1 INFO-VAX	Tue, 27 Jul 2004	Volume 2004 : Issue 412       Contents:! Re: Clusters and default gateways ! RE: Clusters and default gateways ! Re: Clusters and default gateways ! RE: Clusters and default gateways 2 Computerworld:  Future of HP User Events Uncertain6 Re: Computerworld:  Future of HP User Events Uncertain6 Re: Computerworld:  Future of HP User Events Uncertain6 Re: Computerworld:  Future of HP User Events Uncertain6 Re: Computerworld:  Future of HP User Events Uncertain6 Re: Computerworld:  Future of HP User Events Uncertain! Re: DVDwrite Version 4.0 released ! Re: DVDwrite Version 4.0 released ! Re: DVDwrite Version 4.0 released 5 Re: EV7z at 1300 GHz (was: Re: Solaris to Itanium...) 5 Re: EV7z at 1300 GHz (was: Re: Solaris to Itanium...) 5 Re: EV7z at 1300 GHz (was: Re: Solaris to Itanium...) P Re: HP World, OpenVMS Bootcamp, etc (was: Re: Computerworld:  Future of HP User P Re: HP World, OpenVMS Bootcamp, etc (was: Re: Computerworld:  Future of HP User P Re: HP World, OpenVMS Bootcamp, etc (was: Re: Computerworld:  Future of HP User  Re: Microvax 3100-30 Re: Microvax 3100-309 Re: OpenVMS Alpha V7.3-1 - conneting to internet via ADSL 9 Re: OpenVMS Alpha V7.3-1 - conneting to internet via ADSL " Re: OpenVMS restarts while install Re: Rdb 7.0.5 on VMS 7.3-2 Re: Solaris to Itanium...  Re: Solaris to Itanium...  Re: Solaris to Itanium...  Re: Solaris to Itanium...  Re: Solaris to Itanium...  Re: Solaris to Itanium...  Structure of SMTP Receiver? Re: Supported Options (was: Re: OpenVMS restarts while install) ? Re: Supported Options (was: Re: OpenVMS restarts while install) ? Re: Supported Options (was: Re: OpenVMS restarts while install) 1 Re: Turn-key OpenVMS E-mail, web server solution? K [TCPware, V73_MGMTAGENTS] Does anyone have a working installation running ?   F ----------------------------------------------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2004 16:58:54 -0700  From: Z <z@no.spam> * Subject: Re: Clusters and default gateways0 Message-ID: <10gb6lm12qhco06@corp.supernews.com>   Bob Koehler wrote:F >   Since cluster is completely separate from IP< which uses gateways, >   the answer is "it depends".  > G >   On my networks, in order to be in a cluster you have to be in a LAN H >   segment which will happen to have one IP gateway, so yes the cluster- >   members all have to use the same gateway.    That's my setup, as well.   B The entire cluster is in one room, all nodes of the cluster are onG the same subnet and the entire cluster should route all external comms. F through the same default gateway .. I was unsure if the setup for that2 cluster would be different because it's a cluster.   Now I know the answer is no.   ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2004 20:54:53 -0400 ' From: "Main, Kerry" <kerry.main@hp.com> * Subject: RE: Clusters and default gatewaysR Message-ID: <FD827B33AB0D9C4E92EACEEFEE2BA2FB395277@tayexc19.americas.cpqcorp.net>   > -----Original Message----- > From: Z [mailto:z@no.spam]=20  > Sent: July 26, 2004 7:59 PM  > To: Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Com , > Subject: Re: Clusters and default gateways >=20 > Bob Koehler wrote:H > >   Since cluster is completely separate from IP< which uses gateways,! > >   the answer is "it depends".  > >=20@ > >   On my networks, in order to be in a cluster you have to=20
 > be in a LAN A > >   segment which will happen to have one IP gateway, so yes=20 
 > the cluster / > >   members all have to use the same gateway.  >=20 > That's my setup, as well.  >=20D > The entire cluster is in one room, all nodes of the cluster are on< > the same subnet and the entire cluster should route all=20 > external comms. H > through the same default gateway .. I was unsure if the setup for that4 > cluster would be different because it's a cluster. >=20 > Now I know the answer is no.     Re: clusters and IP design ..   B Fwiw, I usually recommend using separate VLAN's with for increased security and scalability.   ) VLAN1 =3D normal TCPIP/FTP/DECnet traffic  VLAN2 =3D cluster traffic G VLAN3 =3D mgmt (Avail Mgr, console mgr, device IP mgmt e.g. FC switches  etc).   D For increased availability each VLAN above would have 2 NIC ports onA separate PCI buses. Hence, each server would have 6 ports (3 dual E NIC's?). The Cluster VLAN traffic would load balance across the ports  and NIC/PCI buses.  F For increased security , the mgmt VLAN access can be set at the routerF to a number of different levels of security i.e. password, MAC address etc.  F Future note - GbE ports are getting much cheaper e.g. Net switches GbED ports used to be big cost, but Cisco 3750G is small switch with 24 xF 10/100/1000 autosensing ports per switch. Hence, imho, stdizing on GbEB for cluster/TCP traffic etc is rapidly becoming a much more viable* choice for mid to high HA cluster designs.   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  $ "OpenVMS has always had integrity .. Now, Integrity has OpenVMS .."   ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2004 21:13:09 -0400 - From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> * Subject: Re: Clusters and default gateways, Message-ID: <4105AC02.B0BFC0C3@teksavvy.com>   "Main, Kerry" wrote:H > Future note - GbE ports are getting much cheaper e.g. Net switches GbEF > ports used to be big cost, but Cisco 3750G is small switch with 24 xH > 10/100/1000 autosensing ports per switch. Hence, imho, stdizing on GbED > for cluster/TCP traffic etc is rapidly becoming a much more viable, > choice for mid to high HA cluster designs.  M How long before I can install a GbE  Qbus card on my all mighty Microvax II ?    :-)    ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2004 22:53:05 -0400 ' From: "Main, Kerry" <kerry.main@hp.com> * Subject: RE: Clusters and default gatewaysR Message-ID: <FD827B33AB0D9C4E92EACEEFEE2BA2FB39527E@tayexc19.americas.cpqcorp.net>   > -----Original Message-----9 > From: JF Mezei [mailto:jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com]=20  > Sent: July 26, 2004 9:13 PM  > To: Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Com , > Subject: Re: Clusters and default gateways >=20 > "Main, Kerry" wrote:@ > > Future note - GbE ports are getting much cheaper e.g. Net=20 > switches GbEH > > ports used to be big cost, but Cisco 3750G is small switch with 24 x= > > 10/100/1000 autosensing ports per switch. Hence, imho,=20  > stdizing on GbE F > > for cluster/TCP traffic etc is rapidly becoming a much more viable. > > choice for mid to high HA cluster designs. >=20= > How long before I can install a GbE  Qbus card on my all=20  > mighty Microvax II ? >=20 > :-)    No problem.   G Just take a hammer and some good ole duct tape and you could install it 	 tomorrow.   F Course, making it (or anything on the system after this) actually work is another issue.    :-)    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  $ "OpenVMS has always had integrity .. Now, Integrity has OpenVMS .."   ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2004 14:56:14 -0400  From: norm.raphael@metso.com; Subject: Computerworld:  Future of HP User Events Uncertain Q Message-ID: <OFAF3E9139.51A2402A-ON85256EDD.00680F7D-85256EDD.006857E6@metso.com>   ] http://www.computerworld.com/managementtopics/management/helpdesk/story/0,10801,94762,00.html   " Future of HP User Events UncertainH Independent user groups say vendor's proposal to consolidate conferences threatens revenue, voice    0 News Story by Matt Hamblen and Patrick Thibodeau    C JULY 26, 2004 (COMPUTERWORLD) - In a development that threatens the F continued existence of independent HP user groups, Hewlett-Packard Co.J intends to "coalesce" three user conferences into one "technical solutions  conference" beginning next year.    E Some user group officials said the plan, which may mark the end of HP J World, threatens the groups' major sources of revenue and their reasons toC exist. And they're worried that the plan would replace user-focused < conferences with a vendor-sponsored, marketing-driven event.    F The 10,000-member Encompass user group has endorsed the plan. But ITUGF (formerly the Tandem user group), OpenView Forum International and the2 100,000-member Interex group are voicing concerns.    I "If you surrender your premier event, what is your purpose in life beyond C that?" asked Denys Beauchemin, president of Sunnyvale, Calif.-based D Interex, which co-produces HP World annually with Encompass. InterexJ leaders and members are assessing the impact of HP's proposal on Interex'sB "very existence ... if we did not have HP World," Beauchemin said.    H "There is something of value lost when a conference is run by a vendor,"D added Chris Koppe, an Interex board member and marketing director atI Speedware Corp. in St. Laurent, Quebec. "It is the vendor's interest that 1 is put foremost, and there is a negative impact."     G The company will announce its plans for the unnamed technical solutions H conference at next month's HP World in Chicago, said David Parsons, vice president of HP Americas.     K Parsons said the four user groups will likely co-produce the new conference C and work with HP officials on a steering committee that will choose A conference content and vendors that rent booth space at the show.     G But exactly how much power the user groups will have in controlling the K content and how much money they will make from the conference are questions I that haven't been answered. Parsons said each user group would be able to H register members and earn membership fees, as well as earn proceeds from& booth sponsorships from other vendors.     Potential Benefits    I The idea of a single conference is a response to requests by HP customers G for comprehensive information about hardware and software technologies, 
 Parsons said.     F One purpose of the conference would be to train HP employees alongsideK partners and customers in new technologies, he said. The company would also C be able to "bring the full brunt of HP resources" to the new event, J including appearances by top executives to describe HP strategy, direction and focus, he added.    K Parsons said HP has sent letters to or held discussions with leaders of all K four user groups. He said he expects to get feedback from the groups by the  end of this month.    G HP recognizes the need to support the user community's independence and H ability to offer quality input, Parsons said. "The last thing we want isA user groups that have lost that ability to communicate," he said.     @ Parsons said some of the user groups might opt to keep their ownI conferences alive, and he didn't rule out some level of support for those  efforts.    G But on the matter of whether the single-conference plan might result in F fewer user groups, Parsons indicated that it could eventually. "In theG context of the bigger picture, at some point one [user group] is always " better than four or two," he said.    G Chicago-based ITUG, which is also known as the International HP NonStop I Users Group, plans to continue its annual conference despite the HP plan.     I Users "would much rather go to the boutique, focused show than be lost in H the crowd at one of these general Comdex-like shows," said ITUG ChairmanJ Richard Buckle, who is also a consultant at Insession Technologies Inc. in Boulder, Colo.    G If HP pulled its support for the annual ITUG Summit, which this year is C being held in October in San Jose, "it would be a financial hit but % wouldn't spell the end," Buckle said.     E OpenView Forum International is still deciding how to respond to HP's H proposal and wants more information on funding and how the voices of itsH members would be heard, said Henry Wojcik, president of the 8,000-memberJ group. Wojcik expressed reservations about the effect of HP's plan, notingC that a single conference might be of greater value to hardware- and J operating-system-centric user groups than it would be to OpenView software users.    I Chicago-based OpenView Forum remains independent of HP but works with the B vendor to produce the Software Forum, which was held last month inI Montreal. It operates on an annual budget of about $1 million, nearly all 4 of which is raised at the annual event, Wojcik said.     Mixed Responses     J "I don't think HP wants to hurt us with this proposal, and that's why theyG are contacting us," added Sandra Potter, executive director of OpenView  Forum.    H "Our event is much more of a people-networking event than HP World," sheH said. "We are worried about the dilution of that people-networking role,. and we have to consider the financial impact."    G But the idea of having a technical solutions conference was welcomed by H members of Encompass, said Kristi Browder, president of the organization= that has its roots in the Digital Equipment Corp. user group.     K "We don't feel like we're going to be shortchanged in it at all," she said. G "It's our responsibility to help them as much as it is for them to help H us." HP will develop a revenue-sharing plan that meets Encompass' needs, Browder predicted.    K However users view it, HP's proposal probably isn't intended to marginalize  user groups, said one analyst.    D "It would be a tough transition to one conference, but I see lots ofB reasons to do it," said Mary Johnston Turner, an analyst at SummitK Strategies Inc. in Winchester, Mass. With a bigger conference that covers a @ range of topics, she said, HP might be able to lure higher-levelF executives, including CIOs, and help cut down on the need for users to travel   ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2004 12:21:54 -0700 + From: "Barry Treahy, Jr." <Treahy@MMaz.com> ? Subject: Re: Computerworld:  Future of HP User Events Uncertain ' Message-ID: <410559D2.5060501@MMaz.com>     I don't remember voting on this:  H "The 10,000-member Encompass user group has endorsed the plan. But ITUG G (formerly the Tandem user group), OpenView Forum International and the  3 100,000-member Interex group are voicing concerns."   F and how many of these 10k members are old DECUS folks because I doubt G many VMS shop would say that this is good, being further buried behind   HP's agenda:  A "...And they're worried that the plan would replace user-focused  = conferences with a vendor-sponsored, marketing-driven event."   G but you have to wonder about Ms. Browder, where do her roots come from   and where are they today:   I "But the idea of having a technical solutions conference was welcomed by  I members of Encompass, said Kristi Browder, president of the organization  > that has its roots in the Digital Equipment Corp. user group."  I Isn't it ironic that the group representing VMS interests seems like the  0 only group that didn't have a problem with this?   Barry    --    > Barry Treahy, Jr                       E-mail: Treahy@MMaz.com> Midwest Microwave                          Phone: 480/314-1320> Vice President & CIO                         FAX: 480/661-7028                            ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2004 15:21:39 -0400 - From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> ? Subject: Re: Computerworld:  Future of HP User Events Uncertain , Message-ID: <410559B9.2292FC66@teksavvy.com>   norm.raphael@metso.com wrote: _ > http://www.computerworld.com/managementtopics/management/helpdesk/story/0,10801,94762,00.html  > H > continued existence of independent HP user groups, Hewlett-Packard Co.L > intends to "coalesce" three user conferences into one "technical solutions" > conference" beginning next year.  K Not a surprise. The problem is that it will dilute contents for each of the L former user groups to a point where nobody will get any real value for theirL money. HP just wants a big venus that attracts media's attention. But unlike1 Apple's show, HP's shows won't be focused enough.   L There is really nothing interesting in "hardware". Boxes all look alike. AndK if you're about to spend $1 million on some galaxy class box, I am just you > can travel to a location and get a real "tour" from engineers.  I > But on the matter of whether the single-conference plan might result in H > fewer user groups, Parsons indicated that it could eventually. "In theI > context of the bigger picture, at some point one [user group] is always $ > better than four or two," he said.  M That is wrong. There could be common administrative facilities to share costs I of membership systems etc, but each group should retain its own identity,  membership and contents.  J ITUG members are not interested in VMS or HP-UX contents. They want to getM Tandem related information. If they are interested in VMS, they can also join * DECUS (or whatever its name is this week).  I > But the idea of having a technical solutions conference was welcomed by J > members of Encompass, said Kristi Browder, president of the organization? > that has its roots in the Digital Equipment Corp. user group.   M I am very curious about this statement. Has there been any serious polling of M Encompass members that have allowed the president to make that statement ? If L not, then she has no right to make that statement.  She should have said "is. welcome by the Encompass board of directors".    M > "We don't feel like we're going to be shortchanged in it at all," she said.   K I see it as the same tactic as Digital begging to be relieved of its misery L and absorbed into Compaq (or Compaq into HP). Perhaps Encompass has given upL and would prefer being absorbed into Interex rather than declare failure and9 the last bord being held responsible for DECUS's failure.   S This announcement makes Sue's VMS-centric technical conference much more important.    ------------------------------  # Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2004 20:01:53 GMT " From:   VAXman-  @SendSpamHere.ORG? Subject: Re: Computerworld:  Future of HP User Events Uncertain 0 Message-ID: <00A356B2.55BBAFF0@SendSpamHere.ORG>  \ In article <410559B9.2292FC66@teksavvy.com>, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> writes: {...snip...}T >This announcement makes Sue's VMS-centric technical conference much more important.  A Sue's VMS-centric technical conference is the only one of import!    --  B http://www.legacy-2000.com  for the *best* OpenVMS system securityC                             solutions that others only claim to be.  --  K VAXman- A Bored Certified VMS Kernel Mode Hacker   VAXman(at)TMESIS(dot)COM              5   "Well my son, life is like a beanstalk, isn't it?"     ------------------------------  # Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2004 20:02:51 GMT " From:   VAXman-  @SendSpamHere.ORG? Subject: Re: Computerworld:  Future of HP User Events Uncertain 0 Message-ID: <00A356B2.788A988E@SendSpamHere.ORG>  U In article <410559D2.5060501@MMaz.com>, "Barry Treahy, Jr." <Treahy@MMaz.com> writes:  {...snip...}J >Isn't it ironic that the group representing VMS interests seems like the 1 >only group that didn't have a problem with this?   7 What group is that?  Surely you don't mean Encompass.      --  B http://www.legacy-2000.com  for the *best* OpenVMS system securityC                             solutions that others only claim to be.  --  K VAXman- A Bored Certified VMS Kernel Mode Hacker   VAXman(at)TMESIS(dot)COM              5   "Well my son, life is like a beanstalk, isn't it?"     ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2004 20:56:36 -0500 2 From: David J Dachtera <djesys.nospam@comcast.net>? Subject: Re: Computerworld:  Future of HP User Events Uncertain + Message-ID: <4105B654.BBC2C0DB@comcast.net>   ! VAXman-, @SendSpamHere.ORG wrote:  > W > In article <410559D2.5060501@MMaz.com>, "Barry Treahy, Jr." <Treahy@MMaz.com> writes:  > {...snip...}K > >Isn't it ironic that the group representing VMS interests seems like the 3 > >only group that didn't have a problem with this?  > 7 > What group is that?  Surely you don't mean Encompass.   $ I thought that's what the text said.  B ...and no, I don't recall hearing about a vote, either. (Perhaps a0 "privilege" the board reserved unto themselves?)   ...and don't call me Shirley.    D.J.D.   ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2004 20:13:56 -0500 2 From: David J Dachtera <djesys.nospam@comcast.net>* Subject: Re: DVDwrite Version 4.0 released+ Message-ID: <4105AC54.3D2AD8A3@comcast.net>    Michael Unger wrote: > 7 > On 2004-07-26 16:00, "Eberhard Heuser-Hofmann" wrote:  > 	 > > [...]  > >  > > GB = (10**3)**3  > > GiB = (2**10)**3 > H > Or see <http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/binary.html> for details and > other units ...   1 Gee - have I been misspelling it all these years?   
 Gibi(tes)?   ;-)    D.J.D.   ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2004 18:55:36 -0700 + From: "Barry Treahy, Jr." <Treahy@MMaz.com> * Subject: Re: DVDwrite Version 4.0 released' Message-ID: <4105B618.7010507@MMaz.com>    David J Dachtera wrote:    >Michael Unger wrote:  >    > 7 >>On 2004-07-26 16:00, "Eberhard Heuser-Hofmann" wrote:  >> >>     >> >>>[...] >>>  >>>GB = (10**3)**3 >>>GiB = (2**10)**3 	 >>>        >>> H >>Or see <http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/binary.html> for details and >>other units ...  >>     >> > 2 >Gee - have I been misspelling it all these years? >  >Gibi(tes)?  >  >;-) >    > F Arg, revisionist!  Why couldn't the coin a different prefix or phrase J for the ten power versions rather than redefining two power definitions...  G I couldn't write that I was about to say regarding with the IEEE could    do with their semantics games...   Barry    --    > Barry Treahy, Jr                       E-mail: Treahy@MMaz.com> Midwest Microwave                          Phone: 480/314-1320> Vice President & CIO                         FAX: 480/661-7028                            ------------------------------  + Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2004 23:50:36 -0500 (CDT)  From: sms@antinode.org* Subject: Re: DVDwrite Version 4.0 released) Message-ID: <04072623503687@antinode.org>   + From: "Barry Treahy, Jr." <Treahy@MMaz.com>   H > Arg, revisionist!  Why couldn't the coin a different prefix or phrase L > for the ten power versions rather than redefining two power definitions...  B    As someone once said, "We could do it, but it would be wrong." C Considering that the power-of-ten meaning had been established some F decades before the power-of-two usage began, I am always amazed at howE huffy some computer folks get when they discover that nearly everyone D else on the planet uses the original power-of-ten meaning.  And thenE they all seem to repeat their complaint on comp.os.vms, which already C bears such a heavy burden of space wasting.  Please give this one a % rest.  (Don't put it off.  Quit now.)   H ------------------------------------------------------------------------  4    Steven M. Schweda               (+1) 651-699-98183    382 South Warwick Street        sms@antinode-org     Saint Paul  MN  55105-2547    ------------------------------  # Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2004 20:35:47 GMT # From: hoff@hp.nospam (Hoff Hoffman) > Subject: Re: EV7z at 1300 GHz (was: Re: Solaris to Itanium...)2 Message-ID: <DWdNc.6591$6n1.2054@news.cpqcorp.net>  \ In article <41055BDC.157F58A5@teksavvy.com>, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> writes:F :So, they found out that EV7 with current manufacturing was capable of* :achieving good enough yields at 1.33ghz.  : E :And the performance improvement will also come from memory upgrades.  : ? :Oh, and they said it would come by mid 2004. Where is it now ?   ?   For information on AlphaServer systems with EV7z at 1.3 GHz,  
   please see:   1     http://h18002.www1.hp.com/alphaserver/gs1280/   .   Various system configurations are available.    N  ---------------------------- #include <rtfaq.h> -----------------------------K     For additional, please see the OpenVMS FAQ -- www.hp.com/go/openvms/faq N  --------------------------- pure personal opinion ---------------------------E         Hoff (Stephen) Hoffman   OpenVMS Engineering   hoff[at]hp.com    ------------------------------  + Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2004 23:27:53 +0000 (UTC) 6 From: peter@langstoeger.at (Peter 'EPLAN' LANGSTOEGER)> Subject: Re: EV7z at 1300 GHz (was: Re: Solaris to Itanium...)1 Message-ID: <newscache$brfh1i$vbg1$1@news.sil.at>   X In article <DWdNc.6591$6n1.2054@news.cpqcorp.net>, hoff@hp.nospam (Hoff Hoffman) writes:@ >  For information on AlphaServer systems with EV7z at 1.3 GHz,  >  please see: > 2 >    http://h18002.www1.hp.com/alphaserver/gs1280/  : I just noted, that my notes had 1.4Ghz for the EV7z on it.5 Does anyone perhaps know where I got this info from ? C A little bit digging yesterday only found 1.33GHz and I don't think * I had them misinterpreted. But who knows ?   --   Peter "EPLAN" LANGSTOEGER % Network and OpenVMS system specialist  E-mail  peter@langstoeger.atF A-1030 VIENNA  AUSTRIA              I'm not a pessimist, I'm a realist   ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2004 20:11:19 -0500 2 From: David J Dachtera <djesys.nospam@comcast.net>> Subject: Re: EV7z at 1300 GHz (was: Re: Solaris to Itanium...)+ Message-ID: <4105ABB7.E05B2277@comcast.net>    Hoff Hoffman wrote:  > ^ > In article <41055BDC.157F58A5@teksavvy.com>, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> writes:H > :So, they found out that EV7 with current manufacturing was capable of+ > :achieving good enough yields at 1.33ghz.  > : G > :And the performance improvement will also come from memory upgrades.  > : A > :Oh, and they said it would come by mid 2004. Where is it now ?  > @ >   For information on AlphaServer systems with EV7z at 1.3 GHz, >   please see:  > 3 >     http://h18002.www1.hp.com/alphaserver/gs1280/  > 0 >   Various system configurations are available.  F Gee - the GS1280/16 we just got (we'll have three now) is only 1.1GHz. I'm almost disappointed...     ;-)    D.J.D.   ------------------------------  # Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2004 20:01:51 GMT # From: hoff@hp.nospam (Hoff Hoffman) Y Subject: Re: HP World, OpenVMS Bootcamp, etc (was: Re: Computerworld:  Future of HP User  2 Message-ID: <PqdNc.6587$6n1.6145@news.cpqcorp.net>  U In article <410559D2.5060501@MMaz.com>, "Barry Treahy, Jr." <Treahy@MMaz.com> writes:   J   From my view deep within the trenches of OpenVMS Engineering, there are H   solicitations for a number of events and meetings every year, with theG   two largest ones (that I hear about) typically being HP World and the H   Bootcamp.   (There are other events and other meetings of course, withB   specific audiences targeted by market, by region, or otherwise.)  I   HP World covers the majority of the HP product lines, while the OpenVMS J   Bootcamp covers OpenVMS specifically -- the relative technical depth andH   the numbers of sessions will obviously follow the targets for each of    the events, of course.  G   There is simply no way we can ship large numbers of OpenVMS Engineers E   off to a remote event for some or all of a week (or more), where we C   can have many of the same engineers in attendence at the Bootcamp D   event; with the event here in Nashua, adjacent to the main OpenVMSD   Engineering site.  This is simple logistics, and basic scheduling.  C   We are also asked to participate in smaller regional events or to E   present at users' group meetings, and to participate in the OpenVMS    Technical Update days.    F   We are also asked to design, code, debug and support OpenVMS itself,F   of course.  :-)  Y'all want to see us release V8.2 on schedule, yes?  G   Put another way, if I were to want detailed and technical content for H   OpenVMS and how I could use it to my financial advantage, I would wantG   to attend the OpenVMS Bootcamp.   If I wanted to learn about the many E  and varied HP product lines and how they can help me and my business *   profit, I would want to attend HP World.  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: Mon, 26 Jul 2004 20:54:13 -0500 2 From: David J Dachtera <djesys.nospam@comcast.net>Y Subject: Re: HP World, OpenVMS Bootcamp, etc (was: Re: Computerworld:  Future of HP User  + Message-ID: <4105B5C5.7996DB0C@comcast.net>    Hoff Hoffman wrote:  > W > In article <410559D2.5060501@MMaz.com>, "Barry Treahy, Jr." <Treahy@MMaz.com> writes:  > K >   From my view deep within the trenches of OpenVMS Engineering, there are J >   solicitations for a number of events and meetings every year, with theI >   two largest ones (that I hear about) typically being HP World and the J >   Bootcamp.   (There are other events and other meetings of course, withD >   specific audiences targeted by market, by region, or otherwise.) > K >   HP World covers the majority of the HP product lines, while the OpenVMS L >   Bootcamp covers OpenVMS specifically -- the relative technical depth andI >   the numbers of sessions will obviously follow the targets for each of  >   the events, of course. > I >   There is simply no way we can ship large numbers of OpenVMS Engineers G >   off to a remote event for some or all of a week (or more), where we E >   can have many of the same engineers in attendence at the Bootcamp F >   event; with the event here in Nashua, adjacent to the main OpenVMSF >   Engineering site.  This is simple logistics, and basic scheduling. > E >   We are also asked to participate in smaller regional events or to G >   present at users' group meetings, and to participate in the OpenVMS  >   Technical Update days. > H >   We are also asked to design, code, debug and support OpenVMS itself,H >   of course.  :-)  Y'all want to see us release V8.2 on schedule, yes? > I >   Put another way, if I were to want detailed and technical content for J >   OpenVMS and how I could use it to my financial advantage, I would wantI >   to attend the OpenVMS Bootcamp.   If I wanted to learn about the many G >  and varied HP product lines and how they can help me and my business , >   profit, I would want to attend HP World.  2 My response, then, is about what you would expect:  E Tell me how to justify to my family spending a half-month's take-home C pay on the bootcamp, and another week's take-home pay on travel and  accomodations...?   F At that rate, my take-home pay won't take me home. (See another threadG wherein is discussed the concept of bottomless pockets.) ...and even if % it did, I'd get kicked out, for sure.   D See, with the national symposia, at least a limited number of us canF offset the registration fee by presenting. That just leaves travel andF accomodations. One week's take-home pay is a softer blow to a family's economy than three.   D That option is not available at the bootcamp, and corporate training. budgets are a long-forgotten dream these days.  F As the so-called head of the ersatz VMSUS, I would consider sponsoringG the bootcamp at the hotel near Nashua on a break-even basis if hp would B commit OpenVMS engineers and resources to the bootcamp, and foregoE profits on the attendees in the form registration fees over and above E the cost of the meetings rooms, AV gear, etc. That might make it more  affordable, if only slightly.    D.J.D.   ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2004 23:30:03 -0400 - From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> Y Subject: Re: HP World, OpenVMS Bootcamp, etc (was: Re: Computerworld:  Future of HP User  , Message-ID: <4105CC3A.7483372A@teksavvy.com>   David J Dachtera wrote: G > Tell me how to justify to my family spending a half-month's take-home E > pay on the bootcamp, and another week's take-home pay on travel and  > accomodations...?   F > See, with the national symposia, at least a limited number of us can, > offset the registration fee by presenting.  I Aren't there deals for those who are "registered developpers" to whatever   program exists for developpers ?  M The hotel was reasonably priced, BUT when you combine it with airfare and the L bootcamp costs, the total is quite high. Not everyone has access to low cost" airlines that go to that location.  J I agree with you that the bootcamp should be runned as a not-for-profit soU that its cost could be more reasonable and thus attract more independant developpers.   L But this is the story of VMS: price it high because you are satisfied with aJ few rich customers as opposed to pricing it lower and attract more people.  M It is also perhaps a question of Sue having limited resources to organise andyN run the event and needs to put a limit on the number of attendees, and a lower% price would generate too much demand.p  L However, with the demise of what used to be DECUS, perhaps Sue's event couldG be widened some. On the other hand, having more direct contact with therF engineers might bring more value than listening to user presentations.   ------------------------------  # Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2004 01:32:27 GMTe) From: Antonio Carlini <arcarlini@iee.org>z Subject: Re: Microvax 3100-30.& Message-ID: <4105A299.9030506@iee.org>    Peter 'EPLAN' LANGSTOEGER wrote:^ > In article <41044453.371666E2@teksavvy.com>, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> writes: > M >>Also just a comment: the Microvax 3100 is a totally differeant beast from alO >>Vaxstation 3100. (different chip, different motherboard, different connectorsl >>in the back).U >  > ) > Make this, it depends what model it is.e   So far, so good.  D > A MicroVAX 3100 Model 10 is the same as a VAXstation 3000 Model 30P > and a MicroVAX 3100 Model 20 is the same as a VAXstation 3000 Model 40 (IIRC).  9 The MicroVAX 3100 Model 10 and MicroVAX 3100 Model 20 are ; identical apart from the size of the enclosure. Neither use A the same mainboard as any VAXstation 3100. The (somewhat earlier)T9 MicroVAX 2000 and VAXstation 2000 are identical (a jumpers determines the "personality").  ; There is no VAXstation 3100 Model 40 - although there was aeA Model 38. Late in its product cycle, the VAXstation 3100 Model 30O= mainboard was switched to use the Model 38 one but with a few < differences (e.g. crystal) to make it operate identically to the "original" Model 30.  6 The MicroVAX 3100 Model 30 (which started this off) is4 based on the SOC chip (as is the VAXstation VLC, but2 they bear no other resemblance). The MicroVAX 3100/ Model 40 is identical to the Model 30 but livest in a bigger enclosure.   Antonio    ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2004 21:01:56 -0400 - From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com>e Subject: Re: Microvax 3100-30 , Message-ID: <4105A962.E4F3C9D4@teksavvy.com>   Antonio Carlini wrote:C > Model 38. Late in its product cycle, the VAXstation 3100 Model 30e? > mainboard was switched to use the Model 38 one but with a fewe> > differences (e.g. crystal) to make it operate identically to > the "original" Model 30.    N Now that the cat is out of the bag, do you mind telling us how one can tell if4 a VS3100-30 is a vintage or a model-38-in-disguise ?  L Can't wait to go to Radio Shack and buy a faster crystal and maket my -30 to magically become a -38 :-)   ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2004 20:33:53 -0500 2 From: David J Dachtera <djesys.nospam@comcast.net>B Subject: Re: OpenVMS Alpha V7.3-1 - conneting to internet via ADSL+ Message-ID: <4105B101.E3C88F62@comcast.net>P  
 leslie wrote:X > . > Starlet731 (starlet731@attglobal.net) wrote:H > : Thank you for the advise, but I would rather use a dedicated OpenVMSI > : system for the connection. These routers have only 4 ports and I have  > : 10 computers.e > :s1 > : Do you know how to set this up under OpenVMS?i > :A > : Thanks!m > :h
 > : Jan Vaas.  > :v > : > I found this from a Google search for pppoe and openvms: > ( >    HP OpenVMS systems - Ask the Wizard3 >    http://h71000.www7.hp.com/wizard/wiz_6573.htmln > ' >   "PPP Over Ethernet (PPPOE) Support?  >  >    The Question is:i > , >    Does openvms support PPP over ethernet? > F >    _________________________________________________________________ >  >    The Answer is : > E >    PPP is a serial protocol, and is supported by OpenVMS.  PPP overlG >    Ethernet is more commonly known as PPPOE, and is not supported..."' > E > Unless one of Process Software's TCP/IP stacks, TCPWare & Multinet,F> > supports PPPoE, there is no ready-made solution for OpenVMS.  G That said, I think a broadband router/firewall and a 10/100BaseT switchr  or two might be just the ticket.  F I have cable broadband here (circa. 3Mb down), so I have a cable modem= where have an ADSL modem. That plugs into the WAN port of theoH router/firewall (Netgear FR314 - a bit old, but...). The router firewallF has four 10/100 ports on the back - so, I could have up to four 10/100F 10+ port switches for 40+ connections, I suppose, before having to get too screwy stacking switches.p  D Actually, the Alpha and my Celeron PC have 10Mb ethernet only. So, IH have a 10BaseT hub into the switch to isolate the low-speed traffic when$ I do PC-to-Alpha transfers and such.  D Incidentally: I have the Alpha set up as the first DNS server in theH router's DHCP setup, followed by the cable ISP's DNS servers. I'm hopingH eventually to delegate a lan.djesys.com domain to it and have it forward# all other requests to my cable ISP.   H Altogether, there are five(5) PCs "permanently" on the LAN. On weekends,F I bring home the laptop from work (since I'm on call). I'm planning toD add at least three more machines: a Linspire evaluation machine, theB MicroVAX 3100 and at least one other x86 machine, possibly running FreeBSD - dunno yet.   D.J.D.   ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2004 20:37:26 -0500e2 From: David J Dachtera <djesys.nospam@comcast.net>B Subject: Re: OpenVMS Alpha V7.3-1 - conneting to internet via ADSL+ Message-ID: <4105B1D6.9D11C655@comcast.net>o   Thierry Dussuet wrote: >  > Hello! > + > On 2004-07-26, Lars <lars@post.cz> wrote:h > >l > > Starlet731 wrote:o > >> Hello Paul, > >>L > >> Thank you for the information. Do you also know how the set the OpenVMSL > >> system as gateway and how to set up the ADSL connection on it using theO > >> Thomson Speedtouch 510 ADSL modem instead of configuring on OpenVMS how to7/ > >> reach the gateway that is on other system?a > >> > >> Thanks! > >>
 > >> Jan Vaas-K > > As you wrote in the beginning of the thread, there is no implementationyL > > of PPOE on OVMS (as far as I know). You can set up the OVMS machine as aK > > gateway, but you'll need another machine to do the authorization, whichr# > > is not what you probably want..  > P > AFAIK there is also no NAT solution for OpenVMS, so it wouldn't even work as a
 > gateway.  H I haven't Googled for it yet, but I seem to recall a post here some time> back about someone who had done NAT for VMS as freeware and/or
 open-source. e  : Could be wrong, as I say - I haven't Googled for it yet...   D.J.D.   ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2004 20:18:43 -0500 2 From: David J Dachtera <djesys.nospam@comcast.net>+ Subject: Re: OpenVMS restarts while installw+ Message-ID: <4105AD73.62945D37@comcast.net>y   Bob Koehler wrote: > ^ > In article <4101C769.376938D4@teksavvy.com>, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> writes: > >oM > > On Alphas, is it possible to have the console on a serial port (with a VT  > > terminal connected to it ?)s > 	 >    Yes.S  D For some big Alphas (GS class), that's all there is, I should think.   D.J.D.   ------------------------------  + Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2004 17:47:36 +0000 (UTC)c1 From: Jefferson Humber <matrix01@globalnet.co.uk>t# Subject: Re: Rdb 7.0.5 on VMS 7.3-2.2 Message-ID: <ce3g3n$ar6$1@hercules.btinternet.com>  ( Rdb 7.0.5 is only certified up to 7.2-x.  3 Rdb 7.0.6.1 and onwards is certified against 7.3-x.h  I All Rdb versions of 7.1.x.x are certified to run on OpenVMS 7.2 -> 7.3-x.r  , Hope this helps, got the info from Metalink.   Jeff         Robert Trawinski wrote:H= > Does anybody run Rdb 7.0.5 (7.0.x in general) on VMS 7.3.2? ; > We need to upgrade production environment from VMS 7.2-1.f& > Do we (client) need upgrade Rdb too? > 
 > Regards, >  > Robert   ------------------------------    Date: 26 Jul 2004 12:10:41 -07001 From: keithparris_NOSPAM@yahoo.com (Keith Parris)a" Subject: Re: Solaris to Itanium...= Message-ID: <cf15391e.0407261110.3ad67eed@posting.google.com>n  a JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> wrote in message news:<4102DFCA.2F81932F@teksavvy.com>... P > Do you deny that Carly has publicly stated that one reason they cancelled EV79N > was that they realised that EV7 batches already produced showed that EV7 was' > capable of running at higher speeds ?0  F Can you provide a reference? I don't think I've seen any statements on this issue from Carly.  B Rich Marcello said: "Part of the Alpha commitment was to deliver aE performance boost to EV7-based AlphaServer systems in 2004 based on ay? new chip, the EV79. As the EV79 process has progressed, workingmE closely with our CPU chip supplier, it has become clear that the EV79aF chip will not meet our expectations for performance or time to market.E Given this, we have made the decision to provide you with performancerA improvements based on EV7z rather than EV79. We believe this will E still meet your needs by introducing a performance boost of 14-16% ati? the same price as EV7-based systems and in the same timeframe."o@ http://www.enterpriseunix.org/stories.php?story=03/10/23/1274964   ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2004 15:30:47 -0400 - From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com>o" Subject: Re: Solaris to Itanium..., Message-ID: <41055BDC.157F58A5@teksavvy.com>   Keith Parris wrote:rH > Can you provide a reference? I don't think I've seen any statements on > this issue from Carly.  + You won't like the answer to this question.   X > http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=cf15391e.0310231848.56b59a1b%40posting.google.com  # Note who the author is. :-) ;-) ;-)d   And check out this paragraph:d ##B However, the manufacturing process maturity for EV7 has progressedD very well, producing good yield and making it possible to produce anB EV7 part (EV7z at 1.33GHz) with significantly improved performanceB over our current EV7.  The EV7z coupled with faster memory upgradeC will allow us to deliver a 14% - 16% performance improvement withino1 the timeframe that we committed to our customers.o ##  E So, they found out that EV7 with current manufacturing was capable of ) achieving good enough yields at 1.33ghz.    D And the performance improvement will also come from memory upgrades.  > Oh, and they said it would come by mid 2004. Where is it now ?   ------------------------------    Date: 26 Jul 2004 12:57:57 -0700) From: "Ken Robinson" <kenrbnsn@rbnsn.com> " Subject: Re: Solaris to Itanium.../ Message-ID: <ce3no5$c1s@odbk17.prod.google.com>c   JF Mezei wrote (in part):iD > However, the manufacturing process maturity for EV7 has progressedF > very well, producing good yield and making it possible to produce anD > EV7 part (EV7z at 1.33GHz) with significantly improved performanceD > over our current EV7.  The EV7z coupled with faster memory upgradeE > will allow us to deliver a 14% - 16% performance improvement within 3 > the timeframe that we committed to our customers.e > ## >"G > So, they found out that EV7 with current manufacturing was capable ofa* > achieving good enough yields at 1.33ghz. > F > And the performance improvement will also come from memory upgrades. >s@ > Oh, and they said it would come by mid 2004. Where is it now ?   I think you want to check outhG <http://h71000.www7.hp.com/openvms/alpha_commitment.html>, which starts  out:  D HP OpenVMS supports 1.3 GHz and 1.15 GHz CPUs on AlphaServer systems  A HP OpenVMS is pleased to announce support for 1.3 GHz CPUs on the C AlphaServer GS1280 systems and for 1.15 GHz CPUs on the AlphaServerrF ES47 and ES80 Series systems. The latter support became available moreB than a month ahead of the August 6, 2004 target date. Prior to theD release of these systems, the fastest CPUs shipped were 1 GHz on the< AlphaServer ES47 and ES80 Series systems and 1.15 GHz on the" AlphaServer GS1280 Series systems.    i Ken Robinson   ------------------------------  # Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2004 02:28:29 GMT 5 From: rdeininger@mindspringdot.com (Robert Deininger)t" Subject: Re: Solaris to Itanium...L Message-ID: <rdeininger-2607042234470001@user-uinj5l6.dialup.mindspring.com>  5 In article <4102DFCA.2F81932F@teksavvy.com>, JF Mezeib% <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> wrote:h   >Robert Deininger wrote:L >> This is a lie. I'm tired of refuting it in detail.  Anyone interested can! >> likely find my previous posts.d > O >Do you deny that Carly has publicly stated that one reason they cancelled EV79 M >was that they realised that EV7 batches already produced showed that EV7 wasa& >capable of running at higher speeds ?  I I don't deny anything Carly might have said.  I pay very little attentionPA to Carly's public statements.  And on technical matters, I pay nolG attention at all. I have much better sources for technical information,uD including technical information about Alpha CPUs, past, present, andI future, real and unreal.  Why on Earth would you use Carly slideware as a B source for technical information?  Carly doesn't make pesky littleD decisions such as the best way to persue an Alpha CPU speed-up.  She- leaves that to people who are more qualified.s  I EV7 has shipped in quantity at 2 speeds that I know of.  The earlier ones J were not as fast as the later ones.  My understanding is that the yield of< fast chips from the early days was simply too low to supportF productization at the fast speeds.  I don't have all the details at my? fingertips, and they aren't for public consumption in any case.   E EV7z will run faster than EV7.  There are real engineering changes in C EV7z, not just yield improvements.  And not just changing the clock / chips.  You seem unwilling to grasp this point.n  H When EV79 development was stopped, there were serious problems remainingH to overcome.  The prototype chips DID NOT WORK, i.e. they did not behaveD like the Alpha spec says they should, and they did not pass the testH suites.  They were not useable in alphaservers, because the alphaserversI would not have worked right.  Fixing the problems was expected to take soaI long that EV79 would have been too late to market to be worthwhile.  EV7zFI was a less aggressive compromise design that could ship soon enough to bee( interesting from a business perspective.  ? Advance estimates from engineers will always predict a range oftF performance, features, and schedule, for any new CPU in the pipeline. G (I'm not just talking about Alpha CPUs.)  NOBODY knows what will reallyhD happen until significant numbers of chips have been manufactured andJ tested.  When marketing/publicity folks take the engineering estimates and4 turn them into slideware, they ALWAYS do two things:E 1.  They gloss over the uncertainties and give the entire development,# process a veneer of predictability.tE 2.  They emphasize the most optimistic scenarios out of the estimatesi provided by the engineers.I That's just what publicity people do.  I don't think it is helpful, but I ' don't expect it to change anytime soon.a  H Anyone paying attention to new IT products ought to realize that advanceE product hype is not reliable, and should never build plans around the G details of un-announced products.  The word "vaporware" wasn't invented- for nothing.   ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2004 23:33:30 -0400m# From: "John Smith" <a@nonymous.com>u" Subject: Re: Solaris to Itanium..., Message-ID: <abidnZ6cjZSXUJjcRVn-vw@igs.net>   Robert Deininger wrote:m7 > In article <4102DFCA.2F81932F@teksavvy.com>, JF Mezein' > <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> wrote:, >6 >> Robert Deininger wrote:> >>> This is a lie. I'm tired of refuting it in detail.  Anyone1 >>> interested can likely find my previous posts.n >>B >> Do you deny that Carly has publicly stated that one reason theyA >> cancelled EV79 was that they realised that EV7 batches already E >> produced showed that EV7 was capable of running at higher speeds ?t >rA > I don't deny anything Carly might have said.  I pay very little F > attention to Carly's public statements.  And on technical matters, IC > pay no attention at all. I have much better sources for technicaldF > information, including technical information about Alpha CPUs, past,C > present, and future, real and unreal.  Why on Earth would you use.G > Carly slideware as a source for technical information?  Carly doesn'ttE > make pesky little decisions such as the best way to persue an Alpha"B > CPU speed-up.  She leaves that to people who are more qualified. > F > EV7 has shipped in quantity at 2 speeds that I know of.  The earlierD > ones were not as fast as the later ones.  My understanding is thatC > the yield of fast chips from the early days was simply too low tobB > support productization at the fast speeds.  I don't have all theE > details at my fingertips, and they aren't for public consumption in  > any case.  >,G > EV7z will run faster than EV7.  There are real engineering changes in E > EV7z, not just yield improvements.  And not just changing the clock 1 > chips.  You seem unwilling to grasp this point.t > @ > When EV79 development was stopped, there were serious problemsE > remaining to overcome.  The prototype chips DID NOT WORK, i.e. theyeG > did not behave like the Alpha spec says they should, and they did notdG > pass the test suites.  They were not useable in alphaservers, because D > the alphaservers would not have worked right.  Fixing the problemsD > was expected to take so long that EV79 would have been too late toA > market to be worthwhile.  EV7z was a less aggressive compromisetF > design that could ship soon enough to be interesting from a business > perspective. >hA > Advance estimates from engineers will always predict a range oftG > performance, features, and schedule, for any new CPU in the pipeline.eB > (I'm not just talking about Alpha CPUs.)  NOBODY knows what will< > really happen until significant numbers of chips have beenC > manufactured and tested.  When marketing/publicity folks take thenD > engineering estimates and turn them into slideware, they ALWAYS do
 > two things: G > 1.  They gloss over the uncertainties and give the entire development9% > process a veneer of predictability.zG > 2.  They emphasize the most optimistic scenarios out of the estimatesS > provided by the engineers.E > That's just what publicity people do.  I don't think it is helpful,i/ > but I don't expect it to change anytime soon.g >-B > Anyone paying attention to new IT products ought to realize thatD > advance product hype is not reliable, and should never build plansD > around the details of un-announced products.  The word "vaporware" > wasn't invented for nothing.  J One could, and I'm not saying that I am, twist your statement into meaningL that the engineering talent Intel acquired in the Alphacide pact just aren'tL going to get IA64 anywhere performance-wise if they were that 'bad' on EV79.  K One could also infer that curly was a technological Einstein for seeing thehK light to cancel Alpha when he did - after all, today Itanic is nearly whererK EV7 was several years ago both in performance and numbers of chips shipped.a   ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2004 23:44:33 -0400s- From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com>h" Subject: Re: Solaris to Itanium..., Message-ID: <4105CF9F.D2468037@teksavvy.com>   Robert Deininger wrote: K > I don't deny anything Carly might have said.  I pay very little attention   > to Carly's public statements.   L But since Carly is the most official of HP spokespersons, when Carly speaks,L customers have to listen, especially when HP says so little about VMS/Alpha.  G In the end, it is what the customer hears that determines if a customersM continues to spend money or not. What you, as an insider hears, has no impact  on who buys what.1  D > source for technical information?  Carly doesn't make pesky littleA > decisions such as the best way to persue an Alpha CPU speed-up.S  M I disagree on that. Carly makes decisions to put in place a certain strategy. M The way Alpha was killed was part of a strategy. The real "plan of record" iss+ not the one that Compaq told its customers.c  K > would not have worked right.  Fixing the problems was expected to take sotF > long that EV79 would have been too late to market to be worthwhile.   N Considering that EV7 was just released (with much delay), having EV79 come outM later than expected would have been a good thing since it would have extendede Alpha's viable lifetime.  L This is why, from a customer's point of view, EV7z is just a way to kill offK Alpha sooner since Alpha gets it "promised" speed boost (on paper) and this G happens shortly after EV7 was introduced, and the clock on Alpha is nowfL officially ticking since the last improvement to Alpha is not on the market.  F Had HP kept its promise of EV79, it would have taken one more year (orK whatever) before the last improvement came to market, which would mean thathF Carly's plan to get rid of ALpha would have been delayed by that much.    I > (I'm not just talking about Alpha CPUs.)  NOBODY knows what will really F > happen until significant numbers of chips have been manufactured and	 > tested.>  J That is why they have test runs. The problem is that when the vendor lacksH trust or more accuratly, has acted in such a way that customers activelyJ distrust the vendor, and when the vendor has a vested interest to see thatD Alpha not exceed IA64, it is only normal that customers consider theN possibility that the vendor has put strategic decisions ahead of technologicalM decisions, resulting in a slower than expected EV7, the dropping of EV79, andbH delivery of the last Alpha "improvement" earlier than expected (when you2 consider when EV7 was actually allowed to market).  K Grunts inside HP are not expected to knwo what the real strategic decisionsPK are being taken at the very top. Just like they didn't know on June 24 that-G Alpha was about to be murdered, or that, on Sept 6, that Capellas would + announce the demise of Compaq the next day.    ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2004 14:31:29 -04000- From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com>e# Subject: Structure of SMTP Receiver,, Message-ID: <41054DFA.D427FBAE@teksavvy.com>  K Since the TCPIP Services SMTP receiver lacks the hooks to scan the contentsoK and has very very poor logging, I was thinkking if it were possible to justbH rewrite one (possibly using portions of postfix which have the anti spam filter capabilities).t  I Could the home grown receiver simply use the Send-From-File to submit theoM received documents to the SMTP queues for actual deliveries ? Is that how ther current software runs ?n  K Or does SFF lack certain functionality for the receiver to perform its taske> once the message has been received and needs to be processed ?   ------------------------------  # Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2004 18:48:26 GMT-# From: hoff@hp.nospam (Hoff Hoffman)-H Subject: Re: Supported Options (was: Re: OpenVMS restarts while install)2 Message-ID: <_lcNc.6571$y71.3934@news.cpqcorp.net>  n In article <2f57764a.0407221956.fb6ca7e@posting.google.com>, ghazan@ghazan.haider.name (Ghazan Haider) writes:  C :Ive looked around, and this has been asked in other threads, nevero( :answered. Where is the HCL for OpenVMS?  H   By HCL, I will assume you mean "Hardware Compatibility List", and that;   you are looking for a list of formally supported devices.   D :Most OS vendors release one, at least for OEMS and the like, and to :help in upgrades....1  H   Depending on what you are looking for, please see the OpenVMS FAQ, theK   OpenVMS supported versions list, the OpenVMS Software Product Description N   (SPD) and the AlphaServer website.  The most direct analog to the Microsoft L   Hardware Compatibility List is the supported options list available at the<   AlphaServer website.  The core list is the one in the SPD.     The OpenVMS FAQ section is:-  &     What version of OpenVMS do I need?  K   The AlphaServer website is accessable via the http://www.hp.com/go/server-
   website.  K   In general, the devices supported for use with OpenVMS are those that areeG   directly sold as being supported for use with OpenVMS, so the supportaH   documentation situation is somewhat different than that of the classicH   Microsoft-style HCL list.  At the AlphaServer website, this support isI   first delineated by the particular platform, and then by the particulartG   operating system involved, and the specific version and ECO required.)    N  ---------------------------- #include <rtfaq.h> -----------------------------K     For additional, please see the OpenVMS FAQ -- www.hp.com/go/openvms/faqdN  --------------------------- pure personal opinion ---------------------------E         Hoff (Stephen) Hoffman   OpenVMS Engineering   hoff[at]hp.comH   ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2004 20:17:05 -0500e2 From: David J Dachtera <djesys.nospam@comcast.net>H Subject: Re: Supported Options (was: Re: OpenVMS restarts while install)+ Message-ID: <4105AD11.EB42765A@comcast.net>-   Hoff Hoffman wrote:- > p > In article <2f57764a.0407221956.fb6ca7e@posting.google.com>, ghazan@ghazan.haider.name (Ghazan Haider) writes: > E > :Ive looked around, and this has been asked in other threads, never7* > :answered. Where is the HCL for OpenVMS? > J >   By HCL, I will assume you mean "Hardware Compatibility List", and that= >   you are looking for a list of formally supported devices.u > F > :Most OS vendors release one, at least for OEMS and the like, and to > :help in upgrades....i > J >   Depending on what you are looking for, please see the OpenVMS FAQ, theM >   OpenVMS supported versions list, the OpenVMS Software Product DescriptionvO >   (SPD) and the AlphaServer website.  The most direct analog to the MicrosofthN >   Hardware Compatibility List is the supported options list available at the >   AlphaServer website. j  E When I think "HCL" (as opposed to HCl), I think of Solaris/x86 and/or. Linux.  & > The core list is the one in the SPD.  F ...which is probably where it should be, I suppose, except that detailD down to the mobo chipset is probably needed. Is that info. available anywhere for I64?f   D.J.D.   ------------------------------    Date: 26 Jul 2004 19:08:29 -0700/ From: ghazan@ghazan.haider.name (Ghazan Haider)eH Subject: Re: Supported Options (was: Re: OpenVMS restarts while install)= Message-ID: <2f57764a.0407261808.7acc577e@posting.google.com>n  M >   In general, the devices supported for use with OpenVMS are those that arecI >   directly sold as being supported for use with OpenVMS, so the supporteJ >   documentation situation is somewhat different than that of the classicJ >   Microsoft-style HCL list.  At the AlphaServer website, this support is  @ That explains a few things. So for hobbyists with NT-style AlphaD machines and third party hardware, we have to find equivalences withE the 5-digit figures and hope for the best, or read success stories...s  D I was hoping for a community-based HCL (hardware compatibility list)D for 3rd party hardware, they exist for RS/6000 and Sun workstations.A Newsgroups suggest my Adaptec 29160 MIGHT work with SRM as a bootv% device, and my scsi cdrom might work.a  > ...its not a bad idea, there seems to be a renewed interest in. OpenVMS. I'll consider setting up such a site.   ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2004 14:27:37 -0400r- From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> : Subject: Re: Turn-key OpenVMS E-mail, web server solution?, Message-ID: <41054D13.A32AF91A@teksavvy.com>   > Nigel Barker wrote:n > >...I > > on the VAX. Most VAX installations are stable & I doubt that much newdE > > application development is being done on VAX thus there is little E > > need for new features like ODS-5. The basic minimum with each new     L You are underestimating the power of the hobbyist programme.  The issue hereM is that the owners of VMS have decided that because VAX hardware is dead, VAX-N software is also dead. It is easy for an accountant to justify this by looking at support revenus.   J However, consider the recent information and LSE being "broken" and nobodyF complaining. This is an indication of a much bigger problem of lack of development on *VMS*.   L If large companies are not interested in the shrinking VMS marketplace, thatL leaves the hobbyists who port open source software to VMS. But to do so, you4 need modern features of VMS on their platform (VAX).  N If VMS is to get a long lasting renaissance, the hobbyist efforts on old VAXesI may not be sufficient, but they can help change the image of VMS greatly.r   ------------------------------  + Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2004 23:36:16 +0000 (UTC)t6 From: peter@langstoeger.at (Peter 'EPLAN' LANGSTOEGER)T Subject: [TCPware, V73_MGMTAGENTS] Does anyone have a working installation running ?1 Message-ID: <newscache$a5gh1i$3cg1$1@news.sil.at>   K I tried to run V73_MGMTAGENTS V3.0-36 on TCPware V5.6-2 but the agents die. F It seems that the eSNMP service isn't running or accepting the agents.  + Does anyone have this combination working ?u  A btw: And what does one do with the V73_MGMTAGENTS without a CIM ?yL (I tried to install it on a noname PC and it refused to work - wants COMPAQ.? But I don't want to manage the PC, I want to see my VMS box...)    TIAh   -- s Peter "EPLAN" LANGSTOEGERr% Network and OpenVMS system specialistf E-mail  peter@langstoeger.atF A-1030 VIENNA  AUSTRIA              I'm not a pessimist, I'm a realist   ------------------------------   End of INFO-VAX 2004.412 ************************o the main OpenVMSF >   Engineering site.  This is simple logistics, and basic scheduling. > E >   We are also asked to participate in smaller regional events or to G >   present at users' group meetings, and to participate in the OpenVMS  >   Technical Update days. > H >   We are also asked to design, code, debug and support OpenVMS itself,H >   of course.  :-)  Y'all want to see us release V8.2 on schedule, yes? > I >   Put another way, if I were t_intouch/guide_names.dat (13312 bytes) started.89 >>> 226 Transfer completed.  408 (8) bytes transferred.e
 <<< PASVA >>> 227 Entering passive mode; use PORT (198,151,12,104,10,106)  <<< RETR guide_names.defj >>> 150 IMAGE retrieve of /disk$misc/decus/freewarev60/tti_intouch/guide_names.def (7168 bytes) started.9 >>> 226 Transfer completed.  682 (8) bytes transferred.m
 <<< PASVA >>> 227 Entering passive mode; use PORT (198,151,12,104,10,107)M <<< RETR guide_names.fdlj >>> 150 IMAGE retrieve of /disk$misc/decus/freewarev60/tti_intouch/guide_names.fdl (1402 bytes) started.9 >>> 226 Transfer completed.  590 (8) bytes transferred.e
 <<< PASVA >>> 227 Entering passive mode; use PORT (198,151,12,104,10,108)  <<< RETR guide_names.stri >>> 150 IMAGE retrieve of /disk$misc/decus/freewarev60/tti_intouch/guide_names.str (846 bytes) started.)9 >>> 226 Transfer completed.  172 (8) bytes transferred.e
 <<< PASVA >>> 227 Entering passive mode; use PORT (198,151,12,104,10,109)  <<< RETR guide_one_pass.shellso >>> 150 IMAGE retrieve of /disk$misc/decus/freewarev60/tti_intouch/guide_one_pass.shell (9860 bytes) started.s: >>> 226 Transfer completed.  9213 (8) bytes transferred.
 <<< PASVA >>> 227 Entering passive mode; use PORT (198,151,12,104,10,110)e% <<< RETR guide_shell_add_totals.incit >>> 150 IMAGE retrieve of /disk$misc/decus/freewarev60/tti_intouch/guide_shell_add_totals.inc (530 bytes) started.9 >>> 226 Transfer completed.  469 (8) bytes transferred.0
 <<< PASVA >>> 227 Entering passive mode; use PORT (198,151,12,104,10,111)c  <<< RETR guide_shell_break.incp >>> 150 IMAGE retrieve of /disk$misc/decus/freewarev60/tti_intouch/guide_shell_break.inc (2526 bytes) started.: >>> 226 Transfer completed.  1503 (8) bytes transferred.
 <<< PASVA >>> 227 Entering passive mode; use PORT (198,151,12,104,10,112)s, <<< RETR guide_shell_create_export_str.inc| >>> 150 IMAGE retrieve of /disk$misc/decus/freewarev60/tti_intouch/guide_shell_create_export_str.inc (1832 bytes) started.: >>> 226 Transfer completed.  1193 (8) bytes transferred.
 <<< PASVA >>> 227 Entering passive mode; use PORT (198,151,12,104,10,113)r  <<< RETR guide_shell_input.incp >>> 150 IMAGE retrieve of /disk$misc/decus/freewarev60/tti_intouch/guide_shell_input.inc (1206 bytes) started.9 >>> 226 Transfer completed.  806 (8) bytes transferred. 
 <<< PASVA >>> 227 Entering passive mode; use PORT (198,151,12,104,10,114)d <<< RETR guide_shell_int.incn >>> 150 IMAGE retrieve of /disk$mi