1 INFO-VAX	Sat, 10 Dec 2005	Volume 2005 : Issue 687       Contents: Re: DFG (Defrag) - OpenVMS Re: DFG (Defrag) - OpenVMS6 Re: Extreme backup slowdown after ECO updates (V7.3-1)/ Re: HP : Massive strike and protest march today  Re: HP's 4Q FY05 results Re: INSTALLing images  Re: INSTALLing images  Re: INSTALLing images " Re: M e z e i kooks out again....." Re: M e z e i kooks out again....." Re: saving recovery data with PCSI  F ----------------------------------------------------------------------    Date: 10 Dec 2005 08:31:46 -0800 From: bob@instantwhip.com # Subject: Re: DFG (Defrag) - OpenVMS C Message-ID: <1134232305.960338.203770@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>   A we run perfectdisk from Raxco and have never seen that before ...    ------------------------------    Date: 10 Dec 2005 19:22:39 +01006 From: peter@langstoeger.at (Peter 'EPLAN' LANGSTOEGER)# Subject: Re: DFG (Defrag) - OpenVMS , Message-ID: <439b2aff$1@news.langstoeger.at>  _ In article <1134232305.960338.203770@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, bob@instantwhip.com writes: B >we run perfectdisk from Raxco and have never seen that before ...  4 I also haven't seen perfectdisk from Raxco so far...   ;-)    --   Peter "EPLAN" LANGSTOEGER % Network and OpenVMS system specialist  E-mail  peter@langstoeger.atF A-1030 VIENNA  AUSTRIA              I'm not a pessimist, I'm a realist   ------------------------------    Date: 10 Dec 2005 02:50:54 -0800, From: "rcyoung" <rcyoung@aliconsultants.com>? Subject: Re: Extreme backup slowdown after ECO updates (V7.3-1) C Message-ID: <1134211853.925156.302070@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>   G Doubtful that it will make any difference, but have you done an autogen D after the EOCs were installed? Just a long shot, but there have been
 times.....   ------------------------------    Date: 10 Dec 2005 08:41:57 -0800$ From: "AEF" <spamsink2001@yahoo.com>8 Subject: Re: HP : Massive strike and protest march todayC Message-ID: <1134232917.678051.232770@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>   
 Lurker wrote: 1 > "AEF" <spamsink2001@yahoo.com> wrote in message ? > news:1134183608.704584.135690@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...  > >  > > Lurker wrote: E > > > "David J Dachtera" <djesys.nospam@comcast.net> wrote in message + > > > news:4397A2A3.1A9C358A@comcast.net...  > > > > AEF wrote:@ > > > > > So threatening to do an illegal strike is negotiating? > > > > N > > > > Try to grasp this: when negotiating fails, methods of last resort comeI > > > > into play, illegal/unconstitutional legislation not withstanding.  > > > E > > > So, according to your logic, if a man tries to "negotiate" with A > > > a woman and she flatly refuses, it's alright to rape her as C > > > "methods of last resort come into play". Or at least threaten  > > > to do that.  > >  > > This is an unfair tactic.  > 5 > Perhaps. But remember that it was David who claimed ; > that rapists are preferable to illegal immigrants. That's ; > what gave me the idea for the example in the first place. 8 > And you argued against him on that subject so it seems7 > a bit strange that you suddenly seem to change sides.   A I was drawing a parallel to the time when Bill Todd did a similar G argument about JF Mezei posting off-topic stuff that would only attract F more Nomen posts. Any use of that in the argument would have been veryE risky for me. So I was unable to make a valid counterpoint. It seemed D to me that you were doing the same thing to David (or trying to stopG the thread!). In the case with Bill I was trying to make the point that F foolishness of the victim in no way excuses the criminal which doesn'tE mean you can't call the victim foolish. Then he pulled what I thought  was an unfair tactic.   H > > It's also unfair on another level. One could just as easily bring upD > > speeding. Someone could drive 53 mph in a 50 mph zone. Is that a  > > horrible crime? I think not! > E > True, it's all a matter of pespective. So, what exactly constitutes G > a "horrible crime"? Does illegal strike that paralizes several cities 1 > qualify? What if some people die because of it?   G I agree that a strike by transit workers is a nasty thing. I just meant B that something being illegal does not by itself make it a horribleA crime. You used a specific case to make a general case. On second F thought, you do have a point in that there are often very good reasonsD for at least some laws, and that the law against transit unions (andF certain other city employees) may well, and I believe is, one of them. OK.   I > > Laws are not perfect. They are not written by infinitely wise people.  > 9 > Absolutely. But does anyone imagine union leaders to be  > perfect or infinitely wise?   G I feel the union is wrong to threaten a strike. Very wrong. I even said F "not that I agree with David" in the post. David seems to be defendingC the unions and everything they do no matter what. It appeared to me B that you were defending "the law" no matter what by bringing up anB example that almost all people would find to be a totally horrific crime.  & My apologies for any misunderstanding.   ------------------------------  % Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 06:26:46 -0500 - From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> ! Subject: Re: HP's 4Q FY05 results , Message-ID: <439ABB73.A473682E@teksavvy.com>   Bill Todd wrote:F > largely flat, at best keeping up with the overall Unix market).  And> > when you add in the fact that on average Alpha customers areF > considerably less enthusiastic about taking a voyage on the Itanic -" > well, the results aren't pretty.  E In that CNET article about that IA64 thing, Marcello said that 90% of 4 those leaving HP-UX on Pa-Risc choose to go on IA64.  B If that rate maintains, it means that HP will have lost 10% of itsB installed base by the time they are done with platform transition.  E Question is whether that rate will maintain or increase. Those who do A not wish to go to IA64 currently have the option to continue with S Pa-Risc. When the plug is pulled from Pa-Risc, they will be forced to go elsewhere.   G When Apple decided to go to the 64 bit 8086, it wasn't to lose a 10% of H its installed base. It was to gain market share. So it appears that IA64) isn't going to help HP gain market share.   C When HP/Intel decided to announce that IA64 would be relegated to a D small volume niche market of high end servers, what message did thatF send to software writers of smaller apps destined for small business ?A This won't help increase the percentage of HP-UX apps ported from H Pa-Risc to IA64. And what message did that send to small/medium business users of HP-UX ?  C VMS has already suffered much of the attrition due to the "high end A servers only" negative policy begun under Digital's self-destruct D procedures. But for HP-UX, being relegated to high end only is a newG policy, and there is a risk of losing a large portion of installed base F below that "high end server" line since HP-US still has a large number of customers in those markets.   ----  E The fact that IA64 sales rose 70% is still an indication that numbers G are still quite low. But from the publicity point of view, HP can still F claim that numbers are rising. And it can claim that Pa-Risc and Alpha numbers are going down.   E But they must also admit to shareholders that overall BCS numbers are F down and that this is bad for shareholders. Should shareholders acceptG that HP continue to subsidize Intel's IA64 folly just to maintain Intel  and HP's pride ?  ; Customers who leave HP-UX will not come back anytime soon.     (same applies to VMS).    E One more thing to consider: as time progresses, Power and Opteron and B Intel's Xeon 8086s will eliminate any reason for IA64's existance,F especially since IA64 is delayed by a year. So as time progresses, the4 incentive to choose IA64 as a platform will go down.   ------------------------------  % Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 14:01:26 +0100 & From: Paul Sture <paul.sture@decus.ch> Subject: Re: INSTALLing images, Message-ID: <4001t7F181qm0U1@individual.net>   Larry Kilgallen wrote:g > In article <1134134449.219591.263250@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, ferrariTR512m@hotmail.com writes:  >  > F >>1: How can I determine whether these items can be installed and what) >>options are useful/possible (CODE,DATA)  >  >  > Only by asking the vendor. > C > In particular, installing a shareable image marks it as "Trusted" F > (whatever else it might do) and the vendor must make a determinationB > as to whether that is safe to do or it opens up a security hole. >   > Trusted by what? A documentation pointer would be appreciated.  @ > Very few people (and thus very few people per vendor) are ableD > to perform such an analysis.  I know of at least three images thatB > got released by their vendors with an inadequate analysis within > the past 10 years. >    Oops.    ------------------------------  % Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 14:10:22 +0100 & From: Paul Sture <paul.sture@decus.ch> Subject: Re: INSTALLing images, Message-ID: <4002dvF17m9i6U1@individual.net>    ferrariTR512m@hotmail.com wrote: > John > B > It looks like there are 115 processes using FDLSHR. Also, it can@ > apparently be installed /RESIDENT (so can SMBSRVSHR (7 users)) > > > These would appear to be good candidates for the full monty. > C > LIBRTL_D56_TV.EXE & FORRTL_D56_TV.EXE with 40+ processes each are ! > candidates for /OPEN/HEAD/SHARE  >   I FWIW, about 20 years ago, I cut down both the response and CPU times for  H invoking Datatrieve by a significant amount by installing the shareable H images used with IIRC /OPEN/HEADER (maybe SHARED as well?). This was on G an 11/780 (VUP=1 by definition, so I'm not sure how valid this is with   the latest Alphas)  F Since many of those images were stubs to products we didn't have (FMS & and others), the overhead was minimal.   ------------------------------  % Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 14:33:39 +0100 3 From: "Dr. Dweeb" <NOSPAM_5msg0h202@sneakemail.com>  Subject: Re: INSTALLing images= Message-ID: <439ad92f$0$78280$157c6196@dreader1.cybercity.dk>     ferrariTR512m@hotmail.com wrote: > Hello VMS dudes. > D > This one is surely for Guy P. and/or Norm L. because the command IC > used came from one of their slides from Nov 2004.  But anyone may  > feel free to butt in.  >  > I am reviewing a system. > C > The result of a $ pipe show dev/file/nosys sys$sysdevice | search D > sys$input: .exe revealed the following common images (instances in > brackets)  >  > SMBSRVSHR.EXE (7)  > LIBRTL_D56_TV.EXE (43) > TIE$MESSAGES.EXE (41)  > FORRTL_D56_TV.EXE (40) > SQLSRV_MESSAGES.EXE (36) > SORTMSG.EXE (41) > FDLSHR.EXE (115) > SQLSRV_EXEC71.EXE (34) > SQLSRV$MOD71.EXE (34)  > EPC$MSG.EXE (15) > = > I checked install and this is what showed for these images.  > 
 > SMBSRVSHR;1 0 > LIBRTL;1         Open Hdr SharAddr Lnkbl Resid > TIE$MESSAGES;1 > FORRTL_D56_TV;1 
 > FDLSHR;1 >  > Not mentioned in INSTALL >  > SQLSRV_MESSAGES.EXE (*) 
 > SORTMSG.EXE  > SQLSRV_EXEC71 (*)  > SQLSRV$MOD71.EXE
 > EPC$MSG.EXE  > F > Interestingly, LIBRTL.EXE is number 4 on the XFC topqio list for the > system disk - but I digress. > E > I checked SQLSRV$STARTUP71.COM and discovered that the items marked G > (*) can be installed "/Open/Head/Shar".  I could find no reference to G > SQLSRV$MOD'version'.EXE in the startup file (an oversight from Oracle 
 > I think) > , > So, now for the deep meaningful questions. > F > 1: How can I determine whether these items can be installed and what) > options are useful/possible (CODE,DATA) E > 2: What will be the memory effect of installing any of these images C > 3: What will be the performance effect of installing any of these  > images >  >  > cheers > Dr. Dweeb   L F***, I posted this original post via google.  I see Google is so braindead E that it sends the real email address to the NewsServer.  That should  I increase the volume of spam traffic on that account by about 4 orders of  
 magnitude :-(   ' Maybe there is a setting to twiddle :-(    Dweeb    ------------------------------  # Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 06:45:25 GMT 7 From: "mrtravel@sbcglobal.net" <mrtravel@sbcglobal.net> + Subject: Re: M e z e i kooks out again..... > Message-ID: <9Qumf.32830$tV6.17334@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>   Geoffrey Welsh wrote:    > Gregory Morrow wrote:  >  >>Nomen Nescio wrote:  >>[...] A >>Oh my, is all this stuff *really* true?  Pretty wierd if it is!  >  > K > It's rude enough to quote an entire long message just to add one line of  L > commentary but you had to quote in its entirety the pollution that 99% of > > the readers of these groups had blocked.  Thanks, you moron. >   G That's how he usually does it. He has a habig of fully quoting "Nomen"   just to add a one-liner.   ------------------------------  # Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 08:20:47 GMT S From: "Gregory Morrow" <gregorymorrowEMERGENCYCANCELLATIONARCHIMEDES@earthlink.net> + Subject: Re: M e z e i kooks out again..... A Message-ID: <zdwmf.1919$nm.1662@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>    Geoffrey Welsh wrote:    > Gregory Morrow wrote:  > > Nomen Nescio wrote: 	 > > [...] C > > Oh my, is all this stuff *really* true?  Pretty wierd if it is!  > J > It's rude enough to quote an entire long message just to add one line ofK > commentary but you had to quote in its entirety the pollution that 99% of > > the readers of these groups had blocked.  Thanks, you moron. >      Hey dewd no worries :-)    --   Best Greg   ------------------------------    Date: 10 Dec 2005 19:21:31 +01006 From: peter@langstoeger.at (Peter 'EPLAN' LANGSTOEGER)+ Subject: Re: saving recovery data with PCSI , Message-ID: <439b2abb$1@news.langstoeger.at>  w In article <dnelh8$r9h$1@online.de>, helbig@astro.multiCLOTHESvax.de (Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply) writes: = >Has anyone successfully used the PRODUCT UNDO PATCH command?    Yup. Various times.   G >When I install patches, and answer the questions so that the patch is  J >always installed, the response schemas seem to alternate back and forth.   D I do see inconsistencies but I do not see the opposite of "logical".  G >Taking them at face value, it would seem that, if the slate is blank,  I >one can save recovery data when installing a patch, but that as soon as  D >the next patch is installed, then one has the choice of saving its G >recovery data, and thereby deleting that of the previous patch, or of   >not saving it.   A I do not rely on the options or questions of the ECOs. No longer. @ I did define PCSI$$SAVE_RECOVERY_DATA to "YES" in SYLOGICALS.COMI And yes, the ECOs seem inconsistent in if to ask for recovery data or not + and if to require for recovery data or not.   ? 1) You need at least PCSI V7.3-402 for a successfull UNDO PATCH J That means you need at least VMS732_PCSI V1.0 on V7.3-2 (and maybe similarF ECOs for other/older versions of OpenVMS). V8.2 and up has no problem.N OpenVMS VAX V7.3 unfortunately still has no similar PCSI ECO and so is unable.  < Do a PRODUCT SHOW UTILITY to find out if you are new enough.  K 2) You need a patch ECO for saving (and also not deleting of already saved) H Recovery Data. Full kits cannot save recovery data (they also ignore theG qualifier and/or the corresponding PCSI logical) and do also delete all  previously saved recovery data.   G Note: TCPIP V5.5 ECO1 is not a ECO (TCPIP_ECO), but a full kit (TCPIP). E That means you do not need to install V5.5 before ECO1 (but you do it H with the VMS V8.2 upgrade or installation of course ;-) but you do looseK all saved recovery data by installing this kit. ADVANCEDSERVER 7.3-A4 same.   8 3) Do installations with as much logged info as possible   eg. , $ DEF/SYS/EXE	AXPVMS$PCSI_EXECUTE_VERIFY	YES) $ DEF/SYS/EXE	AXPVMS$PCSI_LOG_TRACE		BOTH * $ DEF/SYS/EXE	PCSI$$SAVE_RECOVERY_DATA	YES $ DEF/SYS/EXE	PCSI$LOG			TRUE 8 $ DEF/SYS/EXE	PCSI$SOURCE			SYS$SYSDEVICE:[INSTALL_KITS] $ DEF/SYS/EXE	PCSI$TRACE			TRUE   & for PCSI (and OPTIONS L for VMSINSTAL)9 and use a logfile (one for each and every installation !)    eg2 $ SET HOST 0/LOG=		!if DECnet is installed/startedE $ SET HOST node/LAT/LOG=	!if LAT is started and outgoing conn enabled G $ TELNET localhost/LOG=		!if TCPIP is inst/start and Telnet Svr enabled   C 4) If you plan to install some products/ECOs at once, sort them and E then install only one product at a time (always with its own logfile)   ( a) BACKUP (or shadow member dismount ;-) b) PRODUCT DELETE RECOVERY_DATA ( c) VMSINSTAL the (full and ECO) *.% kits( d) PRODUCT INSTALL the *.PCSI* full kits' e) PRODUCT INSTALL the *.PCSI* ECO kits # f) Reboot (if neccessary) only once   M 5) If you UNDO PATCH keep in mind that you can only UNDO the newest/last ECO. L If you need to UNDO an older one you need to undo all newer ones as well and before.     ) This saved me a lot of headache so far...    --   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   ------------------------------   End of INFO-VAX 2005.687 ************************