1 INFO-VAX	Mon, 14 Jun 2004	Volume 2004 : Issue 328       Contents:) Re: any way to dismount and remount this?  Re: DEC PWS RAM  Re: DEC PWS RAM . Re: Re-using DECrepeater 90FS & 90TS equipment= Re: Understanding Peak virtual size VS UAF pgflquota+WSEXTENT   F ----------------------------------------------------------------------  + Date: Sun, 13 Jun 2004 21:48:48 +0000 (UTC) P From: helbig@astro.multiCLOTHESvax.de (Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply)2 Subject: Re: any way to dismount and remount this?$ Message-ID: <caii3v$c49$1@online.de>  9 In article <caf31q$2ieo$1@godfrey.mcc.ac.uk>, Tony Anrold   <tony.arnold@man.ac.uk> writes:   D > Is this a single member shadow set that just comprises $44dka300?    Yes.   > It  K > looks like the physical disk has successfully dismounted, but the system  4 > thinks the shadow device (DSA530) is still there.    Right.   > I can't see anyway   > round this except to reboot.     That seems to be the case.  . > Have you tried remounting the shadow set? I  > suspect it will fail, but ...   E I've tried all the commands I could think of, but perhaps not in the   right order.   ------------------------------  % Date: Sun, 13 Jun 2004 16:06:48 -0500 ( From: Rich Jordan <duodec@speakeasy.net> Subject: Re: DEC PWS RAM2 Message-ID: <bMucnS6FtpSYW1Hd3cwC-w@speakeasy.net>   Antonio Carlini wrote: > Rich Jordan wrote: >  >> From memory:  >  >  > I'll ignore the pun :-)  > F >> Old PC100 memory was capable of running on PC66 systems.  Old PC133H >> memory was capable of running on PC100 systems, and some few types of> >> PC133 could actually run on PC66 systems.  As manufacturing@ >> improvements came in it became uneconomical to keep using theG >> 'downward compatible' chips on the DIMM boards, so later PC100 would F >> not run reliably on PC66, and newer PC133 would not run reliably on	 >> PC100.  >  > @ > I guess I'll have to dig out some old data sheets and actually= > look, but *why* would PC100 not run at 66MHz? I can see why = > trying to run it at 133MHz would fail (the answer would not < > be ready in time), but why would running at a slower speed > be a problem?  >   E Don't honestly know.  When I was searching for memory for a PC66 PWS  H 333i+, there were a lot of warnings (2002 timeframe) about watching out F for the 'newer' PC100 memory as it would not work, and a lot of older F messages saying to buy PC100 because it worked fine, cost the same or E less, and could be used in a newer system when you upgraded (1998-99  I timeframe).  I got some to try and it didn't work.  Later found the same  H brand/model/CL# etc but made a couple years earlier (new old stock on a  shelf) and it worked fine.  @ Same problems with PC133 memory in a friend's PC100 system; the E "original" PC133 worked fine, but then current production would not.  G The newsgroup articles and forums we reviewed indicated it was because  A of manufacturing updates/changes to the actual memory chips that  B tightened up the tolerances of the speed range they would work at.   Rich   ------------------------------  # Date: Sun, 13 Jun 2004 21:32:53 GMT 1 From: Michael Austin <maustin@firstdbasource.com>  Subject: Re: DEC PWS RAM: Message-ID: <9K3zc.502$JD7.120@newssvr23.news.prodigy.com>   Rich Jordan wrote: > Antonio Carlini wrote: >  >> Rich Jordan wrote:  >> >>> From memory: >> >> >> >> I'll ignore the pun :-) >>G >>> Old PC100 memory was capable of running on PC66 systems.  Old PC133 I >>> memory was capable of running on PC100 systems, and some few types of ? >>> PC133 could actually run on PC66 systems.  As manufacturing A >>> improvements came in it became uneconomical to keep using the H >>> 'downward compatible' chips on the DIMM boards, so later PC100 wouldG >>> not run reliably on PC66, and newer PC133 would not run reliably on 
 >>> PC100. >> >> >>A >> I guess I'll have to dig out some old data sheets and actually > >> look, but *why* would PC100 not run at 66MHz? I can see why> >> trying to run it at 133MHz would fail (the answer would not= >> be ready in time), but why would running at a slower speed  >> be a problem? >> > G > Don't honestly know.  When I was searching for memory for a PC66 PWS  J > 333i+, there were a lot of warnings (2002 timeframe) about watching out H > for the 'newer' PC100 memory as it would not work, and a lot of older H > messages saying to buy PC100 because it worked fine, cost the same or G > less, and could be used in a newer system when you upgraded (1998-99  K > timeframe).  I got some to try and it didn't work.  Later found the same  J > brand/model/CL# etc but made a couple years earlier (new old stock on a  > shelf) and it worked fine. > B > Same problems with PC133 memory in a friend's PC100 system; the K > "original" PC133 worked fine, but then current production would not. The  H > newsgroup articles and forums we reviewed indicated it was because of J > manufacturing updates/changes to the actual memory chips that tightened : > up the tolerances of the speed range they would work at.   Rich,   G My son just installed PC133(brand new) and PC100(at least 3 years old)  I memory.  When he first put installed it with the PC133 in the first slot  H and the PC100 in the second, it would not pass the self test.  We tried F reseating and that did not work.  We then reversed the slots with the H PC100 (128MB) in the first slot and the PC133(512MB) in the second slot / and that fixed it.  (Brand new AMD DDR400 mobo)   ; So it could be the order in which they are installed. YMMV.    Michael.   >  > Rich >    ------------------------------    Date: 13 Jun 2004 14:44:11 -0700 From: jong@theoffice.net (Jon)7 Subject: Re: Re-using DECrepeater 90FS & 90TS equipment = Message-ID: <9f131b9a.0406131344.4b526f54@posting.google.com>   ^ "Hans Vlems" <hvlems.dotweg@zonnet.nl> wrote in message news:<2iu82vFrh7c6U1@uni-berlin.de>.../ > "Jon" <jong@theoffice.net> schreef in bericht 8 > news:9f131b9a.0406110823.b9b344c@posting.google.com...J > > Apologies if this is the wrong forum, but I'm after information on the > > DECrepeater 90FS and 90TS. > > F > > I have been asked to setup a network for a company replacing theirJ > > existing DEC system. I believe the DEC kit runs standard 10Mb ethernetJ > > in which case, can I simply leave the above equipment in place? ie canI > > I run a standard Ethernet & TCP/iP network over the DEC hub and fibre 
 > > repeater?  > > H > > Are there any gotchas with these devices? I am proposing replacementJ > > equipment in the event that we have a problem, howevever it would be a0 > > shame to bin them if they can still be used. > > 
 > > Thanks > >  > > Jon  > K > The 90TS and 90FS are 10 MB/s devices. They run anything you can throw at  > them. K > Very reliable stuff, even though the DEChub 90 powersupply sometimes gets  > rather noisy. M > Both devices are repeaters, not a switch (bridge) so make sure you know the 
 > appropriate = > configuration rules for setting up networks with repeaters. G > Other than that there's one gotcha: the hardware tends to outlive the  > manuals...  " Thanks Hans, I'll give them a try.   ------------------------------    Date: 13 Jun 2004 20:11:11 -0700. From: spamsink2001@yahoo.com (Alan E. Feldman)F Subject: Re: Understanding Peak virtual size VS UAF pgflquota+WSEXTENT< Message-ID: <b096a4ee.0406131911.48a461b@posting.google.com>  M mckinneyj@cpva.saic.com wrote in message news:<igPu+FzOLZp+@cpva.saic.com>... 5 > In article <TUE69wfCKRou@eisner.encompasserve.org>, # >  briggs@encompasserve.org writes: r > > In article <b096a4ee.0406090612.171ac363@posting.google.com>, spamsink2001@yahoo.com (Alan E. Feldman) writes:k > >> "Syltrem" <syltremzulu@videotron.ca> wrote in message news:<%6oxc.7381$Xy3.24117@tor-nn1.netcom.ca>...  [...] K > >> Is WSEXTENT really 16384? At least in v6.2 it is overridden by its PQL E > >> system parameter. I don't see how you can otherwise have 300000+ K > >> virtual pagelets when PGLFQUOTA is only 150000. But I am using VAX/VMS 3 > >> v6.2, so take what I say with a grain of salt!  > > H > > Does PGFLQUOTA get charged for section space where the backing store( > > is something other than a page file? > >  > > 	John Briggs >  > H > I believe that John is correct in suspecting backing stores other thanD > pagefiles here. When running an image part of your virtual addressG > space may consist of global sections or installed image sections (the  > RTLs).  A Yes, of course -- virtual memory consists of physical memory plus A pagefile, swapping file, image files, and section files. But what D about data files? Shouldn't they also be included in this? The Perf.! manual only lists the first four.    Thanks.    ------------------------------   End of INFO-VAX 2004.328 ************************