1 INFO-VAX	Mon, 20 Dec 2004	Volume 2004 : Issue 704       Contents: Re: How to get a free iPod?  Re: HP exodus to Intel RE: HP exodus to Intel Re: HP exodus to Intel Re: HP exodus to Intel Re: HP exodus to Intel Kevin Mitnick DVD  New Features in OpenVMS V8.2  Re: New Features in OpenVMS V8.2  Re: New Features in OpenVMS V8.2  Re: New Features in OpenVMS V8.2& Older StorageWorks Parts Not Available* Re: Older StorageWorks Parts Not Available* Re: Older StorageWorks Parts Not Available* Re: Older StorageWorks Parts Not Available* Re: Older StorageWorks Parts Not Available9 Re: OT: Deutsche Borse wants to buy London Stock Exchange ! Re: Rack mount hardware standards  reverse address translation  Re: Time to revive Emerald?  Re: Time to revive Emerald?  Re: Time to revive Emerald?  Re: Time to revive Emerald?  Re: Time to revive Emerald?  Re: Time to revive Emerald?  Re: Time to revive Emerald?  Re: Time to revive Emerald?  Re: Time to revive Emerald?  Re: Time to revive Emerald?   F ----------------------------------------------------------------------    Date: 19 Dec 2004 17:06:54 -0800/ From: "Championpants" <championpants@yahoo.com> $ Subject: Re: How to get a free iPod?C Message-ID: <1103504814.555443.259750@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>   # It's True, Free Ipods for everyone.    Check it out at:  5 http://www.freeiPods.com/default.aspx?referer=8462532   9 If you don't believe me look at this article on wired.com 2 http://www.wired.com/news/mac/0,2125,64614,00.html   ------------------------------  % Date: Sun, 19 Dec 2004 14:38:56 -0500 # From: "John Smith" <a@nonymous.com>  Subject: Re: HP exodus to Intel , Message-ID: <ZbCdnQ6IaqIPR1jcRVn-oQ@igs.net>   Main, Kerry wrote: >> -----Original Message----- + >> From: John Smith [mailto:a@nonymous.com] " >> Sent: December 17, 2004 2:37 PM >> To: Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Com" >> Subject: Re: HP exodus to Intel >> >> Jack Peacock wrote:B >>> "Keith Parris" <keithparris_NOSPAM@yahoo.com> wrote in message0 >>> news:JoEwd.4723$Bb5.4010@news.cpqcorp.net...H >>>> HP saw more than 180 SAP customers move to Itanium in 180 days (see@ >>>> http://www.hp.com/hpinfo/newsroom/press/2004/041118a.html). >>>>/ >>> The article is about SAP on HP-UX, not VMS.  >>>>; >>>> I visited some VMS customers in NYC a couple of months  >> ago, and theyB >>>> were eagerly starting to get VMS running on rx2600 and rx4640, >>>> systems to start their porting efforts.C >>> And therein lies the problem.  Everything you quote is existing H >>> customers, not new ones.  Where are the articles of users converting' >>> a large Sun or IBM site to Itanium?  >> >>@ >> Indeed, where are the articles of conversions *to* OpenVMS on >> any platform??  >> >> > @ > Well, you likely have already seen this, but since you asked -E > University porting open source applications to Itanium and OpenVMS:  > 0 > http://h71000.www7.hp.com/news/ospp_turin.htmlG > "OpenVMS is the current hot topic among computer engineering students D > at Italy's Politecnico di Torino, which is the first university toA > fully implement the HP OpenVMS on Integrity servers Open Source A > Porting Program. Under the initiative, HP is placing two rx2600 G > Integrity servers and two Alpha XP1000 workstations at the university B > to support classroom and graduate projects that port open source6 > applications-typically running on Linux or Open64-to > OpenVMS.....[snip]"   K Go check with Nashua Kerry and find out just how many academic institutions A were *supposed* to have joined into this program over the past 18 K months....and you have *one* 'success' story. Sheesh...give me a break. And - this is on a machine that was *given* *away*.   I Now tell me how many *new* commercial or government customers have signed C onto VMS, paying millions in cash for hardware and operating system 	 licences.   K You know, I am really beginning to think that a couple of fish mongers in a E Chinese market could do a better job at selling OpenVMS than HP does.    ------------------------------  % Date: Sun, 19 Dec 2004 16:32:58 -0500 ' From: "Main, Kerry" <kerry.main@hp.com>  Subject: RE: HP exodus to Intel R Message-ID: <FD827B33AB0D9C4E92EACEEFEE2BA2FB4E9E89@tayexc19.americas.cpqcorp.net>   > -----Original Message------ > From: John Smith [mailto:a@nonymous.com]=20 ! > Sent: December 19, 2004 2:39 PM  > To: Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Com ! > Subject: Re: HP exodus to Intel  >=20 > Main, Kerry wrote: > >> -----Original Message----- - > >> From: John Smith [mailto:a@nonymous.com] $ > >> Sent: December 17, 2004 2:37 PM > >> To: Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Com$ > >> Subject: Re: HP exodus to Intel > >> > >> Jack Peacock wrote:D > >>> "Keith Parris" <keithparris_NOSPAM@yahoo.com> wrote in message2 > >>> news:JoEwd.4723$Bb5.4010@news.cpqcorp.net...? > >>>> HP saw more than 180 SAP customers move to Itanium in=20  > 180 days (see B > >>>> http://www.hp.com/hpinfo/newsroom/press/2004/041118a.html). > >>>>1 > >>> The article is about SAP on HP-UX, not VMS.  > >>>>= > >>>> I visited some VMS customers in NYC a couple of months  > >> ago, and theyD > >>>> were eagerly starting to get VMS running on rx2600 and rx4640. > >>>> systems to start their porting efforts.E > >>> And therein lies the problem.  Everything you quote is existing B > >>> customers, not new ones.  Where are the articles of users=20 > converting) > >>> a large Sun or IBM site to Itanium?  > >> > >>B > >> Indeed, where are the articles of conversions *to* OpenVMS on > >> any platform??  > >> > >> > > B > > Well, you likely have already seen this, but since you asked -G > > University porting open source applications to Itanium and OpenVMS:  > > 2 > > http://h71000.www7.hp.com/news/ospp_turin.html7 > > "OpenVMS is the current hot topic among computer=20  > engineering studentsF > > at Italy's Politecnico di Torino, which is the first university toC > > fully implement the HP OpenVMS on Integrity servers Open Source C > > Porting Program. Under the initiative, HP is placing two rx2600 A > > Integrity servers and two Alpha XP1000 workstations at the=20  > universityD > > to support classroom and graduate projects that port open source8 > > applications-typically running on Linux or Open64-to > > OpenVMS.....[snip]"  >=20: > Go check with Nashua Kerry and find out just how many=20 > academic institutions C > were *supposed* to have joined into this program over the past 18 @ > months....and you have *one* 'success' story. Sheesh...give=20 > me a break. And / > this is on a machine that was *given* *away*.  >=20B > Now tell me how many *new* commercial or government customers=20
 > have signed E > onto VMS, paying millions in cash for hardware and operating system  > licences.  >=20 [snip..]  H Again, these recent *new* OpenVMS Cust's/ISV stories were posted before:F http://www.openvms.org/stories.php?story=3D04/01/22/7074154 (Singapore	 Exchange)   H http://deutsche-boerse.com/dbag/dispatch/en/listcontent/gdb_navigation/hG ome/Content_Files/10_homepage/News/13_press/pm_news_shanghai_101104.htm  (Shanghai Exchange)   @ And both of these are Cust's who demand long term strategies and committment.=20   E I am not saying OpenVMS marketing could not be improved, but there is H certainly lots more going on with OpenVMS  than what is dicussed here in c.o.v.   Regards   
 Kerry Main Senior Consultant  HP Services Canada Voice: 613-592-4660  Fax: 613-591-4477  kerryDOTmainAThpDOTcom (remove the DOT's and AT)=20  $ "OpenVMS has always had integrity .. Now, Integrity has OpenVMS .."   ------------------------------  % Date: Sun, 19 Dec 2004 17:35:40 -0500 - From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com>  Subject: Re: HP exodus to Intel , Message-ID: <41C60238.6DF05810@teksavvy.com>   "Main, Kerry" wrote:G > I am not saying OpenVMS marketing could not be improved, but there is J > certainly lots more going on with OpenVMS  than what is dicussed here in > c.o.v.  H If information doesn't reach those who seek it (profile of average c.o.vL participant), then it most certaintly doesn't reach those who don't actively seek information about VMS.    Let me ask you this:    L While it appears that you guys are informed when there is a key sale of VMS,; are you informed when there is any loss of a VMS customer ? ( 	-customer not renewing support contractM 	-RFP done by existing VMS customer that doesn't result in a sale (eg: IBM or 
 Sun got it) ?   N You can brag about individual wins, and it is good that you do so. By no meansH are we telling you to stop. However, we want the ability to put those inN perspective because from our point of view, we see far more losses than gains.   ------------------------------  % Date: Sun, 19 Dec 2004 18:54:54 -0500 # From: "John Smith" <a@nonymous.com>  Subject: Re: HP exodus to Intel , Message-ID: <yd-dneZTlPtPiVvcRVn-rw@igs.net>   Main, Kerry wrote: >> -----Original Message----- + >> From: John Smith [mailto:a@nonymous.com] " >> Sent: December 19, 2004 2:39 PM >> To: Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Com" >> Subject: Re: HP exodus to Intel >> >> Main, Kerry wrote:  >>>> -----Original Message----- - >>>> From: John Smith [mailto:a@nonymous.com] $ >>>> Sent: December 17, 2004 2:37 PM >>>> To: Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Com$ >>>> Subject: Re: HP exodus to Intel >>>> >>>> Jack Peacock wrote:D >>>>> "Keith Parris" <keithparris_NOSPAM@yahoo.com> wrote in message2 >>>>> news:JoEwd.4723$Bb5.4010@news.cpqcorp.net...< >>>>>> HP saw more than 180 SAP customers move to Itanium in >> 180 days (seeB >>>>>> http://www.hp.com/hpinfo/newsroom/press/2004/041118a.html). >>>>>>1 >>>>> The article is about SAP on HP-UX, not VMS.  >>>>>>= >>>>>> I visited some VMS customers in NYC a couple of months  >>>> ago, and theyD >>>>>> were eagerly starting to get VMS running on rx2600 and rx4640. >>>>>> systems to start their porting efforts.E >>>>> And therein lies the problem.  Everything you quote is existing ? >>>>> customers, not new ones.  Where are the articles of users 4 >>>>> converting a large Sun or IBM site to Itanium? >>>> >>>>B >>>> Indeed, where are the articles of conversions *to* OpenVMS on >>>> any platform??  >>>> >>>> >>> B >>> Well, you likely have already seen this, but since you asked -G >>> University porting open source applications to Itanium and OpenVMS:  >>> 2 >>> http://h71000.www7.hp.com/news/ospp_turin.html4 >>> "OpenVMS is the current hot topic among computer >> engineering students F >>> at Italy's Politecnico di Torino, which is the first university toC >>> fully implement the HP OpenVMS on Integrity servers Open Source C >>> Porting Program. Under the initiative, HP is placing two rx2600 > >>> Integrity servers and two Alpha XP1000 workstations at theC >>> university to support classroom and graduate projects that port D >>> open source applications-typically running on Linux or Open64-to >>> OpenVMS.....[snip]"  >>8 >> Go check with Nashua Kerry and find out just how many >> academic institutionsD >> were *supposed* to have joined into this program over the past 18> >> months....and you have *one* 'success' story. Sheesh...give >> me a break. And0 >> this is on a machine that was *given* *away*. >>@ >> Now tell me how many *new* commercial or government customers >> have signedF >> onto VMS, paying millions in cash for hardware and operating system >> licences. >>
 > [snip..] > B > Again, these recent *new* OpenVMS Cust's/ISV stories were postedC > before: http://www.openvms.org/stories.php?story=04/01/22/7074154  > (Singapore Exchange) > J > http://deutsche-boerse.com/dbag/dispatch/en/listcontent/gdb_navigation/hI > ome/Content_Files/10_homepage/News/13_press/pm_news_shanghai_101104.htm  > (Shanghai Exchange)  > B > And both of these are Cust's who demand long term strategies and > committment.     Kerry,K No reflection on you and the dedicated VMS people at DEC (or whatever), but K the one or two wins *annually* that get trotted out  and mentioned over and B over again - which I might add are wins *ONLY* because of a highly3 specialized application, well, it's getting tiring.   L Sun or IBM can publish a list of a dozen or more mid/high profile wins *per* *day*, and so can Microsoft.  K HP's marketing efforts for VMS are pathetic and are that way because morons H at the highest levels in HP are deliberately making it thus. You know asG well as I that tens of thousands of corporations  and governments could D benefit from using VMS yet most of them have never even heard of it.  C I have personally spoken with people in high technical positions in I different levels of government who say that they'd *love* to be using VMS I again for all the reasons that we know are the best reasons for using VMS J yet they cannot present this as an option to their superiors because thereH is no visible traction points for them to rely upon from HP. HP's publicE commitment to VMS is as ephemeral as Peter Pan and about as real too.     : > I am not saying OpenVMS marketing could not be improved,  # You are a master of understatement.      > but there isG > certainly lots more going on with OpenVMS  than what is dicussed here   J I'm sure there is. I'm sure that the mythical OVMS Marketing dept. is busyI preparing a lovely holiday Powerpoint presentation replete with images of L carly(tm) the Elf busy working in the North Pole workshop assembling all theI GS1280's Santa will be delivering  down every chimney in the land is less  than a week.  H I'm also quite sure that somewhere in Palo Alto there is a pixie, who inA Cromwell-like thinking is musing "Will someone not rid me of this  troublesome operating system?"  L Beyond that I'm at a loss to imagine much else that will be concrete for VMS marketing and advertising.   ------------------------------  # Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2004 02:03:11 GMT + From: LESLIE@JRLVAX.HOUSTON.RR.COM (leslie)  Subject: Re: HP exodus to Intel 4 Message-ID: <zpqxd.27987$jf5.18299@fe1.texas.rr.com>  ) Jack Peacock (peacock@simconv.com) wrote: D : ...I'm sure there must be a few places still running some version  : of Univac Exec...  :   F The Unisys OS 2200 systems are descendants of Univac Exec 8 systems...  4    http://www.tek-tips.com/viewthread.cfm?qid=274565+    Unisys DBMS solutions - unisys 1100/2200   F   "Home > Forums > Programmers > DBMS Packages > Unisys DBMS solutions    unisys 1100/2200       thread302-274565   #    rtamma (Programmer) May 16, 2002   ?    what are the differences between the unisys1100/2200 and the @    other  machines like A- series or NX series for that matter ?      MBaker (MIS) May 20, 2002  H    The OS 2200 based machines and the MCP based machines have nothing in(    common, except being Unisys machines.  G    The OS 2200 based machines (11xx, 1100/xx, 2200/xxx, IX4800, IX5600, D    IX5800, IX6600, IX6800, IX7802, IX7840) are all desendents of theE    Sperry (formerly Univac) line.  These machines are based on 36-bit     one's complement hardware.   E    OS 2200 itself is a desendent of EXEC 8.  The operating system has #    evolved since the early 60's..."      --Jerry Leslie9   Note: leslie@jrlvax.houston.rr.com is invalid for email    ------------------------------  % Date: Sun, 19 Dec 2004 16:05:53 -0500 ) From: "Neil Rieck" <n.rieck@sympatico.ca>  Subject: Kevin Mitnick DVD9 Message-ID: <P2mxd.3453$Z%3.108406@news20.bellglobal.com>   G Six years after it was made, "Take Down", the movie about the arrest of 6 Kevin Mitnick has just been released in North America.  H It's not bad but only computer and telephony people would find it of anyG value (did Tsutomu Shimomura really walk between brown and green Nortel J DMS-100 racks every day at work?). That said, every time you hear the wordG BEC they really mean DEC. In fact, there is one company logo that reads J Binary Equipment Corporation and the letters of the first word are spelled; out graphically in "| D | I | G | I | T | A | L |" fashion.   
 Neil Rieck Kitchener/Waterloo/Cambridge,  Ontario, Canada.8 http://www3.sympatico.ca/n.rieck/links/cool_openvms.html   ------------------------------  % Date: Sun, 19 Dec 2004 13:45:13 -0500 ' From: "Main, Kerry" <kerry.main@hp.com> % Subject: New Features in OpenVMS V8.2 R Message-ID: <FD827B33AB0D9C4E92EACEEFEE2BA2FB4E9E85@tayexc19.americas.cpqcorp.net>   All,  D This site was recently updated - check out latest summary of the new features in OpenVMS V8.2:=20< http://h71000.www7.hp.com/openvms/integrity/v82features.html  < Imho, an excellent tribute to the OpenVMS Engineering folks.   :-)    Regards,  
 Kerry Main Senior Consultant  HP Services Canada Voice: 613-592-4660  Fax: 613-591-4477  kerryDOTmainAThpDOTcom (remove the DOT's and AT)=20  $ "OpenVMS has always had integrity .. Now, Integrity has OpenVMS .."   ------------------------------  % Date: Sun, 19 Dec 2004 14:32:30 -0500 # From: "John Smith" <a@nonymous.com> ) Subject: Re: New Features in OpenVMS V8.2 , Message-ID: <HYqdnRrGstfISljcRVn-gg@igs.net>   Main, Kerry wrote: > All, > F > This site was recently updated - check out latest summary of the new > features in OpenVMS V8.2: > > http://h71000.www7.hp.com/openvms/integrity/v82features.html > > > Imho, an excellent tribute to the OpenVMS Engineering folks.    7 Kudos to all those in OVMS Engineering who contributed.   I Now let's see if we can't get a company that is worthy of these people to 3 actively sell and market their outstanding efforts.   
 For starters, I a) Let's dispense with the "industry-standard HP Integrity servers" crap. J There's nothing 'industry standard' about IA64. And HP doesn't sell enoughJ Integrity boxes to make them count as a defacto standard either...arguablyC Sun sell more Sparc boxes, so they have a better claim to 'industry & standard' than HP does with Integrity.  F b) This is supposed to be a feature? It's more of a broken commitment. " H       Support for new Alpha EV7z speedup for AlphaServer ES47, ES80, and GS1280         a.. Replaces EV79 F      a.. Provides continued performance improvements on HP AlphaServer systems      "    ------------------------------  % Date: Sun, 19 Dec 2004 17:14:39 -0500 - From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> ) Subject: Re: New Features in OpenVMS V8.2 B Message-ID: <1103493929.9ad8c1fb4ce85c6a589b178e5e5ecfeb@teranews>   "Main, Kerry" wrote:> > http://h71000.www7.hp.com/openvms/integrity/v82features.html > > > Imho, an excellent tribute to the OpenVMS Engineering folks.  - When is 8.2 going to OFFICIALLY be shipping ?   H There are a couple of goodies in there for the average user. There are a6 couple of goodies for niche user with special configs.  G Unfortunatly, this "new features" page is filled with mostly stuff that M already exists but has been ported to that IA64 thing. It is also filled with I stuff which is not "new VMS features" but is related to services (such as  ability to download software).  M Limiting cluster to 16 nodes shouldn't be a "new feature" thing. It should be  in the "new restrictions" page.   H If this page is intended for customers, there are a lot of acronyms thatM should be replaced such as "OE" which is use profusely in a section and which * is devoid of meaning to average customers.  M The page mentions a new service to access software via download or DVD. While J this shouldn't be part of the new features manual, it is most interesting.N However, it also begs the question: Will condist (or whatever its name is this  week) still be available on CD ?    N There are licencing issues which don't belong in a new features page, and theyJ scare me. They mention licence trade in policies.  Reading strictly in theL context of new features for 8.2 that comes with a different LMF system, doesN this mean that upgrading from 7.3 to 8.2 requires licenes to be re-issued, andF that those not on support will have to dish out 40% of the cost of theL application licence just for the privilege of moving to a new version of the OS ?    J It is good to see OpenSSL provided (even for VAX !). Unfortunatly, I stillK think it is better for users to compile their won and keep their own source > code so that when patches are issued worldwide for all opensslN iomplementations, users can patch their VMS systems right away and now have to+ wait 5 years for HP to issue a new version.   M As VMS starts to provide more and more open sourced stuff, the need for the C K compiler to come with every VMS system grows.  Unless the VMS management is ; willing to put priority on providing patches to open source K modules/applications in a leadership position (ahead of Sun/IBM and Linux), J then they must supply the source code and a compiler so that customers canM apply the patches themselves and not have to wait months/years for Digital/HP B to release one. This is especially trus of self support customers.    N The system service logging seems to be extremely interesting. Unfortunatly, inC a page that shoudl focus on such features, it is devoid of any real K information about what it really does. Normally, the "New Features" page in 9 HELP would provide far more details on such new features.   K It mentions a TCPIP scalable kernel. Whoopty doo. What does that mean ? And M does this mean that VMS now comes with the TCPIP kernel in it, and that TCPIP - Services will only provide the applications ?    ------------------------------  % Date: Sun, 19 Dec 2004 16:31:11 -0700 % From: Dan O'Reilly <dano@process.com> ) Subject: Re: New Features in OpenVMS V8.2 A Message-ID: <6.1.2.0.2.20041219163028.02275ec0@raptor.psccos.com>   ' At 03:14 PM 12/19/2004, JF Mezei wrote: L >It mentions a TCPIP scalable kernel. Whoopty doo. What does that mean ? AndN >does this mean that VMS now comes with the TCPIP kernel in it, and that TCPIP. >Services will only provide the applications ?  C No, but not to worry!  TCPware and MultiNet both support Itanium...      ------J +-------------------------------+----------------------------------------+J | Dan O'Reilly                  |  "There are 10 types of people in this |J | Principal Engineer            |   world: those who understand binary   |J | Process Software              |   and those who don't."                |J | http://www.process.com        |                                        |J +-------------------------------+----------------------------------------+   ------------------------------  % Date: Sun, 19 Dec 2004 17:59:36 -0600 2 From: David J Dachtera <djesys.nospam@comcast.net>/ Subject: Older StorageWorks Parts Not Available + Message-ID: <41C615E8.FDEC0030@comcast.net>    A heads-up to the group...  E We are experiencing considerable difficulty trying to get replacement & disks for the older StorageWorks gear.  C Specifically, our local folks have been unable to produce a working D replacement for a DS-RZ1ED-VW. We've had three DOAs so far. ProbablyH would have been more, but they can't seem to do better than a day or twoG delivery time (is it me, or is that 100% unacceptable for healthcare?).   C Sites using the older BA35x-shelf SBBs and related gear may want to F stock up on parts from the after-market, and also put your DR hotsites	 on alert.   - Monday begins week #2 of this latest debacle.    --   David J Dachtera dba DJE Systems  http://www.djesys.com/  ) Unofficial OpenVMS Hobbyist Support Page: " http://www.djesys.com/vms/support/  ( Unofficial Affordable OpenVMS Home Page: http://www.djesys.com/vms/soho/   " Unofficial OpenVMS-IA32 Home Page: http://www.djesys.com/vms/ia32/    ------------------------------  + Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2004 01:09:40 +0000 (UTC) 7 From: hamilton@Encompasserve.org (Bradford J. Hamilton) 3 Subject: Re: Older StorageWorks Parts Not Available / Message-ID: <cq58ok$ra1$1@grandcanyon.binc.net>   ` In article <41C615E8.FDEC0030@comcast.net>, David J Dachtera <djesys.nospam@comcast.net> writes: !A heads-up to the group...  ! F !We are experiencing considerable difficulty trying to get replacement' !disks for the older StorageWorks gear.  ! D !Specifically, our local folks have been unable to produce a workingE !replacement for a DS-RZ1ED-VW. We've had three DOAs so far. Probably I !would have been more, but they can't seem to do better than a day or two H !delivery time (is it me, or is that 100% unacceptable for healthcare?). !   O I've used a vendor who has given me nothing but good SBB's.  Are you allowed to D purchase from any vendor you wish?  I'll give you a name and contact; off-line, if you wish (not too far away from Chicago-land).    !snip!   ------------------------------    Date: 19 Dec 2004 21:47:33 -0600+ From: young_r@encompasserve.org (Rob Young) 3 Subject: Re: Older StorageWorks Parts Not Available 3 Message-ID: <MMz5kOC+PLES@eisner.encompasserve.org>   ` In article <41C615E8.FDEC0030@comcast.net>, David J Dachtera <djesys.nospam@comcast.net> writes: > A heads-up to the group... > G > We are experiencing considerable difficulty trying to get replacement ( > disks for the older StorageWorks gear. > E > Specifically, our local folks have been unable to produce a working F > replacement for a DS-RZ1ED-VW. We've had three DOAs so far. ProbablyJ > would have been more, but they can't seem to do better than a day or twoI > delivery time (is it me, or is that 100% unacceptable for healthcare?).  > E > Sites using the older BA35x-shelf SBBs and related gear may want to H > stock up on parts from the after-market, and also put your DR hotsites > on alert.  > / > Monday begins week #2 of this latest debacle.  >   < 	Hard drives have a service lifetime of 5 years, that is howA 	long they are warranted for.  There was a good comp.arch.storage F 	discussion re: MTBF and service life (leave it as a google exercise).= 	But Bill points this out in one slice of a discussion there:   W http://groups-beta.google.com/group/comp.arch.storage/msg/3c7791ffa4a5b64c?dmode=source   J "The drives *have* to be in their nominal service life: once you go beyondG that, you won't get any meaningful [MTBF] numbers (because they have no K significance to the product, and thus the manufacturer won't have performed & any real testing in that life range)."  D 	The drives you are working with there are 6.5 years old (or older).D 	They should have been replaced in the last 2 years or so.  The fact? 	that a number show up DOA is no surprise - they are past their # 	end of useful life (service life).   = 	You could if so inclined write a long, well researched, with = 	charts, graphs , etc.  polemic as to why you need to come of ? 	your old storage as fast as possible , or I could but I'd have  	to charge you.   B 	Point is, someone in your organization needs to be educated aboutB 	storage.  Perhaps they are and it is a money situation.  If so, IC 	hope you aren't running any RAID5 with drives that old.  It is not @ 	uncommon to blow out a RAID5 member on older kit and during the? 	rebuild immediately drop another.  Just this past week I had a ? 	conversation about just that situation, where they worked that B 	occured, RAID5 rebuild begins - poof goes another drive.  And of ? 	course, has been discussed here by Keith, Ed Wilts, myself and  	others.   	More on MTBF, service life:  J http://groups-beta.google.com/group/comp.arch.storage/msg/839ef2a3a255c18c  G MTBF figures for all devices factor in the service life. Unless they've H changed it, Seagate uses a service life of 5 years. Once a drive reachesH the end of it's service life, the MTBF figure is totally undefined. ThusL the fact that a particular model has an MTBF of 1.2E6 hours means NOTHING inI 61st month. Now, I agree it is unlikely that they all will expire messily G 61 months, but there are plenty of products where you can fool with the B paper "service-life" to produce excellent-seeming MTBF figures...    ---  	 ; 	They may not all go "poof" at 61 months, but I'd say at 80 B 	months you are really pushing it and learning a real-world lesson( 	of why not to stick with older storage.   				Rob    ------------------------------    Date: 19 Dec 2004 22:14:45 -0600- From: Kilgallen@SpamCop.net (Larry Kilgallen) 3 Subject: Re: Older StorageWorks Parts Not Available 3 Message-ID: <g+qED$RV1d$J@eisner.encompasserve.org>   a In article <MMz5kOC+PLES@eisner.encompasserve.org>, young_r@encompasserve.org (Rob Young) writes: b > In article <41C615E8.FDEC0030@comcast.net>, David J Dachtera <djesys.nospam@comcast.net> writes:  F >> Specifically, our local folks have been unable to produce a working> >> replacement for a DS-RZ1ED-VW. We've had three DOAs so far.  > > 	Hard drives have a service lifetime of 5 years, that is how > 	long they are warranted for.   I But if that is the _service_ life, the clock has not even started ticking . on the three replacement drives that were DOA.   ------------------------------    Date: 20 Dec 2004 00:23:11 -0600+ From: young_r@encompasserve.org (Rob Young) 3 Subject: Re: Older StorageWorks Parts Not Available 3 Message-ID: <YuUUBs+Ehc5J@eisner.encompasserve.org>   c In article <g+qED$RV1d$J@eisner.encompasserve.org>, Kilgallen@SpamCop.net (Larry Kilgallen) writes: c > In article <MMz5kOC+PLES@eisner.encompasserve.org>, young_r@encompasserve.org (Rob Young) writes: c >> In article <41C615E8.FDEC0030@comcast.net>, David J Dachtera <djesys.nospam@comcast.net> writes:  > G >>> Specifically, our local folks have been unable to produce a working ? >>> replacement for a DS-RZ1ED-VW. We've had three DOAs so far.  > ? >> 	Hard drives have a service lifetime of 5 years, that is how   >> 	long they are warranted for. > K > But if that is the _service_ life, the clock has not even started ticking 0 > on the three replacement drives that were DOA.    B 	Ahh, this *could* be correct.  Your assumption is they are unusedE 	replacements, my assumption is the replacements are used.  Not a bad , 	assumption, but of course I could be wrong.6 	A quick check shows that 2 ads that say "NEW" on thisE 	drive are dated 1999.  Odds are there isn't a large stash of unused  A 	DS-RZ1ED-VW drives anywhere - in fact, at a prior job they were  D 	told by a large OEM , "sorry no more 9 gigs you must take 18 gigs" A 	and of course how do you replace a drive in a RAID array with a  < 	larger drive - not an EVA of course.  Are there *no* unused; 	DS-RZ1ED-VW out there?  Of course not.  Tough finding them  	I will bet.  H 	Now here is a case of apparent hypocrisy on my part.  About 5 years agoE 	at a former place, I put in place a bunch of RZ-29 used.  Today they A 	are still in use.  But I created a number of RAID 0+1 and triple B 	shadowed them.  Certainly didn't care about losing drives as theyE 	autospare and a number of shadowset members in different cabinets.   D 	That's about the only way I would run a long time on ancient kit.    	David may not have that luxury.  @ 	Either way, doesn't detract from the larger point - he may haveE 	storage that needs to be replaced (if the drives have been spinning  C 	for 70+ months and doesn't have a number of RAID levels in place -  	host and controller).   				Rob    ------------------------------  % Date: Sun, 19 Dec 2004 14:46:23 -0500 # From: "John Smith" <a@nonymous.com> B Subject: Re: OT: Deutsche Borse wants to buy London Stock Exchange, Message-ID: <ZbCdnQmIaqIOR1jcRVn-oQ@igs.net>   Paul Sture wrote:  > JF Mezei wrote:  > F >> BBC reports that the german stock market is making a bid to buy the? >> London Stock Exchange (something like 2.5 billion US bucks).  >>B >> Does Deutsche Borse use VMS ? Any chance they may influence the8 >> LSE's next technological decisions in favour of VMS ? > $ > And according to the BBC report at > 1 > http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4108831.stm  > F > The Deutsche Boerse bid was rejected, and Euronext (formed after theD > Brussels, Paris and Amsterdam exchanges merged) is 'poised to make > LSE bid'.  > ( > Anyone know what systems Euronext use?    J Paris used, and may still be using an IBM mainframe-based app. The app wasI originally developed by the Toronto Stock Exchange in the late 1970's and L licensed to Paris in the 1980's. Paris upgraded that app and then resold the upgrades back to Toronto.   L Toronto Stock Exchange runs a mix of mostly IBM and NSK, with a small bit of/ VMS. The VMS app is one licenced from OM Group.    ------------------------------  # Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2004 01:49:02 GMT 1 From: "Ken Randell" <kenneth.randell@verizon.net> * Subject: Re: Rack mount hardware standards' Message-ID: <icqxd.456$L7.165@trnddc05>   @ This is somewhat off-topic but just as an observation it appears@ that you can no longer order tower kits for smaller storageworksE gear; in particular, the 43xx stuff is no longer available in a tower > kit; only rack-mountable, and it's replacement (MSA1000?) only comes rack-mountable as well.   @ So, while I'm not sure if it's metric or US measurements, but in) any case it's a PITA for my applications.    ------------------------------  % Date: Sun, 19 Dec 2004 17:19:32 -0500s2 From: Chip Coldwell <coldwell@physics.harvard.edu>$ Subject: reverse address translationA Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.61.0412191718480.10332@frank.harvard.edu>t  H Is there any way to get the virtual address that corresponds to a given  PFN?   Chip   -- e Charles M. "Chip" Coldwell System Administrator Harvard Physics Department 617-495-3388   ------------------------------    Date: 19 Dec 2004 14:25:40 -0600- From: Kilgallen@SpamCop.net (Larry Kilgallen)e$ Subject: Re: Time to revive Emerald?3 Message-ID: <BzuXMjjrg9RB@eisner.encompasserve.org>t  u In article <Pine.LNX.4.61.0412191021050.5916@frank.harvard.edu>, Chip Coldwell <coldwell@physics.harvard.edu> writes: ( > On Sun, 19 Dec 2004, Neil Rieck wrote:  L >> Really? I thought the latest Pentium-4 style CPUs from AMD and Intel wereN >> still based upon a 32-bit core with extensions that allow addressing into a >> 64-bit memory space.  > G > It's even weirder than that.  I have the IA-32 Architecture Software uD > Developer's Manual (a four-volume beast) on my lap as I write the   > following quote from page 3-2: > L >    "Any task or program running on an IA-32 processor can address a linearI >     address space of up to 4 GBytes (2^32 bytes) and a physical address-K >     space of up to 64 GBytes (2^36 bytes).  (See Section 3.3.3, 'Extended@K >     Physical Addressing' for more information about addressing an addressj$ >     space greater than 4 GBytes.)" > M > The reality is that since the P6, the IA-32 has been a 36-bit architecture SH > if you measure the size of an architecture by the width of a physical M > address.  Intel calls this "Physical Address Extensions" (PAE).  The weird rI > part is that for compatibility, the virtual addresses remained 32-bits pM > wide.  In a sense, Intel turned the whole concept of virtual memory on its yI > head -- whereas in every other VM implementation the virtual memory is >J > larger than the physical memory (using backing store on disk to make up J > the difference), with Intel's P6 the physical memory is larger than the  > virtual memory.e > K > The idea is that you could have several processes with up to 4 GBytes of  G > memory each resident in core at the same time.  Although none of the  L > processes could address more than 4 GBytes, the kernel wouldn't be forced H > to swap between them because of a lack of physical memory.  At least, H > that's how the Linux kernel uses PAE; apparently Windows uses it in a M > different mode that does allow the process virtual address space to exceed o+ > 4 GBytes using a segmented memory scheme.S  A In that case, the chip is behaving like one of the later PDP-11s.i   ------------------------------  % Date: Sun, 19 Dec 2004 15:35:47 -0500P) From: "Neil Rieck" <n.rieck@sympatico.ca>i$ Subject: Re: Time to revive Emerald?9 Message-ID: <EClxd.2896$GK5.199537@news20.bellglobal.com>.  3 "Roger Ivie" <rivie@ridgenet.net> wrote in message e- news:slrncsbh80.jnk.rivie@Stench.no.domain... D > On 2004-12-19, Chip Coldwell <coldwell@physics.harvard.edu> wrote:G >>  In a sense, Intel turned the whole concept of virtual memory on its I >> head -- whereas in every other VM implementation the virtual memory ismJ >> larger than the physical memory (using backing store on disk to make upJ >> the difference), with Intel's P6 the physical memory is larger than the >> virtual memory. >hE > It's actually not that unusual. PDP-8 and PDP-11 worked this way aseF > well; in the PDP-8, a 12-bit virtual address is extended to a 13-bitE > (8/i), 15-bit (8/e), or 17-bit (8/a) physical address. On PDP-11, awI > 16-bit virtual address is turned into an 18-bit (UNIBUS, early QBus) ors& > 22-bit (late QBus) physical address. > -- M  M Not to mention the XMI bus in the VAX world which could do 40 bit addressing 2L (bringing up the total space up to one terabyte). If memory serves, I think < there was something called XMI+ which could address 46 bits.  
 Neil Rieck Kitchener/Waterloo/Cambridge,i Ontario, Canada.9 http://www3.sympatico.ca/n.rieck/links/cool_openvms.html e   ------------------------------  % Date: Sun, 19 Dec 2004 17:39:24 -0500d2 From: Chip Coldwell <coldwell@physics.harvard.edu>$ Subject: Re: Time to revive Emerald?A Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.61.0412191738100.10528@frank.harvard.edu>   & On Sun, 19 Dec 2004, Roger Ivie wrote:  D > On 2004-12-19, Chip Coldwell <coldwell@physics.harvard.edu> wrote:G >>  In a sense, Intel turned the whole concept of virtual memory on itsJI >> head -- whereas in every other VM implementation the virtual memory istJ >> larger than the physical memory (using backing store on disk to make upJ >> the difference), with Intel's P6 the physical memory is larger than the >> virtual memory. > E > It's actually not that unusual. PDP-8 and PDP-11 worked this way as F > well; in the PDP-8, a 12-bit virtual address is extended to a 13-bitE > (8/i), 15-bit (8/e), or 17-bit (8/a) physical address. On PDP-11, a I > 16-bit virtual address is turned into an 18-bit (UNIBUS, early QBus) ort& > 22-bit (late QBus) physical address.  I Is that right?  My understanding was that the PDP-11 didn't even support  J virtual memory, which is where the name VAX-11 came from (VAX for Virtual G Address eXtensions, 11 from PDP-11).  Or was this some kind of bolt-on d option?i   Chip   -- u Charles M. "Chip" Coldwell System Administrator Harvard Physics Department 617-495-3388   ------------------------------  % Date: Sun, 19 Dec 2004 15:31:14 -0800n* From: "Jack Peacock" <peacock@simconv.com>$ Subject: Re: Time to revive Emerald?2 Message-ID: <WrOdnWPw5PV0k1vcRVn-jQ@mpowercom.net>  @ "Chip Coldwell" <coldwell@physics.harvard.edu> wrote in message ; news:Pine.LNX.4.61.0412191738100.10528@frank.harvard.edu...0K > Is that right?  My understanding was that the PDP-11 didn't even support vL > virtual memory, which is where the name VAX-11 came from (VAX for Virtual I > Address eXtensions, 11 from PDP-11).  Or was this some kind of bolt-on s	 > option?0 > H Virtual address, logical address translated to physical address by MMU. K PDP-8 and PDP-11 did not have true virtual memory, just a logical 12 or 16  F bit address extended to more physical bits.  DEC got into the virtual M memory, as in demand paging, business with late model PDP-10s (aka DECsystem e 20) and TOPS-20, before VAXes.   Jack Peacock t   ------------------------------  % Date: Sun, 19 Dec 2004 17:50:07 -0600a2 From: David J Dachtera <djesys.nospam@comcast.net>$ Subject: Re: Time to revive Emerald?+ Message-ID: <41C613AF.FE7B2FD1@comcast.net>w   Dave Froble wrote: >  > David J Dachtera wrote:S >  > > Dave Froble wrote: > >u > >>David J Dachtera wrote:h > >> > >> > >>>DAVID TURNER wrote: > >>>_ > >>>0 > >>>>Hang on a minute...n > >>>> > >>>>www.softresint.com > >>>>0 > >>>>I wonder if they are on any stock exchange, > >>>>My bet would be to buy a load of that. > >>>>Openvms DOES run on PC's8 > >>>>(as long as you give billy your $100.00 as well !) > >>>> > >>>>M > >>>...and therein lies the rub. So long as the x86-based systems need a VAXCC > >>>emulation layer, they will remain limited as VAX replacements.7 > >>>rR > >>Why?  What rule makes this so?  What do you care how you get to an environment > >>that will run VMS? > >> > >"G > > What happens when your Charon-VAX process GPF's or experiences some03 > > other fault? Your "VAX" disappears, doesn't it?u > >:L > > Other than the odd spurious reset, I've never seen that on either VAX or, > > Alpha (the real thing, not an emulator). > ! > Have you seen it on Charon VAX?e > @ > >>For that matter, VMS doesn't run on Alpha, or NVAX.  It runsS > >>on the environment made up of those products plus firmware, microcode, PALcode,eM > >>whatever.  VAX emulation code is just another example of what I've named.  > >> > >eJ > > Well, yes and no. Show the underlying o.s. between the console and VMS. > > on a VAX, or between SRM and VMS on Alpha. >  > You're stuck on the term OS.     Not really.a   > It's a term. -  G It's more than that. SRM itself is not an operating system. In fact, on F newer Alphas there is a visible underlying (set of) software layer(s).F However, none of them support anything we traditionally associate with? an operating environment in terms of facilitating applications.s    > I could get hung up on "memoryO > manager".  It's not relavent.  It's the final environment that's presented to- > you that is the issue. 1  + Sort of. There's much more to it than that.c  : > If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and there's > shit everywhere,     Hhmmm... Sounds like Micro$lop.g  < > then it's a duck.  (Sorry, but we live on an old farm, andO > people think we're here for whenever they tire of the animals they have.  Thee > last drop off was ducks.)M   Where can we drop off BG & Co.?n  	 > >>>When-L > >>>OpenVMS-IA32 runs natively on IA32, and OpenVMS-x86/64 runs natively onG > >>>x86/64, *THEN* we'll see an opportunity for the market to take offo > >>>again.  > >>>cR > >>Well, there is no more IA32 hardware available.  Intel and AMD have gotten theO > >>speed from hardware that is no longer x86, and provided an x86 environment,85 > >>again, using firmware/microcode/PALcode/whatever.> > >> > >/; > > Really, I'm sure Intel will find that very interesting.  > H > Where have you been.  For quite a few years Intel has presented a CICSM > environment using cores that are very far from what you see.  Let me repeataN > that.  THEY PRESENT AN ENVIRONMENT!  Maybe you should read up on some of the > technical data on the N-VAX.  E "x86" is typiclaly used to refer to the 80x86 family (JF usualy dropstC the "x", thus raising confusion between 8/16 bit CPUs and 16/32 bitiC CPUs), the 80186 and its successors up to and including the currente> Pentium and Celeron CPUs. The "environment" is incidental. The, presentation is what is seen on the outside.  Q > >>To the people building CPUs today, 'NATIVE' no longer has the same meaning aspU > >>when CPUS were a collection of boards, and a MOVL truly was a hardware operation.. > >> > >OE > > Well, yes and no. At some level, even the GEM back-end eventually 1 > > produces code specific to the underlying CPU.e > 8 > No!  It produces code specific to the >>ENVIRONMENT<<!  2 ...which is facilitated by what? (think carefully)  I > I'm not the best to explain this.  I do understand at some level what'slO > happening.  I'd suggest that you find someone who can explain the concepts sop  > you can understand the issues.  G The bottom line is this: whether the "environment" runs on a System 3x0iD family, a z80, or even ENIAC is of no specific importance. What *IS*D important is what is out there in the thousands and millions of rack spaces around the world.  B Call it a "CPU", call it an "environment", call it a "George Bush"H nonsense whatever, call it a "gribbleniff" running at 182 "quibbledunk",= call it what you will, it still executes a pre-defined set ofv% instructions. *THAT* is what matters.i   -- f David J Dachtera dba DJE Systems> http://www.djesys.com/  ) Unofficial OpenVMS Hobbyist Support Page:u" http://www.djesys.com/vms/support/  ( Unofficial Affordable OpenVMS Home Page: http://www.djesys.com/vms/soho/E  " Unofficial OpenVMS-IA32 Home Page: http://www.djesys.com/vms/ia32//   ------------------------------  % Date: Sun, 19 Dec 2004 17:38:15 -0600n2 From: David J Dachtera <djesys.nospam@comcast.net>$ Subject: Re: Time to revive Emerald?+ Message-ID: <41C610E7.28D517A3@comcast.net>e   Dave Froble wrote: >  > David J Dachtera wrote:l >  > > Tom Linden wrote:  > > 8 > >>On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 19:31:54 -0600, David J Dachtera& > >><djesys.nospam@comcast.net> wrote: > >> > >> > >>>DAVID TURNER wrote: > >>>p > >>>>Hang on a minute..., > >>>> > >>>>www.softresint.com > >>>>0 > >>>>I wonder if they are on any stock exchange, > >>>>My bet would be to buy a load of that. > >>>>Openvms DOES run on PC's8 > >>>>(as long as you give billy your $100.00 as well !) > >>>>M > >>>...and therein lies the rub. So long as the x86-based systems need a VAXsH > >>>emulation layer, they will remain limited as VAX replacements. WhenL > >>>OpenVMS-IA32 runs natively on IA32, and OpenVMS-x86/64 runs natively onG > >>>x86/64, *THEN* we'll see an opportunity for the market to take offy > >>>again.* > >>>o > >>>nO > >>Of course, all modern processors emulate some prior design on an underlying ? > >>core, the difference is how the emulation code is executed.c > >> > > L > > True. Alpha does not require an underlying O.S. between itself and where
 > > VMS runs.s > >p > >a > % > All you're doing is arguing method.    Well, yes and no.n  R > If SRI were to put the supporting pieces in place to allow their emulator to runN > on the supporting pieces, and not windoz/linux/unix/whatever, what would youP > have?  Note that the supporting pieces would be an OS.  Also note that the SRIN > people may not have OS expertise.  The emulator is for hardware, not any OS, > including VMS.  F Exactly the point: the need for an underlying o.s. means that there is: an added layer of vulnerability and potential instability.  B > I've read multiple times that Windows NT isn't really a bad OS.   ? To quote from the old Dick Van Dyke show, "Not bad, MISERABLE!"n   > What's piled onrK > top of it, sometimes not using features that would make the 'piled stuff'e7 > better, is another story.  For whatever that's worth..  > Precious little. Actually, most of the instability is directlyE attributable to the layers above the o.s.+GUI itself; however, if the H shortfalls did not exist in the lower layers, that is, if the foundationB were more sound, the other opportunities for failure would be less= prevalent and would lie entirely within the layered products..  N > There are still issues such as robust hardware.  Error correcting memory andP > such.  Any OS is dependant upon it's hardware, including VMS.  Get some robustL > hardware, and use SRI's example of shutting off anything not required, and) > really, what's so bad about Charon VAX?t  $ Nothing - except the underlying o.s.   -- 1 David J Dachtera dba DJE Systemsn http://www.djesys.com/  ) Unofficial OpenVMS Hobbyist Support Page:s" http://www.djesys.com/vms/support/  ( Unofficial Affordable OpenVMS Home Page: http://www.djesys.com/vms/soho/   " Unofficial OpenVMS-IA32 Home Page: http://www.djesys.com/vms/ia32/.   ------------------------------  % Date: Sun, 19 Dec 2004 17:51:16 -0600 2 From: David J Dachtera <djesys.nospam@comcast.net>$ Subject: Re: Time to revive Emerald?+ Message-ID: <41C613F4.F29D4A4B@comcast.net>3   Tom Linden wrote:l > 6 > On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 20:36:43 -0600, David J Dachtera$ > <djesys.nospam@comcast.net> wrote: > H > >> Well, there is no more IA32 hardware available.  Intel and AMD have > >> gotten theaC > >> speed from hardware that is no longer x86, and provided an x86  > >> environment, 6 > >> again, using firmware/microcode/PALcode/whatever.; > > Really, I'm sure Intel will find that very interesting.e > . > It is true, and has been since the late 80's  G So, all those IA32 machines we just moved from the old data center intod the new one don't exist?   Even more interesting!   -- l David J Dachtera dba DJE Systems  http://www.djesys.com/  ) Unofficial OpenVMS Hobbyist Support Page:e" http://www.djesys.com/vms/support/  ( Unofficial Affordable OpenVMS Home Page: http://www.djesys.com/vms/soho/,  " Unofficial OpenVMS-IA32 Home Page: http://www.djesys.com/vms/ia32/d   ------------------------------  % Date: Sun, 19 Dec 2004 18:44:34 -0500 ) From: "Neil Rieck" <n.rieck@sympatico.ca> $ Subject: Re: Time to revive Emerald?9 Message-ID: <Cnoxd.3599$Z%3.137154@news20.bellglobal.com>n  @ "Chip Coldwell" <coldwell@physics.harvard.edu> wrote in message ; news:Pine.LNX.4.61.0412191738100.10528@frank.harvard.edu...u( > On Sun, 19 Dec 2004, Roger Ivie wrote: >-E >> On 2004-12-19, Chip Coldwell <coldwell@physics.harvard.edu> wrote:eH >>>  In a sense, Intel turned the whole concept of virtual memory on itsJ >>> head -- whereas in every other VM implementation the virtual memory isK >>> larger than the physical memory (using backing store on disk to make uprK >>> the difference), with Intel's P6 the physical memory is larger than the  >>> virtual memory.2 >>F >> It's actually not that unusual. PDP-8 and PDP-11 worked this way asG >> well; in the PDP-8, a 12-bit virtual address is extended to a 13-bit.F >> (8/i), 15-bit (8/e), or 17-bit (8/a) physical address. On PDP-11, aJ >> 16-bit virtual address is turned into an 18-bit (UNIBUS, early QBus) or' >> 22-bit (late QBus) physical address.j >nK > Is that right?  My understanding was that the PDP-11 didn't even support tL > virtual memory, which is where the name VAX-11 came from (VAX for Virtual I > Address eXtensions, 11 from PDP-11).  Or was this some kind of bolt-on c	 > option?u >tF I believe Roger's use of the word "virtual" was a slip of the fingers.  M I do, however, remember extensive lectures in DEC's customer training center oH regarding the Unibus mapping registers which where used to allow an I/O C device on the 18 bit Unibus to do DMA transfers into 22-bit memory.t  F Larger PDP systems used something called a Massbus (with a "Unibus to " Massbus" adapter) to do real work.  
 Neil Rieck Kitchener/Waterloo/Cambridge,d Ontario, Canada.8 http://www3.sympatico.ca/n.rieck/links/cool_openvms.html   ------------------------------  % Date: Sun, 19 Dec 2004 20:06:20 -0500 - From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com>n$ Subject: Re: Time to revive Emerald?, Message-ID: <41C62582.C5C339FA@teksavvy.com>   David J Dachtera wrote:EG > "x86" is typiclaly used to refer to the 80x86 family (JF usualy dropsvE > the "x", thus raising confusion between 8/16 bit CPUs and 16/32 bit 	 > CPUs), :  K Au contraire. 8086 is a generic term for the architecture. IA32 refers to aFM specific iteration(s) of the 8086 during its evolution. And with the 8086 nowfM scaled up to 64 bits, you can't call it IA64 because that is reserved for ther itanium thing. t  L Applications don't really care about how Intel designed how instructions areI actually executed. They care about what instructions are available on then chip. That is the architecture.e  L That is why one can still refer to IBM mainframes as "360". Even though thatJ chip has been upgraded since the original 360s, it still supports the same1 instruction set (with some additions) as the 360.i  L Digital was smart enough to have generic names such as PDP-11, VAX and Alpha@ that were independant from specific implementations (20164 etc).  M Now, when itnel made the 8076 toy controler, it probably didn't envisage that H one day, that architecture would be used in quasi-mainframes and grow to support 64 bits.  F > important is what is out there in the thousands and millions of rack > spaces around the world.  K Yes and no. Yes in the sense that people buy industry standard, and that is 6 defined by what is out there in the milliosn of racks.  K No because what is already installed are 32 bit 8086s and those are not thenJ future. You want to adopt what will sell. With 64 bit on the 8086 horizon,L there will be a fairly big cycle of server renewall the minute Linux/WindowsN have some application that requires 64 bit 8086. (Similar to what happened forW windows 95 requiring 386/486 machines, and with Y2K, requiring more powerful machines).u  M If the next wave will see massive upgrades to 64 bit 8086s, then this is what 9 VMS shoudl adopt and ride the wave along with the others.c   ------------------------------  # Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2004 03:24:15 GMTS% From: Roger Ivie <rivie@ridgenet.net>d$ Subject: Re: Time to revive Emerald?3 Message-ID: <slrncschhh.4g3.rivie@Stench.no.domain>o  B On 2004-12-19, Chip Coldwell <coldwell@physics.harvard.edu> wrote:K > Is that right?  My understanding was that the PDP-11 didn't even support iL > virtual memory, which is where the name VAX-11 came from (VAX for Virtual I > Address eXtensions, 11 from PDP-11).  Or was this some kind of bolt-on  	 > option?   & And one more thing while I'm grumpy...  G VAX extends the -11 virtual address from 16 bits to 32 bits. Thus, it'snB a Virtual Address Extension by way of making the virtual addressesH bigger, *not* by way of adding virtual addresses where there weren't any before.s  G Now pardon me while I go curl up in a corner before my wife confiscatesf my keyboard... -- l
 Roger Ivie rivie@ridgenet.net http://anachronda.webhop.org/  -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----s
 Version: 3.12yH GCS/P d- s:+++ a+ C++ UB--(++++) !P L- !E W++ N++ o-- K w O- M+ V+++ PS+? PE++ Y+ PGP t+ 5+ X-- R tv++ b++ DI+++ D+ G e++ h--- r+++ z+++ . ------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------e   ------------------------------   End of INFO-VAX 2004.704 ************************