1 INFO-VAX	Sun, 22 Feb 2004	Volume 2004 : Issue 105       Contents: RE: Dual VMS data centers : Re: It is almost certain now, INTEL will have 64bit x86 !!7 Re: Port to forward behind ADSL router for DECWindows ? P Re: RDB database becomes disabled by remote user failures because of  security r Re: Rumours of (CPU) Wars   F ----------------------------------------------------------------------  % Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2004 12:27:54 -0500 ' From: "Main, Kerry" <kerry.main@hp.com> " Subject: RE: Dual VMS data centersR Message-ID: <FD827B33AB0D9C4E92EACEEFEE2BA2FB278F4C@tayexc19.americas.cpqcorp.net>   > -----Original Message-----& > From: Tim [mailto:tim267@msn.com]=20! > Sent: February 20, 2004 1:31 PM  > To: Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Com   > Subject: Dual VMS data centers >=20A > We're looking into setting up dual data centers with 4 ES 45=20 < > alpha servers. Each site are to be locally clustered (2=20B > nodes) with DRM taking place periodically. Idea is to for one=20) > center be DR backup site for the other.  >=20B > We feel we can make the configuration work with ES 45's, sans=20
 > and HSG80s. ? > HP seems to be insistant of larger configurations (ES 47's=20 A > etc.) which takingthis palen way out of budget. (Working ith=20 B > a VAR is an option, but, that is not the point of this message.) >=20B > Please let me know of your success with Dual VMS Data centers=209 > and your configuration. Thank you in advance for any=20  > assistance on this matter. >=20
 > Regards, > Tim  >=20   Tim,  H Alpha ES45's are an excellent system for this type of OpenVMS multi-site configuration.=20   G As a fyi, the server HW costs are only a small part of what is required  to setup a multi-site cluster.  F As others have stated here, unless there is a concern about going withE servers with a longer HW maint cycle, my personal opinion would be to F invest the difference in software and services associated with settingA up a customized multi-site cluster - complete with documentation, ? acceptance test plans, network consulting, on site training and  customized event management.   Something to think about: 7 http://h71000.www7.hp.com/availability/DTCS-WEBCAST.htm   A Also, Keith Parris has some excellent presentations on multi-site  OpenVMS clusters at:  http://www2.openvms.org/kparris/   Regards   
 Kerry Main Senior Consultant  HP Services Canada Voice: 613-592-4660  Fax: 613-591-4477  Email: kerryDOTmainAThpDOTcom . (remove the DOT's and AT for email address)=20   ------------------------------  % Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2004 10:52:58 +0100 * From: Paul Sture <nospam@sture.homeip.net>C Subject: Re: It is almost certain now, INTEL will have 64bit x86 !! / Message-ID: <40388A0A.83EE779@sture.homeip.net>    Dr. Dweeb wrote: >  > JF Mezei wrote:  > > "Barry Treahy, Jr." wrote:G > >> That presumes one thing, that frustrated Tru64, HP-UX, MPE and VMS H > >> sites to don't tell HP to kiss their collective back sides and move > >> to alternatives.  > > F > > I think it is more likely customers will delay the cost/trouble ofE > > migrating to IA64 and continue to buys MIPS/Alpha/Pa-Risc systems ? > > until the dust settles and Carly admits IA64 has no future.  > H > That is certainly an option, especially for those who do not have veryN > steeply increasing hardware requirements.  For those who do not need a 220GBI > 1280 fully populated with EV7s, there is still a considerable amount of N > hardware available before they "top out".  If, however, you are the "Bank ofL > Xxxx" or "The Stock Exchange of Yyyyyy"  and had one of the abovementionedM > monsters day 1 and can predict with a high degree of certainty when it will 3 > be too small, then the view looks very different.  >    True.    K > The crunch will come for the Marvel customers quicker than for the others J > and I suspect Marvel customers are highly profitable for HP.  It will beG > interesting to see what happens.  People who have not worked in these N > environments really have little clue as to just how massive a task of movingL > architectures and operating systems is.  A decision not taken lightly, and > something massively costly.  >   H That is the very problem. Many in this industry simply do not understandG what a massive undertaking a simple OS upgrade can be, far less that of B migrating to a different platform. All the "We'll help you move toB 'flavour du jour'" statements really do not go down well with such
 customers.    H > For the average customer, the crunch comes when they can no longer buyJ > support/upgrades etc for the OS and hardware they have and are forced toI > Itanic by HP.  This will be quite a way down the road I suspect, and by M > then, if things go as many predict, Itanic will have sunk and there will be  > another path to take.  >  > Just my take.  >  > Dr. Dweeb    --     --  
 Paul Sture   ------------------------------    Date: 22 Feb 2004 04:18:57 -06004 From: cornelius@encompasserve.org (George Cornelius)@ Subject: Re: Port to forward behind ADSL router for DECWindows ?3 Message-ID: <wUtr7emYCSus@eisner.encompasserve.org>   ) In article <4036A6C3.816953C7@istop.com>, , JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@istop.com> writes: > Didier Morandi wrote: L >> But from home, I'm behind an ADSL router and the X connection does not goN >> through the router. What is the port to forward to the PC via the router to >> achieve what I wish to do ? > ) > Ports 6000 to 6064 should do the trick.  > O > You'll also need to tell your X server (x terminal) to allow connections from % > the X-client (VMS machine at work).   H ssh is a nice solution, and avoids futzing with the router.  It may alsoK have a security advantage in that it may avoid other users on the same host L making use of the connection you have set up to snoop, grab keystrokes, etc.C [caveat: I have not verified this, and it may depend upon the tcpip ? implementation - which is Multinet at DECUServe/Encompasserve].   K X has some exposures once someone gains access to your display, and despite K what you may tend to think, we DECUServe users are not all guaranteed to be H trustworthy (ob syllogism: VMS user => over 40; over 40 => mature adult; mature adult => non-hacker).   --9 George Cornelius              cornelius@encompasserve.org 0                               cornelius@mayo.edu   ------------------------------  % Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2004 11:05:35 +0100 * From: Paul Sture <nospam@sture.homeip.net>Y Subject: Re: RDB database becomes disabled by remote user failures because of  security r 0 Message-ID: <40388CFF.6DE59CBE@sture.homeip.net>   David Froble wrote:  >  > sdavidson@uss.com wrote: > I > > Our new corporate policy states that we have to automatically disuser = > > a user account after they fail at logging in three times.  > M > Sounds like "Idiots at work" to me.  Did the people/person instigating this N > policy understand breakin evasion?  This policy seems like immense overkill. > B > Then again, possibly there's some valid reason.  What do I know? >   H Without knowing more detail, I will say that I have come across the ideaH of 3 login failures leading to account suspension quite common. That wasB the case with the smart card I used in my last job to access a PC.  D Also, the standard instructions issued by my bank say that if anyoneH wishes to invalidate a cash or credit card, or internet banking account,; one should deliberately enter a wrong PIN/password 3 times.   5 So I believe it's quite likely to be a common policy.    --  
 Paul Sture   ------------------------------    Date: 22 Feb 2004 09:07:28 -08002 From: ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com (M. Ranjit Mathews)" Subject: Re: Rumours of (CPU) Wars= Message-ID: <1d4c67e3.0402220907.522abae1@posting.google.com>   / young_r@encompasserve.org (Rob Young) wrote ... W > In article <401E34D6.A4F9E14@istop.com>, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@istop.com> writes: 
 > > Question:  > > Q > > considering that with equal technology, the IA64 is significantly hotter than N > > other architectures, one could state that even with time, IA64 will remainH > > hotter since the other architectures will also benefit from the same > > technological improvements.  > >  > @ > 	No.  With hardware IA32 removed from Itanium, Itanium's logicD > 	transistor count will be somewhere around 17 million transistors.B > 	Pentium 4 is nearly 70 million transistors.  Cache sections can@ > 	be put to sleep.  Finally, high-k to the rescue (as seen here* > 	before) much decreased current leakage. > M > > Or will HP begin to design its boxes with room for additional fans, which P > > would enable the same box designs to be used for IA64 ? (whilst on 8086, the! > > punch outs would be covered )  > A > 	Tukwila is supposedly running slower but performing higher of	 @ > 	course.  I'd bet that they don't exceed Montecito.  But it isA > 	a moot point.  Montecito/Tukwila certainly aren't blade server  > 	material. > 	 > 				Rob   @ Given that there are quad-Xeon blade servers today*, why would a' Montecito not be blade server material? A * http://www.siliconmechanics.com/i2089/quad-xeon-mp-server-b.php   F Is a 4-8U quad-Tukwila rack-mounted unit unlikely? Running at 1GHz andF with sufficient RAM bandwidth, it ought to offer ~10x the performance/C price of the original IBM p690 with its 32 ~1GHz Power4 cores, each C Tukwila consuming no more than the ~500W required by the original 8  core ~1GHz Power4 MCM.   ------------------------------   End of INFO-VAX 2004.105 ************************