1 INFO-VAX	Sun, 23 May 2004	Volume 2004 : Issue 285       Contents:$ Re: "Unix-like systems like VAX/VMS"$ Re: "Unix-like systems like VAX/VMS"
 Re: Blade VAX 
 RE: Blade VAX 
 Re: Blade VAX 
 Re: Blade VAX 
 Re: Blade VAX 
 Re: Blade VAX 
 RE: Blade VAX 
 Re: Blade VAX 
 Re: Blade VAX 8 Re: CDE - redirecting complete desktop to another system Re: Dave Cutler and VMS  Re: Dave Cutler and VMS  Re: Dave Cutler and VMS  Re: Dave Cutler and VMS  Re: Dave Cutler and VMS  Re: Dave Cutler and VMS ! Re: Reboot forces Shadowset Merge  Re: ssh on TCP/IP 5.4  Re: ssh on TCP/IP 5.4 + Re: [OpenVMS VAX V7.3] OPC$LOGFILE_ENABLE ? + Re: [OpenVMS VAX V7.3] OPC$LOGFILE_ENABLE ? + Re: [OpenVMS VAX V7.3] OPC$LOGFILE_ENABLE ?   F ----------------------------------------------------------------------  % Date: Sun, 23 May 2004 10:06:13 -0400 # From: "John Smith" <a@nonymous.com> - Subject: Re: "Unix-like systems like VAX/VMS" , Message-ID: <u-SdnaFPtafWLy3dRVn-jA@igs.net>  : "JF Mezei" <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> wrote in message: news:93b6ea67ccf7a0459c258547a2d87d26@news.teranews.com... > John Smith wrote: K > > HP needs to VMS-only ads along the theme, "The Serious Operating System  For @ > > Serious Business" (c) 2004, John Smith. All Rights Reserved. > G > Actually, we can blame you for the lack of advertising of VMS. You've L > trademarked all the right buzzphrases and HP can't find any good ones left :-) 
 > :-) :-) :-)      I can be bought  ;-)   ------------------------------  % Date: Sun, 23 May 2004 11:09:42 -0500 @ From: "David J. Dachtera" <djesys.nospam@NeOaSrPtAhMlNiOnWk.net>- Subject: Re: "Unix-like systems like VAX/VMS" 6 Message-ID: <40B0CCC6.CDBB8238@NeOaSrPtAhMlNiOnWk.net>   John Smith wrote:  > < > "JF Mezei" <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> wrote in message< > news:93b6ea67ccf7a0459c258547a2d87d26@news.teranews.com... > > John Smith wrote: M > > > HP needs to VMS-only ads along the theme, "The Serious Operating System  > For B > > > Serious Business" (c) 2004, John Smith. All Rights Reserved. > > I > > Actually, we can blame you for the lack of advertising of VMS. You've N > > trademarked all the right buzzphrases and HP can't find any good ones left > :-)  > > :-) :-) :-)  >  > I can be bought  ;-)  E Mark Levy has owned openvms.com for many years. Negotiations with (at 2 the time) Compaq were, well, less than motivating.   --   David J. Dachtera  dba DJE Systems  http://www.djesys.com/  ( Unofficial Affordable OpenVMS Home Page: http://www.djesys.com/vms/soho/    ------------------------------  % Date: Sun, 23 May 2004 11:09:54 +0200 , From: "Hans Vlems" <hvlems.dotweg@zonnet.nl> Subject: Re: Blade VAX* Message-ID: <2hb87mFb0nlgU1@uni-berlin.de>  = "Fabio Cardoso" <fabiopenvms@yahoo.com.br> schreef in bericht 7 news:f30679fb.0405221640.39c0f7ba@posting.google.com... > > Would be costly for HP to free the VAX hardware architecture* > to any company develop a VAX like this ? >  > HP bc1000 blade PC >  > W http://h10010.www1.hp.com/wwpc/pscmisc/vac/us/en/sm/desktops/blade/bc1000_overview.html  > 
 > Overview > F > http://h18000.www1.hp.com/products/quickspecs/11903_na/11903_na.HTML >  > 	 > Regards  >  > FC  K Fabio, "hope springs eternally in the human heart" but this is not going to L happen. The design and manufacturing the blade's mainboard is expensive. TheK VAX cpu must be adapted to a new process (I don't think the original plants E still have the old gear) and that is expensive. The components on the L mainboard must be fairly standard. So the VAX is looking at new hardware andL the OS must be adapted for that too I guess. Proprietary and expensive. HeatK may be a problem so the case holding the blades must be checked for airflow  and that's not cheap either.  L Let's face it, HP is not showing any signs of enthousiasm over the ownershipL of VMS. No way they're going to have a third party revive an old design like the VAX.   Hans   ------------------------------  % Date: Sun, 23 May 2004 05:47:25 -0700 # From: "Tom Linden" <tom@kednos.com>  Subject: RE: Blade VAX9 Message-ID: <NDEMLKKEBOIFBMJLCECIKEKJDEAA.tom@kednos.com>   1 You can effectivelyu achieve that by an emulator.      -----Original Message-----3   From: Hans Vlems [mailto:hvlems.dotweg@zonnet.nl] $   Sent: Sunday, May 23, 2004 2:10 AM   To: Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Com    Subject: Re: Blade VAX         ?   "Fabio Cardoso" <fabiopenvms@yahoo.com.br> schreef in bericht 9   news:f30679fb.0405221640.39c0f7ba@posting.google.com... @   > Would be costly for HP to free the VAX hardware architecture,   > to any company develop a VAX like this ?   >    > HP bc1000 blade PC   >    > D   http://h10010.www1.hp.com/wwpc/pscmisc/vac/us/en/sm/desktops/blade   /bc1000_overview.html    >    > Overview   > H   > http://h18000.www1.hp.com/products/quickspecs/11903_na/11903_na.HTML   >    >    > Regards    >    > FC   A   Fabio, "hope springs eternally in the human heart" but this is     not going to@   happen. The design and manufacturing the blade's mainboard is    expensive. The>   VAX cpu must be adapted to a new process (I don't think the    original plants G   still have the old gear) and that is expensive. The components on the B   mainboard must be fairly standard. So the VAX is looking at new    hardware and?   the OS must be adapted for that too I guess. Proprietary and     expensive. Heat B   may be a problem so the case holding the blades must be checked 
   for airflow    and that's not cheap either.   A   Let's face it, HP is not showing any signs of enthousiasm over     the ownership C   of VMS. No way they're going to have a third party revive an old  
   design like 
   the VAX.      Hans         --- (   Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.<   Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).A   Version: 6.0.680 / Virus Database: 442 - Release Date: 5/9/2004     --- & Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.: Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).? Version: 6.0.680 / Virus Database: 442 - Release Date: 5/9/2004    ------------------------------  % Date: Sun, 23 May 2004 15:23:33 +0100 < From: "Alex Daniels" <AlexNOSPAMTHANKSDaniels@themail.co.uk> Subject: Re: Blade VAX) Message-ID: <c8qc3m$p92$1@news.wplus.net>   . "Tom Linden" <tom@kednos.com> wrote in message3 news:NDEMLKKEBOIFBMJLCECIKEKJDEAA.tom@kednos.com... 3 > You can effectivelyu achieve that by an emulator.  >  >   -----Original Message-----5 >   From: Hans Vlems [mailto:hvlems.dotweg@zonnet.nl] & >   Sent: Sunday, May 23, 2004 2:10 AM >   To: Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Com  >   Subject: Re: Blade VAX >  >  > A >   "Fabio Cardoso" <fabiopenvms@yahoo.com.br> schreef in bericht ; >   news:f30679fb.0405221640.39c0f7ba@posting.google.com... B >   > Would be costly for HP to free the VAX hardware architecture. >   > to any company develop a VAX like this ? >   >  >   > HP bc1000 blade PC >   >  >   > F >   http://h10010.www1.hp.com/wwpc/pscmisc/vac/us/en/sm/desktops/blade >   /bc1000_overview.html  >   >  >   > Overview >   > J >   > http://h18000.www1.hp.com/products/quickspecs/11903_na/11903_na.HTML >   >  >   > 
 >   > Regards  >   >  >   > FC > B >   Fabio, "hope springs eternally in the human heart" but this is >   not going toA >   happen. The design and manufacturing the blade's mainboard is  >   expensive. The? >   VAX cpu must be adapted to a new process (I don't think the  >   original plants I >   still have the old gear) and that is expensive. The components on the C >   mainboard must be fairly standard. So the VAX is looking at new  >   hardware and@ >   the OS must be adapted for that too I guess. Proprietary and >   expensive. Heat C >   may be a problem so the case holding the blades must be checked  >   for airflow   >   and that's not cheap either. > B >   Let's face it, HP is not showing any signs of enthousiasm over >   the ownership D >   of VMS. No way they're going to have a third party revive an old >   design like  >   the VAX. >  >   Hans > G Or just get hold of some 4000-VLC's, they are smaller than your average 
 blade too.   Alex   ------------------------------  % Date: Sun, 23 May 2004 09:26:12 -0600  From: "E.S." <emu@ecubics.com> Subject: Re: Blade VAX7 Message-ID: <Xk3sc.4418$zs2.2898@fe39.usenetserver.com>    Fabio Cardoso wrote:> > Would be costly for HP to free the VAX hardware architecture* > to any company develop a VAX like this ? >  > HP bc1000 blade PC  Y > http://h10010.www1.hp.com/wwpc/pscmisc/vac/us/en/sm/desktops/blade/bc1000_overview.html 
 > OverviewF > http://h18000.www1.hp.com/products/quickspecs/11903_na/11903_na.HTML  E Just use an VAX emulator. Runs actually pretty well on transmetas ...    ------------------------------  # Date: Sun, 23 May 2004 16:12:27 GMT , From: "Dave Gudewicz" <k9jdk@NOSPAMarrl.net> Subject: Re: Blade VAX/ Message-ID: <L34sc.10892$hi6.1109598@attbi_s53>   ? I agree with the emulator for VAX, if needing VAX is necessary.    Dave...   ) "E.S." <emu@ecubics.com> wrote in message 1 news:Xk3sc.4418$zs2.2898@fe39.usenetserver.com...  > Fabio Cardoso wrote:@ > > Would be costly for HP to free the VAX hardware architecture, > > to any company develop a VAX like this ? > >  > > HP bc1000 blade PC > > W http://h10010.www1.hp.com/wwpc/pscmisc/vac/us/en/sm/desktops/blade/bc1000_overview.html  > > OverviewH > > http://h18000.www1.hp.com/products/quickspecs/11903_na/11903_na.HTML > G > Just use an VAX emulator. Runs actually pretty well on transmetas ...  >  >    ------------------------------  % Date: Sun, 23 May 2004 13:26:32 -0400 2 From: "Stanley F. Quayle" <squayle@insight.rr.com> Subject: Re: Blade VAX/ Message-ID: <40B0A688.27740.1A9FF2EA@localhost>   - On 23 May 2004 at 16:12, Dave Gudewicz wrote: A > I agree with the emulator for VAX, if needing VAX is necessary.   ? I agree, too.  Of course, I sell CHARON-VAX, which is the only   commercial VAX emulator...  7 [Another Shameless Plug (tm) by Quayle Consulting Inc.]   / More details at http://www.stanq.com/charon-vax   
 --Stan Quayle  Quayle Consulting Inc.  
 ----------- Stanley F. Quayle, P.E. N8SQ  +1 614-868-1363 3 8572 North Spring Ct., Pickerington, OH  43147  USA 0 stan-at-stanq-dot-com       http://www.stanq.com   ------------------------------  % Date: Sun, 23 May 2004 10:32:39 -0700 # From: "Tom Linden" <tom@kednos.com>  Subject: RE: Blade VAX9 Message-ID: <NDEMLKKEBOIFBMJLCECIMEKODEAA.tom@kednos.com>   D In a way it has nothing to do with needing VAX, per se, the original questionK was about OpenVMS on a Blade and using the emulator is a way to do it.  VAX + becomes somewhat transparent in this sense.      -----Original Message-----3   From: Dave Gudewicz [mailto:k9jdk@NOSPAMarrl.net] $   Sent: Sunday, May 23, 2004 9:12 AM   To: Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Com    Subject: Re: Blade VAX    A   I agree with the emulator for VAX, if needing VAX is necessary.   	   Dave...   +   "E.S." <emu@ecubics.com> wrote in message 3   news:Xk3sc.4418$zs2.2898@fe39.usenetserver.com...    > Fabio Cardoso wrote:B   > > Would be costly for HP to free the VAX hardware architecture.   > > to any company develop a VAX like this ?   > >    > > HP bc1000 blade PC   > > D   http://h10010.www1.hp.com/wwpc/pscmisc/vac/us/en/sm/desktops/blade /bc1000_overview.html  > > OverviewH > > http://h18000.www1.hp.com/products/quickspecs/11903_na/11903_na.HTML > G > Just use an VAX emulator. Runs actually pretty well on transmetas ...  >  >      --- & Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.: Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).? Version: 6.0.680 / Virus Database: 442 - Release Date: 5/9/2004    --- & Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.: Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).? Version: 6.0.680 / Virus Database: 442 - Release Date: 5/9/2004    ------------------------------  # Date: Sun, 23 May 2004 17:22:55 GMT - From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com>  Subject: Re: Blade VAX@ Message-ID: <09c2b1a1acde254b5f56b23753552776@news.teranews.com>  @ > > Would be costly for HP to free the VAX hardware architecture, > > to any company develop a VAX like this ?    E The whole "blade" concept is due to Window's inability to scale, thus L requiring tens of thousands of independant PCs (as is the case of Google) toI perform what is needed. In such cases, you really do need "miniature" PCs N because space is a problem. You'll also note that blades cannot use the latestL and greatest intel chips due to power and heat issues. (And Google can't useJ that IA64 thing because it would put california into a blackout the secondP they switch their units on and perhaps significantly increase global warming :-)  M For VMS, you are far better off having fewer but more powerful machines since I VMS is perfect;y capable of running multiple applications in the same VMS 1 instance. And it eases system management greatly.    ------------------------------  # Date: Sun, 23 May 2004 17:43:51 GMT , From: "Dave Gudewicz" <k9jdk@NOSPAMarrl.net> Subject: Re: Blade VAX0 Message-ID: <rp5sc.100325$iF6.9314561@attbi_s02>  L The original question has the word VAX in it twice.  Thus the VAX responses.  . "Tom Linden" <tom@kednos.com> wrote in message3 news:NDEMLKKEBOIFBMJLCECIMEKODEAA.tom@kednos.com... F > In a way it has nothing to do with needing VAX, per se, the original
 > questionH > was about OpenVMS on a Blade and using the emulator is a way to do it. VAX - > becomes somewhat transparent in this sense.  >  >   -----Original Message-----5 >   From: Dave Gudewicz [mailto:k9jdk@NOSPAMarrl.net] & >   Sent: Sunday, May 23, 2004 9:12 AM >   To: Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Com  >   Subject: Re: Blade VAX >  > C >   I agree with the emulator for VAX, if needing VAX is necessary.  >  >   Dave...  > - >   "E.S." <emu@ecubics.com> wrote in message 5 >   news:Xk3sc.4418$zs2.2898@fe39.usenetserver.com...  >   > Fabio Cardoso wrote:D >   > > Would be costly for HP to free the VAX hardware architecture0 >   > > to any company develop a VAX like this ? >   > >  >   > > HP bc1000 blade PC >   > > F >   http://h10010.www1.hp.com/wwpc/pscmisc/vac/us/en/sm/desktops/blade > /bc1000_overview.html  > > > OverviewJ > > > http://h18000.www1.hp.com/products/quickspecs/11903_na/11903_na.HTML > > I > > Just use an VAX emulator. Runs actually pretty well on transmetas ...  > >  > >  >  >  > --- ( > Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.< > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).A > Version: 6.0.680 / Virus Database: 442 - Release Date: 5/9/2004  >  > --- ( > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.< > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).A > Version: 6.0.680 / Virus Database: 442 - Release Date: 5/9/2004  >    ------------------------------  % Date: Sun, 23 May 2004 08:27:51 +0200 * From: Paul Sture <nospam@sture.homeip.net>A Subject: Re: CDE - redirecting complete desktop to another system * Message-ID: <2hauj8Fagih2U1@uni-berlin.de>   Tony Arnold wrote: > Paul,  >  > Paul Sture wrote:  > I >> It's been many years since I did this, but I'm trying to create a CDE  , >> desktop on another system (running OS X). >>- >> I can create a single DECterm session via:  >>3 >> $ set display /create /transport=tcpip /node=mac  >> $ create/term >>$ >> However, when I do the following: >>3 >> $ set display /create /transport=tcpip /node=mac 2 >> $ @sys$common:[cde$defaults.system.bin]xsession >>H >> It simply creates the normal number of DECterm sessions for the user G >> I'mm running with, whereas what I  am trying to do is to create the  4 >> complete desktop, starting with the login screen. >  > K > You could try using XDM which is now supported. There are some files you  G > need to create/edit in sys$specific:[tcpip$xdm] to allow access, but  J > once this is done you just need to start X on your PC with an XDM query C > to your VMS system. The setup needed is well documented and very   > straight forward.  > K > Having said this you may want to see my previous post with response from  , > Martin Kirby on a bug to do with security. >   @ I recall the recent XDM discussion. I'll dig it up again thanks.   ------------------------------  % Date: Sun, 23 May 2004 11:13:13 +0200 , From: "Hans Vlems" <hvlems.dotweg@zonnet.nl>  Subject: Re: Dave Cutler and VMS* Message-ID: <2hb8dtFadvcbU1@uni-berlin.de>   > G > I had always wanted to try taking two CPU's from a spare 8350 and put E > them into another 8350 for a total of four CPU's and see what would H > happen.  Unfortunately, when I had access to that many 82xx CPU cards,H > VMS V5.0 was not available.  By the time VMS V5.0 came out, I was at aG > different job and did not have to ability to perform that experiment. H > Performance would have been lousy on the BI bus but it would have been > an interesting machine.   L IIRC that experiment was done though I cannot remember where nor by whom....   ------------------------------  % Date: Sun, 23 May 2004 22:15:11 +0800 , From: Paul Repacholi <prep@prep.synonet.com>  Subject: Re: Dave Cutler and VMS- Message-ID: <87vfin6xhs.fsf@prep.synonet.com>   6 "Roert G. Schaffrath" <rschaffrath@yahoo.com> writes:   > Hans Vlems wrote:   F >> The first MP VAX being the 11/782? The first "good" MP one the 8350@ >> or the 62n0 series?  The reason that the later models behavedA >> better was due to the fact that until VMS V5.0 one cpu was the F >> primary cpu, and handled all IO's?  Lots of questions I know but ifD >> you'd care to elaborate somewhat... I remember upgrading from VMSF >> V4.7 on an 8350 without the multi cpu license to V5.0 that had dualD >> cpu support and was quite impressed with the scaling at the time.  C > I had always wanted to try taking two CPU's from a spare 8350 and C > put them into another 8350 for a total of four CPU's and see what C > would happen.  Unfortunately, when I had access to that many 82xx C > CPU cards, VMS V5.0 was not available.  By the time VMS V5.0 came F > out, I was at a different job and did not have to ability to performC > that experiment.  Performance would have been lousy on the BI bus 0 > but it would have been an interesting machine.  B The Vax arch included the ASTLVL register for dispatching the CPU.D Seemed a good idea, but how do you distribute it over multiple CPUs?E It is a corner stone o fhe VMS design (or was then) so getting rid of E it was a big step. Also the lessions of the 782/784 and the 11/74 and = TRAX had to be included. The result was a total overhaul with @ spinlocks everywhere and a laid down precedence order for them.   B ALso, the 78x MP systems had an IO system per CPU, the later VaxenA and Alphas where common bus machines with all CPUs able to get to + all IO. Another big overhaul to go through.    --  < Paul Repacholi                               1 Crescent Rd.,7 +61 (08) 9257-1001                           Kalamunda. @                                              West Australia 6076* comp.os.vms,- The Older, Grumpier Slashdot. Raw, Cooked or Well-done, it's all half baked.F EPIC, The Architecture of the future, always has been, always will be.   ------------------------------  # Date: Sun, 23 May 2004 15:21:36 GMT 2 From: Bob Willard <BobwBSGS@TrashThis.comcast.net>  Subject: Re: Dave Cutler and VMS/ Message-ID: <4k3sc.16339$JC5.1457137@attbi_s54>    Hans Vlems wrote: C > "Bob Willard" <BobwBSGS@TrashThis.comcast.net> schreef in bericht ( > news:gXHrc.22492$zw.16951@attbi_s01... >  >>Steve Lionel wrote:  >> >>G >>>Cutler left VMS in 1980 before version 2.0 was released, and was not  > 	 > further  > ( >>>involved with the VMS OS development. >>>  >>>Steve >>G >>While not part of the VMS group after ~1980, Dave did have some later ? >>and substantial influence on VMS when he was running DEC-West  >>(ZSO, a/k/a DecWet). >>L >>When some of us were campaigning to get VMS to support SMP instead of AMP,L >>Dick H. was adamantly opposed.  Dave took a (huge) pile of VMS listings toK >>his office in ZSO, marked them up with changes needed to support SMP, and J >>had them delivered to ZKO to prove that SMP was feasible with VMS.  I doJ >>not know how much of Dave's changes were actually incorporated into VMS, >  > but  > K >>the SMP version of VMS was extremely valuable to DEC and, IMHO, would not F >>have happened (or not in time for the VAX 6K) without Dave's effort. >>H >>More opinion:  in the Hustvedt-dominated environment of the early-80'sI >>VMS group, it was not fashionable to give credit to Cutler or, in fact, E >>to any non-VMS person for contributions to VMS.  So, even if Dave's  > 	 > changes  > J >>to support SMP were used in toto, they may bear some initials other thanK >>DNC.  While Dick H. and Dave C. were both extraordinary technical people, I >>their deep disagreement on VMS issues was well-known and was one of the I >>reasons that Dave left VMS:  Dave pointed out that the Seattle area was 2 >>about as far as he could get from the VMS group. >>K >>Caveat:  I was never part of the VMS group.  I was significantly involved I >>in the first MP VAX and the first good MP VAX; yeah, I know, those were  >>different VAXen. >>--  
 >>Cheers, Bob  >> > L > The first MP VAX being the 11/782? The first "good" MP one the 8350 or the > 62n0 series?J > The reason that the later models behaved better was due to the fact that > until VMS V5.0 one0 > cpu was the primary cpu, and handled all IO's?G > Lots of questions I know but if you'd care to elaborate somewhat... I  > remember upgradingN > from VMS V4.7 on an 8350 without the multi cpu license to V5.0 that had dual
 > cpu support 7 > and was quite impressed with the scaling at the time.  >  > Hans  G Yep, the VAX 11/782 (Code-named Atlas IIRC) was the first MP VAX; not a G great design, and probably would have never been done if the 11/790 had F not been woefully behind schedule.  I count the 8300 as the first goodG MP VAX:  the 8800 and the 8300 were introduced on the same day, but the J 8300 was ready first, and its intro was delayed a couple of months to haveG a grand marketing splash with several new VAXen.  The 8250/8350 was the 9 8200/8300 with a 25% faster CPU clock; same architecture.   J The 83x0 and 88x0 systems all shipped initially with AMP.  SMP came later,F and was first shipped on the 62x0 systems.  SMP was mostly debugged onE 8250/8350 systems, and on the (never-shipped) tri-CPU 8370 and on the 6 (never-got-officially-numbered) quad-CPU 83x0 systems. --   Cheers, Bob    ------------------------------  # Date: Sun, 23 May 2004 15:38:09 GMT 2 From: Bob Willard <BobwBSGS@TrashThis.comcast.net>  Subject: Re: Dave Cutler and VMS/ Message-ID: <Bz3sc.16428$JC5.1462879@attbi_s54>    Roert G. Schaffrath wrote:    > Hans Vlems wrote:  > C >>"Bob Willard" <BobwBSGS@TrashThis.comcast.net> schreef in bericht ( >>news:gXHrc.22492$zw.16951@attbi_s01... >> >>>Steve Lionel wrote: >>>  >>> H >>>>Cutler left VMS in 1980 before version 2.0 was released, and was not >>	 >>further  >>) >>>>involved with the VMS OS development.  >>>>	 >>>>Steve  >>> H >>>While not part of the VMS group after ~1980, Dave did have some later@ >>>and substantial influence on VMS when he was running DEC-West >>>(ZSO, a/k/a DecWet).  >>> M >>>When some of us were campaigning to get VMS to support SMP instead of AMP, M >>>Dick H. was adamantly opposed.  Dave took a (huge) pile of VMS listings to L >>>his office in ZSO, marked them up with changes needed to support SMP, andK >>>had them delivered to ZKO to prove that SMP was feasible with VMS.  I do K >>>not know how much of Dave's changes were actually incorporated into VMS,  >> >>but  >>L >>>the SMP version of VMS was extremely valuable to DEC and, IMHO, would notG >>>have happened (or not in time for the VAX 6K) without Dave's effort.  >>> I >>>More opinion:  in the Hustvedt-dominated environment of the early-80's J >>>VMS group, it was not fashionable to give credit to Cutler or, in fact,F >>>to any non-VMS person for contributions to VMS.  So, even if Dave's >>	 >>changes  >>K >>>to support SMP were used in toto, they may bear some initials other than L >>>DNC.  While Dick H. and Dave C. were both extraordinary technical people,J >>>their deep disagreement on VMS issues was well-known and was one of theJ >>>reasons that Dave left VMS:  Dave pointed out that the Seattle area was3 >>>about as far as he could get from the VMS group.  >>> L >>>Caveat:  I was never part of the VMS group.  I was significantly involvedJ >>>in the first MP VAX and the first good MP VAX; yeah, I know, those were >>>different VAXen.  >>>--  >>>Cheers, Bob >>>  >>L >>The first MP VAX being the 11/782? The first "good" MP one the 8350 or the >>62n0 series?J >>The reason that the later models behaved better was due to the fact that >>until VMS V5.0 one0 >>cpu was the primary cpu, and handled all IO's?G >>Lots of questions I know but if you'd care to elaborate somewhat... I  >>remember upgradingN >>from VMS V4.7 on an 8350 without the multi cpu license to V5.0 that had dual
 >>cpu support 7 >>and was quite impressed with the scaling at the time.  >> >>Hans >  > G > I had always wanted to try taking two CPU's from a spare 8350 and put E > them into another 8350 for a total of four CPU's and see what would H > happen.  Unfortunately, when I had access to that many 82xx CPU cards,H > VMS V5.0 was not available.  By the time VMS V5.0 came out, I was at aH > different job and did not have to ability to perform that experiment. H > Performance would have been lousy on the BI bus but it would have been > an interesting machine.   F A quad-CPU 82x0 (or, maybe, 83x0) system was in (informal?) field testG at one point, but it was unreliable during boot-up due to a livelock on K the BI bus.  IIRC, when that system was booted as a mono-CPU system and the I other CPUs subsequently started, the livelock was not observed.  However, G the latent risk of real customers hitting the livelock with normal code F led to the decision to not support more than two CPUs on 83x0 systems.7 The BI bus livelock could occur with either AMP or SMP.   J A method to program around the BI bus livelock was shown to the VMS group,K but it was rejected for the stated reason of being too complicated.  Didn't 6 seem that complex to me, but I was undoubtedly biased. --   Cheers, Bob    ------------------------------  # Date: Sun, 23 May 2004 15:53:16 GMT 2 From: Bob Willard <BobwBSGS@TrashThis.comcast.net>  Subject: Re: Dave Cutler and VMS+ Message-ID: <MN3sc.26563$zw.8806@attbi_s01>    JF Mezei wrote:   E > Can someone post an authoritative answer to the following question:  > % > What exactly did Cutler do to VMS ?  > M > In other words, from the baggage he brought with him to Microsoft, how much L > was *his* and how much was just stuff he learned during the time he worked > with other engineers on VMS ?  > O > At exactly what version of VMS did Cutler start and end his VMS involvement ?  > N > I am a bit tired of seeing this one individual portrayed as some form of god= > without knowing any of the specifics of what he did to VMS.   H In addition to all of the software for which Dave is properly and highlyG regarded, he and his DecWest gang also created the first uVAX:  uVAX-I,  a ~0.3 VUP VAX.   F Dave's opinion of the VMS gang and what he saw as DecEast politics wasJ certainly not improved by the fact that DecWest had a stable and shippable2 uVAX for roughly a year before it had VMS support.  K    {I ran a uVAX-I under VMS v3.x in my house for years before I gave in to F     the household inevitable, in the form of a 486/33 under Win v3.1.} --   Cheers, Bob    ------------------------------  # Date: Sun, 23 May 2004 16:47:30 GMT & From: John Reagan <john.reagan@hp.com>  Subject: Re: Dave Cutler and VMS1 Message-ID: <CA4sc.2098$BB7.710@news.cpqcorp.net>    Steve Lionel wrote:    > O > I should know this. But it's been so long.  I can't remember if VAXELN Pascal P > was a port of VAX Pascal or if it was a separate implementation.  I'm inclinedH > to say it was a port because I know it used a port of my VAX Pascal V24 > run-time library.  But I can't be certain of this.  I No VAXELN Pascal was not a port of VAX Pascal.  Cutler and McLaren would  H probably rather eat glass.  Like all the other Cutler compilers, VAXELN  Pascal was VCG-based.   E For a period of time, the VAXELN Pascal compiler was supported by me  G (and others on the Pascal team at the time) since it was "Pascal", but  / the compilers had absolutely nothing in common.      --   John Reagan / HP Pascal/{A|I}MACRO for OpenVMS Project Leader  Hewlett-Packard Company    ------------------------------  % Date: Sun, 23 May 2004 19:41:46 +0200  From:  neale.hunt@hispeed.ch* Subject: Re: Reboot forces Shadowset Merge) Message-ID: <c8qnop$j0f$1@newshispeed.ch>   I Ye it does rely on the bit maps, but if the you dismount the mscp served  K disks from the node not being booted the you get a mini merge after reboot.   
   -- Neale   David J. Dachtera wrote: > Rob Brooks wrote:  > D >>"David J. Dachtera" <djesys.nospam@NeOaSrPtAhMlNiOnWk.net> writes: >> >>>Neale Hunt wrote: >>> 0 >>>>Actually it's not as difficult as it sounds. >>>>K >>>>You simply dismount one (or more if you have more that 2 members of the = >>>>shadow set) from one of the other cluster nodes using the  >>>>/policy=minicopy option. >>> K >>>Assumes that HSx controllers are at the root of the storage architecture H >>>and that the controllers and the host o.s. version support it. A very& >>>limited subset of what's out there. >>+ >>Huh?  Minicopy is controller-independent.  >  > I > Quite right - I WAS thinking "mini-merge", since that was more germaine  > to the o.p.'s query. > I > That said, does not mini-copy depend on the write bitmaps which are, of G > course, destroyed upon reboot? (The o.p. was asking about rebooting a > > node that might be the MSCP server for a shadow-set member.) >    ------------------------------  % Date: Sun, 23 May 2004 11:30:41 +0100 ) From: Tony Arnold <tony.arnold@man.ac.uk>  Subject: Re: ssh on TCP/IP 5.4@ Message-ID: <40b07d52$0$25318$cc9e4d1f@news-text.dial.pipex.com>    Peter 'EPLAN' LANGSTOEGER wrote:  + >>I have applied the ECO-1 patch to TCP/IP.  >  > + > V5.4 ECO 1 ? Haven't tried it yet. Sorry.   + Just to be clear, the patch kit is called:  % DEC-AXPVMS-TCPIP_ECO-V0504-151-4.PCSI   7 Not sure if that should really be referred to as ECO-1!    Tony.  --  F Tony Arnold, Deputy to the Head of COS Division, Manchester Computing,: University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester M13 9PL.F T: +44 (0)161 275 6093, F: +44 (0)870 136 1004, M: +44 (0)773 330 0039E E-mail: tony.arnold@man.ac.uk, Home: http://www.man.ac.uk/Tony.Arnold    ------------------------------  + Date: Sun, 23 May 2004 17:16:24 +0000 (UTC) 6 From: peter@langstoeger.at (Peter 'EPLAN' LANGSTOEGER) Subject: Re: ssh on TCP/IP 5.41 Message-ID: <newscache$xrf6yh$gl11$1@news.sil.at>   l In article <40b07d52$0$25318$cc9e4d1f@news-text.dial.pipex.com>, Tony Arnold <tony.arnold@man.ac.uk> writes:! >Peter 'EPLAN' LANGSTOEGER wrote: , >> V5.4 ECO 1 ? Haven't tried it yet. Sorry. > , >Just to be clear, the patch kit is called: & >DEC-AXPVMS-TCPIP_ECO-V0504-151-4.PCSI > 8 >Not sure if that should really be referred to as ECO-1!  B It should. TCPIP V5.4-15 is the base version (calling itself V5.4)B and V5.4-151 is the first TCPIP_ECO (calling itself V5.4 - ECO 1).   --   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: Sun, 23 May 2004 09:46:31 +0200 * From: Paul Sture <nospam@sture.homeip.net>4 Subject: Re: [OpenVMS VAX V7.3] OPC$LOGFILE_ENABLE ?* Message-ID: <2hb36pF9pbrrU1@uni-berlin.de>    Peter 'EPLAN' LANGSTOEGER wrote:Y > In article <2h8g75Fa6gmjU1@uni-berlin.de>, Paul Sture <nospam@sture.homeip.net> writes:  > " >>Peter 'EPLAN' LANGSTOEGER wrote: >>B >>>I just found in my SYSTARTUP_VMS.COM the following lines again: >>> Q >>>$       IF node .EQS. "MECHTA"  !OPC$LOGFILE_ENABLE doesn't work, sad isn't it  >>>$       THEN ' >>>$           DEFINE SYS$COMMAND OPA0:  >>>$           REPLY/ENABLE  >>>$           REPLY/LOG >>>$           REPLY/DISABLE# >>>$           DEASSIGN SYS$COMMAND  >>>$       ENDIF >>> L >>>Before starting to find out if things got better (btw OPC$LOGFILE_CLASSES@ >>>_are_ honored) I ask here. Do you have similiar experiences ? >> >>Are you hitting this?  >>) >>From SYLOGICALS.TEMPLATE (Alpha V7.3-1)  >  > 0 > Remember, we're talking about OpenVMS VAX V7.3 >   I OK, I've fired up VAX 7.3 (courtesy of SIMH), and I see the same wording  -   there. Does your SYLOGICALS.TEMPLATE agree?    > ( >>! By default, the operator states are: >>$!> >>$! For all systems except workstations in a OpenVMS Cluster: >>$!+ >>$!      OPA0: is enabled for all classes. J >>$!      The log file SYS$MANAGER:OPERATOR.LOG is opened for all classes. >>$!+ >>$! For workstations in a OpenVMS Cluster:  >>$!     ^^^^^^^^^^^^  >>$!  >>$!      OPA0: is not enabled.*  >>$!      No log file is opened. >>$!D >>$!      * OPA0: will be also be SET TERMINAL/PERMANENT/NOBROADCAST >>$!J >>$! To override the default enabled classes, define the following /SYSTEM >>$! logical names.  >>$! >>J >>And I know I've managed to get caught out in the past by forgetting the  >>/SYSTEM qualifier... >  > L > No, as I wrote, OPC$LOGFILE_ENABLE doesn't work here, though it is definedE > in SYLOGICALS.COM (and indeed MECHTA is a VAXstation in a cluster).  > " > $ sh log/full OPC$LOGFILE_ENABLE< >    "OPC$LOGFILE_ENABLE" [exec] = "TRUE" (LNM$SYSTEM_TABLE) >   0 OK, let's go back to a thread here from May 2000   http://tinyurl.com/2o8cl  F where I was pointing out exactly this behaviour on Alpha workstations C (starting with V6.2). Looking back it may have been present on VAX  D workstations too, although I only had access to headless VAXen then.  H If you look at Hoff's response he promised that given time he'd improve % the OPC$ documentation in SYLOGICALS.   D I see the dates on my VAX V7.3 system disk indicate a build date of 5 2-APR-2001, so it appears he did fulfill his promise.   @ Hoff also indicated that he was endeavouring to make startup DCLH platform-neutral. Maybe the problem was already there on VAX, or making = the code platform-neutral introduced the problem for VAX. ???    ------------------------------  + Date: Sun, 23 May 2004 09:52:59 +0000 (UTC) 6 From: peter@langstoeger.at (Peter 'EPLAN' LANGSTOEGER)4 Subject: Re: [OpenVMS VAX V7.3] OPC$LOGFILE_ENABLE ?0 Message-ID: <newscache$x8v5yh$nsv$1@news.sil.at>  W In article <2hb36pF9pbrrU1@uni-berlin.de>, Paul Sture <nospam@sture.homeip.net> writes: ! >Peter 'EPLAN' LANGSTOEGER wrote: Z >> In article <2h8g75Fa6gmjU1@uni-berlin.de>, Paul Sture <nospam@sture.homeip.net> writes:# >>>Peter 'EPLAN' LANGSTOEGER wrote: C >>>>I just found in my SYSTARTUP_VMS.COM the following lines again:  >>>>R >>>>$       IF node .EQS. "MECHTA"  !OPC$LOGFILE_ENABLE doesn't work, sad isn't it >>>>$       THEN( >>>>$           DEFINE SYS$COMMAND OPA0: >>>>$           REPLY/ENABLE >>>>$           REPLY/LOG  >>>>$           REPLY/DISABLE $ >>>>$           DEASSIGN SYS$COMMAND >>>>$       ENDIF  >>>>M >>>>Before starting to find out if things got better (btw OPC$LOGFILE_CLASSES A >>>>_are_ honored) I ask here. Do you have similiar experiences ?  >>>  >>>Are you hitting this? >>> * >>>From SYLOGICALS.TEMPLATE (Alpha V7.3-1) >>  1 >> Remember, we're talking about OpenVMS VAX V7.3  > J >OK, I've fired up VAX 7.3 (courtesy of SIMH), and I see the same wording . >  there. Does your SYLOGICALS.TEMPLATE agree?  I Ok. I rechecked the .TEMPLATE (after some years/versions) and it explains E that defining OPC$LOGFILE_ENABLE can be used to overwrite the default G behaviour of not opening one on cluster workstations. But in fact, this L doesn't work here. So I did the creation of the logfile in SYSTARTUP_VMS.COM  1 >OK, let's go back to a thread here from May 2000  >  >http://tinyurl.com/2o8cl  > G >where I was pointing out exactly this behaviour on Alpha workstations  D >(starting with V6.2). Looking back it may have been present on VAX E >workstations too, although I only had access to headless VAXen then.   B Thanks for the URL. I did read the thread at this time (and postedD but unrelated to OPC$*) but it was/is not really clear if the bug isD in VMS or more commonly at the user/managers site. Now after reading% it again, it seems the bug is in VMS.   I >If you look at Hoff's response he promised that given time he'd improve  & >the OPC$ documentation in SYLOGICALS. > E >I see the dates on my VAX V7.3 system disk indicate a build date of  6 >2-APR-2001, so it appears he did fulfill his promise.  D I don't see a problem with the .TEMPLATE or the explaination within., It all sounds perfectly logical, but alas...  A >Hoff also indicated that he was endeavouring to make startup DCL I >platform-neutral. Maybe the problem was already there on VAX, or making  > >the code platform-neutral introduced the problem for VAX. ???  B At least, you state here that there is a bug in VMS OPCOM handlingB as I'm not alone seeing this. And Richard GILBERT 4 years ago alsoJ stated that problems are in this OPCOM logic (though he meant the operatorG terminal and not the logfile). As you wrote, it seems, that the logical > went out of DCL but weren't (completely) included in OPCOM.EXE  H So, let me rephrase: Do all of you with clustered 'workstations' wanting. an operator logfile there create it manually ?    E In the meantime, my environment changed (my VAX is now standalone and ? my Alpha is now in cluster) so I have to dig into it obviously.    --   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: Sun, 23 May 2004 17:08:18 +0200 * From: Paul Sture <nospam@sture.homeip.net>4 Subject: Re: [OpenVMS VAX V7.3] OPC$LOGFILE_ENABLE ?* Message-ID: <2hbt33Fb6jcvU1@uni-berlin.de>    Peter 'EPLAN' LANGSTOEGER wrote:Y > In article <2hb36pF9pbrrU1@uni-berlin.de>, Paul Sture <nospam@sture.homeip.net> writes:  > " >>Peter 'EPLAN' LANGSTOEGER wrote: >>Z >>>In article <2h8g75Fa6gmjU1@uni-berlin.de>, Paul Sture <nospam@sture.homeip.net> writes: >>> $ >>>>Peter 'EPLAN' LANGSTOEGER wrote: >>>>D >>>>>I just found in my SYSTARTUP_VMS.COM the following lines again: >>>>> S >>>>>$       IF node .EQS. "MECHTA"  !OPC$LOGFILE_ENABLE doesn't work, sad isn't it  >>>>>$       THEN ) >>>>>$           DEFINE SYS$COMMAND OPA0:  >>>>>$           REPLY/ENABLE  >>>>>$           REPLY/LOG >>>>>$           REPLY/DISABLE% >>>>>$           DEASSIGN SYS$COMMAND  >>>>>$       ENDIF >>>>> N >>>>>Before starting to find out if things got better (btw OPC$LOGFILE_CLASSESB >>>>>_are_ honored) I ask here. Do you have similiar experiences ? >>>> >>>>Are you hitting this?  >>>> >>> + >>>>From SYLOGICALS.TEMPLATE (Alpha V7.3-1)  >>> 1 >>>Remember, we're talking about OpenVMS VAX V7.3  >>K >>OK, I've fired up VAX 7.3 (courtesy of SIMH), and I see the same wording  . >> there. Does your SYLOGICALS.TEMPLATE agree? >  > K > Ok. I rechecked the .TEMPLATE (after some years/versions) and it explains G > that defining OPC$LOGFILE_ENABLE can be used to overwrite the default I > behaviour of not opening one on cluster workstations. But in fact, this N > doesn't work here. So I did the creation of the logfile in SYSTARTUP_VMS.COM >  > 2 >>OK, let's go back to a thread here from May 2000 >> >>http://tinyurl.com/2o8cl >>H >>where I was pointing out exactly this behaviour on Alpha workstations E >>(starting with V6.2). Looking back it may have been present on VAX  F >>workstations too, although I only had access to headless VAXen then. >  > D > Thanks for the URL. I did read the thread at this time (and postedF > but unrelated to OPC$*) but it was/is not really clear if the bug isF > in VMS or more commonly at the user/managers site. Now after reading' > it again, it seems the bug is in VMS.  >  > J >>If you look at Hoff's response he promised that given time he'd improve ' >>the OPC$ documentation in SYLOGICALS.  >>F >>I see the dates on my VAX V7.3 system disk indicate a build date of 7 >>2-APR-2001, so it appears he did fulfill his promise.  >  > F > I don't see a problem with the .TEMPLATE or the explaination within.. > It all sounds perfectly logical, but alas... >  > B >>Hoff also indicated that he was endeavouring to make startup DCLJ >>platform-neutral. Maybe the problem was already there on VAX, or making ? >>the code platform-neutral introduced the problem for VAX. ???  >  > D > At least, you state here that there is a bug in VMS OPCOM handlingD > as I'm not alone seeing this. And Richard GILBERT 4 years ago alsoL > stated that problems are in this OPCOM logic (though he meant the operatorI > terminal and not the logfile). As you wrote, it seems, that the logical @ > went out of DCL but weren't (completely) included in OPCOM.EXE >   H I'm pretty sure this bug was still there for 7.3 on Alpha, as after the E thread quoted I remember being disappointed it wasn't fixed with the  F next release. Unfortunately the log files on my home system just fall D short of reaching back to before i moved to 7.3-1 so I only have my  memory to go on there :-(.  J > So, let me rephrase: Do all of you with clustered 'workstations' wanting0 > an operator logfile there create it manually ? >   E Where 'workstation' appears to be defined by having a graphics head,  5 even if it was a 4100 with multiple CPUs and 4GB RAM.   F I've not seen this problem was since upgrading to V7.3-1 (Alpha only).   > G > In the meantime, my environment changed (my VAX is now standalone and A > my Alpha is now in cluster) so I have to dig into it obviously.  >     Hope it's not too much 'fun' :-)   --  H The beauty of mechanical problems is that they are often visible to the E naked and untrained eye. If white smoke is rising from a disk drive,  I that is probably where the problem lies (unless your disk drive has just  " elected the new Pope). (John Bear)   ------------------------------   End of INFO-VAX 2004.285 ************************