, untilL Palmer started to extract fecal material from Bill gates's orifice, ALL-IN-1  was a huge cash cow for Digital.  L Killing VAX Document and deciding to have all documentation produced on someJ unknown 3rd party software, and only much later realising that the cost ofK converting all of the existing documentation which was document based would A have been excessive, but by then, document had already been sold.i  N All those decisions seem to me to have come from a detached, clueless very topY of the organisation who had no idea of what was really going on inside that organisation.V   ------------------------------   Date: 03 Jul 2003 04:21:08 GMT From: lmkqzy@eryhygr.com* Subject: VERY FUN FREE ADDICTIVE RPG  26149 Message-ID: <3f03af34$0$966$cc9e4d1f@news.dial.pipex.com>   ) Free Sign Up: http://www.newrpg.dynu.com/l; NO BANNERS, NO ADVERTISEMENTS, NO MONEY, NO BULL, NO OUTWARe  K  No this game is not like outwar... The point of the game is to gain levels 2 and money by doing jobs and attacking each other.   
 Introduction-r   Gangsterz is a Browser Based multiplayer game where you take control of your own male or female Gangster, in a huge hive city. Fighting other players, working for money, gambling in the casino and collecting weapons. Under a state of constant updating with new features being added all the time. This game requires no downloads of any sorts, meaning you can play it on any computer anywhere in the world with an internet connection.c   Why play Gangsterz?-  5 We use a turn based system, unlike some realtime games. Meaning you dont have to be online 24/7 to be the best, we have no resets meaning you can play forever without losing things you will gain. Also unlike other browser based games we dont offer Subscription packages and Trial Play, the game is 100% free.e We all spared no expense when it comes to Graphics, very few browser based games offer such a huge range of Graphics. You can customize your Gangster with head and body selection. Plus every item in the game has its own small icon and close up view. Giving you a real feel for the game.e  The best part about online games like this is the community, we have an advanced message system so you can send messages to all your friends like email. We have a complete custom made built in forum for discussion about the game, aswell as online chat.s     Aim of Gangsterz-     The aim is to level up and become higher level than everyone else with better items than everyone else. You level up by beating other players in fights.    Leveling Up-  : Everytime you fight you gain experience, when you reach the max experience for that level you level up. This means your experience is reset and your level is increased by 1. You also gain 3 Stat Points each time you level up, which you can spend on increasing stats like strength/agility or HP which is your life.   Healthy and Injured-  T Your character is either Healthy or Injured, you are healthy whenever your character has more than 0 HP. When you have 0 HP you are injured and cannot fight or work in some jobs. You can only be attacked when your Healthy, however you can be attacked whether you are online or offline. Just as you can attack other offline healthy players.   Turn System-  Q The turns in the game represent real time, we use turns rather than realtime because it means you can play without having to be online 24/7 by saving up turns. Turns can be used for 2 things. You can either work in Jobs, to get money which you can later use to buy weapons/items/armor or they can be used to attack players and level up.a  
 Real Time-    You get 200 turns an hour, every hour. You can check Server clock in Information. At midnight and midday server time you get revived and fully healed to full HP, so that is twice a day.    ) Free Sign Up: http://www.newrpg.dynu.com/ ; NO BANNERS, NO ADVERTISEMENTS, NO MONEY, NO BULL, NO OUTWARl    O zrrnrlgvhnpykxoybjkgylwvfwmswyslllccsmtgttytmihwwcpofxtmtxyfmzfhfnxqwjxdfhrqmgsc   ------------------------------   Date: 02 Jul 2003 21:06:03 GMT From: dpldoe@eryhygr.com* Subject: VERY FUN FREE ADDICTIVE RPG  32189 Message-ID: <3f03493b$0$965$cc9e4d1f@news.dial.pipex.com>r  ) Free Sign Up: http://www.FunRpg.dynu.com/T; NO BANNERS, NO ADVERTISEMENTS, NO MONEY, NO BULL, NO OUTWARs  K  No this game is not like outwar... The point of the game is to gain levelsa2 and money by doing jobs and attacking each other.   
 Introduction-e   Gangsterz is a Browser Based multiplayer game where you take control of your own male or female Gangster, in a huge hive city. Fighting other players, working for money, gambling in the casino and collecting weapons. Under a state of constant updating with new features being added all the time. This game requires no downloads of any sorts, meaning you can play it on any computer anywhere in the world with an internet connection.=   Why play Gangsterz?-  5 We use a turn based system, unlike some realtime games. Meaning you dont have to be online 24/7 to be the best, we have no resets meaning you can play forever without losing things you will gain. Also unlike other browser based games we dont offer Subscription packages and Trial Play, the game is 100% free.= We all spared no expense when it comes to Graphics, very few browser based games offer such a huge range of Graphics. You can customize your Gangster with head and body selection. Plus every item in the game has its own small icon and close up view. Giving you a real feel for the game.-  The best part about online games like this is the community, we have an advanced message system so you can send messages to all your friends like email. We have a complete custom made built in forum for discussion about the game, aswell as online chat./     Aim of Gangsterz-r    The aim is to level up and become higher level than everyone else with better items than everyone else. You level up by beating other players in fights.e   Leveling Up-  : Everytime you fight you gain experience, when you reach the max experience for that level you level up. This means your experience is reset and your level is increased by 1. You also gain 3 Stat Points each time you level up, which you can spend on increasing stats like strength/agility or HP which is your life.   Healthy and Injured-  T Your character is either Healthy or Injured, you are healthy whenever your character has more than 0 HP. When you have 0 HP you are injured and cannot fight or work in some jobs. You can only be attacked when your Healthy, however you can be attacked whether you are online or offline. Just as you can attack other offline healthy players.   Turn System-  Q The turns in the game represent real time, we use turns rather than realtime because it means you can play without having to be online 24/7 by saving up turns. Turns can be used for 2 things. You can either work in Jobs, to get money which you can later use to buy weapons/items/armor or they can be used to attack players and level up.i  
 Real Time-    You get 200 turns an hour, every hour. You can check Server clock in Information. At midnight and midday server time you get revived and fully healed to full HP, so that is twice a day.    ) Free Sign Up: http://www.FunRpg.dynu.com/e; NO BANNERS, NO ADVERTISEMENTS, NO MONEY, NO BULL, NO OUTWARMA bpqjygwlohlvjygbbdjemytqcbduisesqmzjoqycuslbfgdjepmbzrmogxlfblhlee   ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2003 17:25:28 -0400r* From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@istop.com>. Subject: Re: VERY FUN FREE ADDICTIVE RPG  3218) Message-ID: <3F034DBF.B34DC62E@istop.com>i   re: spam about some product.   Does anyone still use RPG ?????o   ------------------------------  $ Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2003 16:50:34 -05002 From: "Stuart Johnson" <ssj152 AT charter DOT net>. Subject: Re: VERY FUN FREE ADDICTIVE RPG  3218/ Message-ID: <vg6ku7ldfmldbf@corp.supernews.com>   7 "JF Mezei" <jfmezei.spamnot@istop.com> wrote in messagee# news:3F034DBF.B34DC62E@istop.com...g > re: spam about some product. >a! > Does anyone still use RPG ?????e  : Might this be about a Role Playing Game - "Addictive RPG"?   Stuart Johnson   ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2003 23:31:34 -0400g' From: Stuart Fuller <stufuller@usa.net>s. Subject: Re: VERY FUN FREE ADDICTIVE RPG  32180 Message-ID: <m280eb.08j.ln@dadsys2.fuller.local>   JF Mezei wrote:Q   > re: spam about some product. > ! > Does anyone still use RPG ?????=   Yeah.i  ( Blew the hell out of that car I shot at.   -- e           Stui   ------------------------------  $ Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2003 09:26:48 +05304 From: Kesav Tadimeti <Kesav_Tadimeti@KeaneIndia.com>$ Subject: what is VMS advanced ServerK Message-ID: <8EA11405E59BD611BA7100104B93C26001A044F3@exdel01.del.mgsl.com>:  	 Hello all)F What exactly is the VMS advanced server & how is it different from theG normal VMS? Does VMS also have a concept of workstation and server like> windows?   Thanks keshav   ------------------------------  $ Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2003 01:01:56 -04005 From: "Brad McCusker" <brad.mccuskerNosp@Mcompaq.com>s( Subject: Re: what is VMS advanced Server/ Message-ID: <vg7e69af1e5o0f@corp.supernews.com>   H Advanced Server for OpenVMS is the name of the SMB file and print serverK that runs on VMS (in other words, its a Windows NT/2000 compatible file andp= print server).  It used to be known as PATHWORKS for OpenVMS.n  
 Brad McCuskerd OpenVMS Engineeringe    A "Kesav Tadimeti" <Kesav_Tadimeti@KeaneIndia.com> wrote in messagefE news:8EA11405E59BD611BA7100104B93C26001A044F3@exdel01.del.mgsl.com...o > Hello allcH > What exactly is the VMS advanced server & how is it different from theI > normal VMS? Does VMS also have a concept of workstation and server like 
 > windows? >  > Thanks > keshav   ------------------------------   End of INFO-VAX 2003.363 ************************