1 INFO-VAX	Wed, 13 Jul 2005	Volume 2005 : Issue 387       Contents:0 Re: A tale of two macro libraries LIB vs STARLET( Can DCPS and Multinet Printing Co-Exist? Re: DECnet over DSSI Re: DECnet over DSSI' Defining pointers in C and VMS debugger + Re: Defining pointers in C and VMS debugger P Re: Facility Prefix Registration (was: Re: A tale of two macro libraries LIB vs P Re: Facility Prefix Registration (was: Re: A tale of two macro libraries LIB vs  Re: MONO (.net for UNIX) Re: MONO (.net for UNIX) Re: MONO (.net for UNIX) Re: MONO (.net for UNIX)% Re: MSCP Server on Multi-Site Cluster % Re: MSCP Server on Multi-Site Cluster 7 Re: Need a UCX outbound SMTP refresher...... Arghhhhhh! 7 Re: Need a UCX outbound SMTP refresher...... Arghhhhhh! D Re: Now the UK Has it's own date in the history of al quiada attacksD Re: Now the UK Has it's own date in the history of al quiada attacksD Re: Now the UK Has it's own date in the history of al quiada attacksD Re: Now the UK Has it's own date in the history of al quiada attacks) Re: Performance issue after 7.3-2 upgrade ) Re: Performance issue after 7.3-2 upgrade M Re: Qlogic ISP12160 Ultra160, QLA12160/66 dual ultra wide SCSI PCI controller M Re: Qlogic ISP12160 Ultra160, QLA12160/66 dual ultra wide SCSI PCI controller $ Response issues on GS1280, VMS 7.3-2* Re: Top Intel architect flees coop for AMD* Re: Top Intel architect flees coop for AMD* Re: Top Intel architect flees coop for AMD Re: Upgrading VMS  Re: Upgrading VMS  Re: Upgrading VMS   F ----------------------------------------------------------------------  + Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2005 19:02:03 +0000 (UTC) 3 From: "Richard Maher" <maher_rj@hotspamnotmail.com> 9 Subject: Re: A tale of two macro libraries LIB vs STARLET ? Message-ID: <db143a$khc$1@nwrdmz02.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com>    Hi Hoff,  G You know what I'm like, and I've got a lot of things on my plate at the L moment. I know it's not your problem but I would dearly appreciate it if youF could anticipate might state of mind on this, and my future courses ofJ action. (I'm nothing if not predictable). As a sampler, of what a customerK who has just been told that their very valuable asset might have been taken G away due to the incompetence of a mickey mouse tin-pot company, can you K please tell the relevant people "not to make their problems my problems" or 5 "put their crap on my plate"! Thanks in anticipation.    HERE ARE THE *FACTS*: -   
 Richard Maher    ----- Original Message -----   From: "Holt, Susan"  To: "'Richard Maher'" ( Sent: Tuesday, February 29, 2000 5:25 PM2 Subject: TIER3 - DSSR Product registration# PRO908    
 > Hi Richard,  > D > Attached is the actual information that is registered in the CSERL	 database.  > 	 > Regards  > Susan  >  >  >  >  > F > Product Identifier: TIER3                                       Last > Updated: 14-JAN-20000 > Product Name      :   Client/Server Middleware0 > Description       :   Client/Server Middleware > K > Contact Name               Net Address                           Job Name  > Dtn L > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- --: > -------------------------------------------------------- > RICHARD MAHER  > Project_Leader > ROBERT RILEY > STD204_Contact >  >  >  > For product identifier TIER3:  > = > Token Name                     Version   Registration Class  > Operating System= > __________                     _______   __________________  > ________________> > 333                                            Facility_Name
 > OpenVMS VAX  > > > 333                                            Facility_Name
 > OpenVMS AXP  > > > 333                                            Facility_Name
 > OpenVMS VAX  > = > T3$                                            Logical_Name 
 > OpenVMS AXP  > = > T3$                                            Logical_Name 
 > OpenVMS VAX  > @ > T3$PRIVATE                                     Shareable_Image
 > OpenVMS AXP  > @ > T3$PRIVATE                                     Shareable_Image
 > OpenVMS VAX  >  > @ > T3$PUBLIC                                      Shareable_Image
 > OpenVMS AXP  > @ > T3$PUBLIC                                      Shareable_Image
 > OpenVMS VAX  > = > TIER3                                          Saveset_Name 
 > OpenVMS AXP  > = > TIER3                                          Saveset_Name 
 > OpenVMS VAX  >  > E > Additional field information for registration class  Facility_Name:  >  >      Message number: 1910  >  > -----Original Message----- > From: Richard Maher + > Sent: Tuesday, February 29, 2000 11:15 AM  > To: @ > Subject: Re: FW: FW: TIER3 - DSSR Product registration# PRO908 >  >  > Hi Susan,  > ' > Yes I got the message attached below.  > K > Sorry to be a pain about this as  I'm sure it's as frustrating for you as  it > F > is for me. All I'm after is something that confirms my TIER3 product4 > registration and lists its accompanying details :-A > (Contact details, facility code logical name prefixes etc. . .)  > K > Basically I would just like to check that the entered details are correct H > and  have some sort of paperwork (even if  it is  a printed e-mail) to file > away.  > F > I did get your previous e-mail containing the address for changes to contact  > & > details to be sent. Thanks for that. > & > I look forward to  hearing from you. >  > Cheers Richard Maher.  >  >  > >From: "Holt, Susan" > >To: "= > >Subject: FW: FW: TIER3 - DSSR Product registration# PRO908 ( > >Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 10:21:40 -0500 > >  > >  > >  > >-----Original Message-----  > >From: product > >[mailto: , > >Sent: Tuesday, February 29, 2000 10:20 AM > >To:> > >Subject: FWD: FW: TIER3 - DSSR Product registration# PRO908 > >  > >  > >From: SMTP%   21-FEB-2000 10:31:52.60  > >To: 'PRODUCT1'  > >CC:6 > >Subj: FW: TIER3 - DSSR Product registration# PRO908 > >  > >  > >  > >-----Original Message-----  > >From: Holt, Susan+ > >Sent: Monday, February 21, 2000 10:26 AM  > >To: 'Richard Maher'9 > >Subject: RE: TIER3 - DSSR Product registration# PRO908 > > >Please let me know if you receive this notice....Hope So... > >  > >Susan > >  > >Hi Richard, > > G > >The notifcation that the product is in CSERL was sent to you back in  > >January.  > > K > >That notification is the official announcement.  If you need more people  toG > >be away of this registration, it is up to you to forward the notice.  > > 
 > >Regards > >Susan > >  > >  > >-----Original Message-----  > >From: Richard Maher* > >Sent: Monday, February 21, 2000 9:24 AM > >To: Holt, Susan > >Cc:5 > >Subject: TIER3 - DSSR Product registration# PRO908  > >  > >  > >Hi Susan, > > J > >I am enquiring as to when the above product will formally registered in the F > >CSERL database and, how notification of this registration will take place. > >  > >Thanks in advance.  > >  > >Richard Maher > >Tier3 Software 9 > >______________________________________________________ 9 > >Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com 8 > >================== RFC 822 Headers ================== > >Return-Path: F > >Received: by dssr2.sqp.zko.dec.com (UCX V4.1-12, OpenVMS V7.1 VAX);# > > Mon, 21 Feb 2000 10:31:49 -0500 F > >Received: by exctay-gh02.tay.cpqcorp.net with Internet Mail Service > >(5.5.2650.21)2 > > id <FMGJFSA5>; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 10:31:46 -0500 > >Message-ID:> <C99A689B0CB9D111AF3F0000F8062CCD084DEBD3@zkoexc2.zko.dec.com> > >From: "Holt, Susan" > >To: 'PRODUCT1' 9 > >Subject: FW: TIER3 - DSSR Product registration# PRO908 ( > >Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2000 10:26:50 -0500# > >Return-Receipt-To: "Holt, Susan"  > >MIME-Version: 1.00 > >X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) > >Content-Type: text/plain; > > charset="iso-8859-1" > 8 > ______________________________________________________8 > Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com > 0 "Hoff Hoffman" <hoff@hp.nospam> wrote in message+ news:hUSAe.8349$Cx.3769@news.cpqcorp.net... K > In article <axrk0HEqHIcN@eisner.encompasserve.org>, Kilgallen@SpamCop.net  (Larry Kilgallen) writes: K > :In article <davmce$fcc$1@nwrdmz02.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com>, "Richard , Maher" <maher_rj@hotspamnotmail.com> writes:
 > :> Hi Hoff,  > :>E > :>>   You don't own the T3$ facility, based on a quick check of the  current L > :>>   list.  (If you want to register a facility prefix, the email address > :>>   is in the FAQ.)  > :> > :> Oh yes I bloody do!...  >  > I >   Y'all might want to ring up the registrar, as I (still) don't see the H >   T3$ prefix listed.  (I've just sent along a question concerning thisH >   to the registrar, too -- I don't know if I'm looking at stale prefixL >   data, but I do see a prefix I registered a couple of months back listed. > F >   The 333 message facility code is registered to a DECmcc component,# >   according to the listing I see.  > ( >  ---------------------------- #include' <rtfaq.h> ----------------------------- 4 >     For additional, please see the OpenVMS FAQ --  www.hp.com/go/openvms/faq , >  --------------------------- pure personal# opinion --------------------------- G >         Hoff (Stephen) Hoffman   OpenVMS Engineering   hoff[at]hp.com  >    ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2005 22:51:43 -0500 ? From: "Christopher Story" <ke6rwj@spam-eater-remove-me-msn.com> 1 Subject: Can DCPS and Multinet Printing Co-Exist? * Message-ID: <7b0Be.4913$5R1.2056@fe07.lga>  J I have 7.3.2 Alpha with Multinet, I have installed DCPS and I can only see the Multinet print queues.  H I need to be able to run multinet printing and DCPS printing at the same time.  Is this possible?   TIA    Chris    ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2005 20:11:12 +0200 & From: "H Vlems" <nospam@what.ever.com> Subject: Re: DECnet over DSSI < Message-ID: <5402b$42d4081a$513b9a2c$22077@news.versatel.nl>  8 "Olaf Krugre" <olafkrugre@kansas.net> schreef in bericht. news:Xns96907454750A8976235896123@68.6.19.6...I > On 08 Jul 2005, "H Vlems" <nospam@what.ever.com> posted some news:7d2ac + > $42cec621$513b9a2c$8296@news.versatel.nl:  > D > > Years ago it was possible to run DECnet over the CI bus. IIRC it
 > involved- > > loading the CYDRIVER to make that happen. 6 > > The question is: can DECnet run over the DSSI bus? > > If so, with what driver? > >  > > Hans > >  > >  >  > CI Clusters: > F > SYSGEN> CONNECT CNA0 /NOADAPT /DRIVER=CNDRIVER (CI Data Link Driver) > 1 > NCP> DEFINE CIRCUIT CI-0.1 STATE ON TRIBUTARY 1 1 > NCP> DEFINE CIRCUIT CI-0.2 STATE ON TRIBUTARY 2  >    Olaf,   @ OK, thanks for the pointers. This is what I see (on both nodes):   NCP>sho know circ     9 Known Circuit Volatile Summary as of 12-JUL-2005 20:11:00   A    Circuit          State                   Loopback     Adjacent D                                               Name      Routing Node  +   CI-0.0            on       -synchronizing +   CI-0.1            on       -synchronizing    ISA-0             off  NCP>  ? Both nodes have DVNETRTG loaded, so it's not a license problem. G IIRC this also happened the first time I used this on a CI cluster, but ' cannot remember what to do to fix it... 
 Any ideas?   Hans   ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2005 15:03:16 -0400  From: norm.raphael@metso.com Subject: Re: DECnet over DSSI Q Message-ID: <OF654533C7.23DEEECE-ON8525703C.00688C70-8525703C.0068DE1E@metso.com>   A "H Vlems" <nospam@what.ever.com> wrote on 07/12/2005 02:11:12 PM:    > : > "Olaf Krugre" <olafkrugre@kansas.net> schreef in bericht0 > news:Xns96907454750A8976235896123@68.6.19.6...K > > On 08 Jul 2005, "H Vlems" <nospam@what.ever.com> posted some news:7d2ac - > > $42cec621$513b9a2c$8296@news.versatel.nl:  > > F > > > Years ago it was possible to run DECnet over the CI bus. IIRC it > > involved/ > > > loading the CYDRIVER to make that happen. 8 > > > The question is: can DECnet run over the DSSI bus? > > > If so, with what driver? > > > 
 > > > Hans > > >  > > >  > >  > > CI Clusters: > > H > > SYSGEN> CONNECT CNA0 /NOADAPT /DRIVER=CNDRIVER (CI Data Link Driver) > > 3 > > NCP> DEFINE CIRCUIT CI-0.1 STATE ON TRIBUTARY 1 3 > > NCP> DEFINE CIRCUIT CI-0.2 STATE ON TRIBUTARY 2  > >  >  > Olaf,  > B > OK, thanks for the pointers. This is what I see (on both nodes): >  > NCP>sho know circ  >  > ; > Known Circuit Volatile Summary as of 12-JUL-2005 20:11:00  > C >    Circuit          State                   Loopback     Adjacent F >                                               Name      Routing Node > - >   CI-0.0            on       -synchronizing - >   CI-0.1            on       -synchronizing  >   ISA-0             off  > NCP> > A > Both nodes have DVNETRTG loaded, so it's not a license problem. I > IIRC this also happened the first time I used this on a CI cluster, but ) > cannot remember what to do to fix it...  > Any ideas? >  > Hans >  >  >  >  Try  NCP> SHOW KNOW LINES CHAR  and  NCP> SHOW KNOW CIRC CHAR and post the results.    ------------------------------    Date: 12 Jul 2005 21:37:28 -0700 From: stuie_norris@yahoo.com.au 0 Subject: Defining pointers in C and VMS debuggerC Message-ID: <1121229448.818413.322570@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>   
 Dear Readers,   A I am attempting to define a pointer to a character array inside a C strucutre from which I have a pointer to.  (I wish to also use this A syntax to evaluate the pointer inside the VMS debugger. See code)   E I have attached a little program in which I try to code the syntax to F define a pointer to the second element of a unsigned byte array from a structure pointer.  B It appears from examining the pointer that the calculated value isG correct, however when I attempt to evaluate the pointer in the debugger F I get the included error message, which leads me to think it is wrong.  F Could I be advised of the correct syntax to define the pointer and the* correct syntax to examine in the debugger.  E I am using Compaq C V6.5-001 on OpenVMS Alpha V7.3-1 with the OpenVMS  Alpha Debug64 Version V7.3-102.    Thanks   Stuart   #include <stdio> #include <ints>   int main (int argc, char **argv) {     struct message     {       unsigned char buffer[32];     };  //    struct message messageS;     messageS.buffer[0] = 'A';    messageS.buffer[1] = 'B';    messageS.buffer[2] = 'C';    messageS.buffer[3] = '\0';  //(    struct message *messageP = &messageS;  , // Assign pointer to first element of buffer2    unsigned char *ptr1a  = &(*messageP).buffer[0];0    unsigned char *ptr1b  = &messageP->buffer[0]; //3 // DBG> eval *(&messageP->buffer[0])         //OKAY 3 // DBG> eval *(&(*messageP).buffer[0])       //OKAY  /// // Assign a pointer to second element of buffer 6    unsigned char *ptr2a  = (*(&(*messageP).buffer)+1);0    unsigned char *ptr2b  = &messageP->buffer[1]; //3 // DBG> eval *(&messageP->buffer[1])         //OKAY 4 // DBG> eval *((*(&(*messageP).buffer)+1))   //FAILS: // %DEBUG-E-MISINVOPER, missing or invalid operator at '1' //    return 0; }    ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2005 00:59:20 -0400 - From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> 4 Subject: Re: Defining pointers in C and VMS debugger, Message-ID: <42D49F96.CD814B9B@teksavvy.com>    stuie_norris@yahoo.com.au wrote:5 > // DBG> eval *(&messageP->buffer[1])         //OKAY 6 > // DBG> eval *((*(&(*messageP).buffer)+1))   //FAILS    $ &messageP->buffer[1] is broken into:  L &(messageP->buffer[1]) and results in the address where the second character in the buffer is located.     - *((*(&(*messageP).buffer)+1)) is broken into:     I &(*messageP) is simplified to messageP.   (address of value pointed to by  pointer messageP)   J messageP.buffer  fails because messageP is a pointer, so it should be a -> instead of a .  H *(messageP->buffer) would logically result in the first character of the. buffer, assuming the compiler would accept it.  G You then add 1 to the value of the character (turning an 'a' to 'b' for I instance), and then assume that character is a pointer and try to get the 8 value located at that pointer. It would definitely fail.   ------------------------------  # Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2005 20:02:42 GMT # From: hoff@hp.nospam (Hoff Hoffman) Y Subject: Re: Facility Prefix Registration (was: Re: A tale of two macro libraries LIB vs  1 Message-ID: <ClVAe.8377$sH.7952@news.cpqcorp.net>   u In article <db143a$khc$1@nwrdmz02.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com>, "Richard Maher" <maher_rj@hotspamnotmail.com> writes:   I   For those readers that have joined this thread already in progress, the L   OpenVMS facility prefix registration email contact address -- the facility0   registrar -- is listed within the OpenVMS FAQ.  I :As a sampler, of what a customer who has just been told that their very  H :valuable asset might have been taken away due to the incompetence of a G :mickey mouse tin-pot company, can you please tell the relevant people  K :"not to make their problems my problems" or "put their crap on my plate"!    I   Do always remember to shoot the messenger, as that could certainly help *   reduce the incidence of recidivism.  :-)   :HERE ARE THE *FACTS*: -  I   According to what you have posted, you definitely do not appear to have &   the T3$ facility prefix registered.   L   You do appear to have the 333$ facility prefix registered (and I do recallI   seeing that in the listings), and you do also (and somewhat unusually)  I   have logical names with T3$ registered -- I'd expect to see the product K   using either the 333$ or the T3$ prefix consistently, as that's the norm.   J   (This looks like an implicit assumption within the registration process,J   but I'm sure somebody somewhere is dependent on just such a split-prefixJ   facility registration.  I'm mildly surprised this was not flagged -- butI   then I certainly might not have noticed this myself, or might well have D   noticed but simply assumed the split registration was deliberate.)  H   You'll want to register the T3$ prefix, and to also consider -- if you0   are not using it -- releasing the 333$ prefix.  I   I've here reformatted some of what you have posted for ease of reading:   5   Token Name   Registration Class    Operating System 0     333        Facility_Name         OpenVMS VAX0     333        Facility_Name         OpenVMS AXP0     T3$        Logical_Name          OpenVMS AXP0     T3$        Logical_Name          OpenVMS VAX  G   Key to the particular conflagration here is the "registration class". G   That controls where the token goes in the various registration lists. I   And obviously, no one else has registered the facility name T3$ as yet, $   so it's currently still available.    N  ---------------------------- #include <rtfaq.h> -----------------------------K     For additional, please see the OpenVMS FAQ -- www.hp.com/go/openvms/faq N  --------------------------- pure personal opinion ---------------------------E         Hoff (Stephen) Hoffman   OpenVMS Engineering   hoff[at]hp.com    ------------------------------  # Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2005 21:41:41 GMT # From: hoff@hp.nospam (Hoff Hoffman) Y Subject: Re: Facility Prefix Registration (was: Re: A tale of two macro libraries LIB vs  1 Message-ID: <pOWAe.8390$EM.2206@news.cpqcorp.net>   u In article <db19uq$526$1@nwrdmz01.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com>, "Richard Maher" <maher_rj@hotspamnotmail.com> writes:   J :Which brings us to "How the hell can you say the rest of that crap with aJ :straight face as ANY sort of PROFESSIONAL organization???" Where is SusanK :Holt?? Should we get Mulder & Scully to try and track down this fictitious L :person? Looking at the LONG LIST OF EMAILS that I provided, clearly this is' :a customer misunderstanding! Silly me.   D   I don't know who is fielding the registrar email address -- it mayE   well be Susan -- or it might be somebody else, I simply don't know. ?   (I have enough trouble tracking my own vacation schedule. :-)   B   I did read through the attached text, but I did not see see the C   registration forms in what was included.  (I also don't have your F   prefered or your official contact information, as I'd tend to expectD   what I see in the newsgroup headers isn't what you seek to use.  ID   am guessing you didn't use what appears to be a de-spammed hotmail%   mail account for the registration.)   = :SERIOUSLY! Is there no one that will come to my aid on this?   B   If you wish to send along a new facility registration request toB   me, for forwarding along to the registrar, please do send along B   the  updated registration forms.  If you need blank forms, I can   email those to you.   E   I've gotten into the middle of these discussions before -- and have B   often ended up being a (slow) mail-forwarding agent for various F   ensuing discussions -- serving only to delay the discussions betweenB   the parties, in other words.   Much to my own trepidation, I've F   previously already started this discussion with the registrar -- butE   haven't heard back on that mail as yet.   I have just sent along an C   update along to the registrar, as well, indicating there was some 5   confusion around which prefix was to be registered.   F :In all serousness how can anyone I MEAN *ANYONE* find ambiguity in my :e-mails with SHOLT/COMPAQ  E   I am finding ambiguity in the facility registration *process*, as I )   thought I made clear with my statement:   M :>   (This looks like an implicit assumption within the registration process, M :>   but I'm sure somebody somewhere is dependent on just such a split-prefix M :>   facility registration.  I'm mildly surprised this was not flagged -- but L :>   then I certainly might not have noticed this myself, or might well haveG :>   noticed but simply assumed the split registration was deliberate.)   H   "This" being the ability to have multiple prefixes within what appearsG   to have been one prefix registration -- one for the facility itself,  E   and another for the logical names.  (I (personally) had never even     thought to try that...  :-)   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: Tue, 12 Jul 2005 22:10:40 GMT  From: danco@ns2.pebble.org! Subject: Re: MONO (.net for UNIX) 1 Message-ID: <slrndd8c32.fvj.danco@ns2.pebble.org>   F In article <KR3+PRzr2xta@eisner.encompasserve.org>, Bob Koehler wrote:P > In article <slrndcuuva.e6n.danco@ns2.pebble.org>, danco@ns2.pebble.org writes:J >> Is anyone out there working on porting mono (.net for UNIX) to OpenVMS? > J >    I think there's already a commercial .net connection for VMS.  You're >    looking for somthing free?   8 Bob, I'm not certain what you mean by ".net connection". Perhaps you could clarify?  D Mono is an open source project that provides a Windows .net languageC environment on UNIX platforms so that Windows .net applications can  be run on UNIX platforms.   F I work for a very Microsoft centric company that (for good or bad) hasG totally embraced both Microsoft and .net.  It is likely that all future F software development of any significance (and with any future) in this" company will be done using .net.    H It would be very cool (for everyone) if we could also run those new .netE applications not just on Windows, but also on UNIX and OpenVMS.  This G would breath continued life into both UNIX and OpenVMS platforms.  When H it comes to UNIX platforms, the opensource mono project looks promissingE for making that possible.  I was wondering if anyone or any group was F already  working on porting the opensource mono project to the OpenVMS	 platform.    ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2005 17:26:21 -0700 # From: "Tom Linden" <tom@kednos.com> ! Subject: Re: MONO (.net for UNIX) ( Message-ID: <opsttst7b0zgicya@hyrrokkin>  ? On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 22:10:40 GMT, <danco@ns2.pebble.org> wrote:   H > In article <KR3+PRzr2xta@eisner.encompasserve.org>, Bob Koehler wrote:K >> In article <slrndcuuva.e6n.danco@ns2.pebble.org>, danco@ns2.pebble.org   
 >> writes:K >>> Is anyone out there working on porting mono (.net for UNIX) to OpenVMS?  >>K >>    I think there's already a commercial .net connection for VMS.  You're   >>    looking for somthing free? > : > Bob, I'm not certain what you mean by ".net connection". > Perhaps you could clarify? > F > Mono is an open source project that provides a Windows .net languageE > environment on UNIX platforms so that Windows .net applications can  > be run on UNIX platforms.  > H > I work for a very Microsoft centric company that (for good or bad) hasI > totally embraced both Microsoft and .net.  It is likely that all future H > software development of any significance (and with any future) in this" > company will be done using .net. > J > It would be very cool (for everyone) if we could also run those new .netG > applications not just on Windows, but also on UNIX and OpenVMS.  This I > would breath continued life into both UNIX and OpenVMS platforms.  When J > it comes to UNIX platforms, the opensource mono project looks promissingG > for making that possible.  I was wondering if anyone or any group was H > already  working on porting the opensource mono project to the OpenVMS > platform.   K BTW, I recently read through, somewhat scimmingly, the .NET documentation    and J the two things I noted was the it was unnecessarily complex and that the  	 universal L assembly language was at a disappointly low level of abstraction.  It also   looks to3 me as if it will have serious performance problems.    ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2005 20:53:36 -0500 2 From: David J Dachtera <djesys.nospam@comcast.net>! Subject: Re: MONO (.net for UNIX) + Message-ID: <42D4741F.6D666960@comcast.net>    Tom Linden wrote:  > [snip]K > BTW, I recently read through, somewhat scimmingly, the .NET documentation  > and J > the two things I noted was the it was unnecessarily complex and that the > universal L > assembly language was at a disappointly low level of abstraction.  It also
 > looks to5 > me as if it will have serious performance problems.   H Show me something from Mickey$lop that DOESN'T have "serious performance problems"...   --   David J Dachtera dba DJE Systems  http://www.djesys.com/  ) Unofficial OpenVMS Hobbyist Support Page: " http://www.djesys.com/vms/support/  ( Unofficial Affordable OpenVMS Home Page: http://www.djesys.com/vms/soho/   " Unofficial OpenVMS-IA32 Home Page: http://www.djesys.com/vms/ia32/    Coming soon:& Unofficial OpenVMS Marketing Home Page   ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2005 21:08:41 -0500 ( From: Wayne Sewell <wayne@tachysoft.com>! Subject: Re: MONO (.net for UNIX) / Message-ID: <00A46AAE.57EAF398.1@tachysoft.com>   K >Received: from MVB.SAIC.COM (198.151.12.104) by moe.tachysoft.com (MX V5.3 5 >          AnHm) with SMTP for <wayne@tachysoft.com>; * >          Tue, 12 Jul 2005 19:41:39 -0500$ >From: "Tom Linden" <tom@kednos.com> >X-Newsgroups: comp.os.vms" >Subject: Re: MONO (.net for UNIX)& >Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2005 17:26:21 -0700 >Organization: Kednos 
 >Lines: 37) >Message-ID: <opsttst7b0zgicya@hyrrokkin>  >MIME-Version: 1.0H >Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; delsp=yes; charset=iso-8859-15  >Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bitK >X-Trace: individual.net 9SeRUDX6sbDUNPOAkkKnsQD0Uu8WYI1E+w/7lbmWwlqLwLeNQg . >User-Agent: Opera M2/7.54 (Win32, build 3865) >To: Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Com >X-Gateway-Source-Info: USENET > @ >On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 22:10:40 GMT, <danco@ns2.pebble.org> wrote: > I >> In article <KR3+PRzr2xta@eisner.encompasserve.org>, Bob Koehler wrote: L >>> In article <slrndcuuva.e6n.danco@ns2.pebble.org>, danco@ns2.pebble.org   >>> writes: L >>>> Is anyone out there working on porting mono (.net for UNIX) to OpenVMS? >>> L >>>    I think there's already a commercial .net connection for VMS.  You're! >>>    looking for somthing free?  >>; >> Bob, I'm not certain what you mean by ".net connection".  >> Perhaps you could clarify?  >>G >> Mono is an open source project that provides a Windows .net language F >> environment on UNIX platforms so that Windows .net applications can >> be run on UNIX platforms. >>I >> I work for a very Microsoft centric company that (for good or bad) has J >> totally embraced both Microsoft and .net.  It is likely that all futureI >> software development of any significance (and with any future) in this # >> company will be done using .net.  >>K >> It would be very cool (for everyone) if we could also run those new .net H >> applications not just on Windows, but also on UNIX and OpenVMS.  ThisJ >> would breath continued life into both UNIX and OpenVMS platforms.  WhenK >> it comes to UNIX platforms, the opensource mono project looks promissing H >> for making that possible.  I was wondering if anyone or any group wasI >> already  working on porting the opensource mono project to the OpenVMS  >> platform. > L >BTW, I recently read through, somewhat scimmingly, the .NET documentation   >andK >the two things I noted was the it was unnecessarily complex and that the   
 >universalM >assembly language was at a disappointly low level of abstraction.  It also   	 >looks to 4 >me as if it will have serious performance problems.  # In other words, typical billy shit. O =============================================================================== N Wayne Sewell, Tachyon Software Consulting  (281)812-0738   wayne@tachysoft.com; http://www.tachysoft.com/www/tachyon.html and wayne.html    O =============================================================================== P Jake Blues:"You traded the Caddy for a microphone? ...... Okay, I can buy that."   ------------------------------    Date: 12 Jul 2005 15:48:46 -0500; From: koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) . Subject: Re: MSCP Server on Multi-Site Cluster3 Message-ID: <Phv7tDdxGBRd@eisner.encompasserve.org>   \ In article <42D3FC3C.5F730FF@teksavvy.com>, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot|@teksavvy.com> writes: > Bob Koehler wrote:H >>    In VMS 6, only disks who's alloclass matched SYSGEN's were served.2 >>    Not a bug, it was supposed to work that way. >  > P > Out of curiosity, with a single physical node in a site (connected to the restO > of the clusters elsewhere), what sort of conditions would result in that node L > having drives on that site with allocation class different from the SYSGEN
 > paremeter ?   B    When you have a fool for a system manager, it can be very high.   ------------------------------  + Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2005 23:09:24 +0000 (UTC) 7 From: moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) . Subject: Re: MSCP Server on Multi-Site Cluster( Message-ID: <db1ij4$pkd$1@pcls4.std.com>  4 "James J. O'Shea" <seamas_ose@ameritech.net> writes:  7 >We have a three-node, v6.2 VMS,  VAX 7000-* CI cluster 3 >running locally.  We are trying to add a remote(30 6 >miles away) VAX 7000, v6.2 VMS to it.  The remote VAX7 >has booted successfully and has become a member of the 4 >local cluster.  But, not all  disks are  being MSCP >served.   ...   5 >For some strange reason only disks on the remote VAX 6 >with allocation devices of $1$ are being served. None) >are being served from the local cluster.   7 >Am I missing something basic or was there a bug in VMS  >v6.2 with MSCP SERVER?   D As others have pointed out, VMS V6.2 will only MSCP serve disks withJ allocation class equal to the system's allocation class.  I don't rememberH when I fixed DUDRIVER & MSCP to be able to serve all allocation classes,  some time around V7.1 I believe.  F You'll have to either reconfigure the drives so their allocation classE matches that of the host, or upgrade your cluster to a newer version.    -Mike    ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2005 14:56:52 -0400 * From: Chuck Chopp <ChuckChopp@rtfmcsi.com>@ Subject: Re: Need a UCX outbound SMTP refresher...... Arghhhhhh!9 Message-ID: <ynUAe.93065$du.37793@bignews1.bellsouth.net>    JF Mezei wrote:    > N > Am not familiar with UCX vintage. Did you try to use UCX config to shutdown,, > reconfigure and restart the SMTP service ? > P > With TCPIP Services, you can define the domain that will be used in the From: L > (for instance, so that in a 20 node cluster, messages would appear to comeB > from "user@chocolate.com" instead of "user@pastry.chocolate.com" > N > Perhaps your SMTP config still has an old domain name and it can't translate > it ?  R > (although the message seems to indicate it is a logical name it can't translate) > N > Do you have a another system running with the ancient UCX software ? perhapsP > comparing the output from SHOW LOG UCX$SMTP* would reveal what is missing from > your new config ?   G I'm still digging around in the configuration files and DCL procedures  0 looking for any possible causes for the problem.  J In terms of your test for the foreign mail protocol, any arbitrary prefix G followed by "%" results in a specific error message that indicates the  M shareable images can't be found.  That's not the case with the SMTP% prefix,  K or with any email address that is formatted to be an SMTP compliaant email  H address, e.g. "mailbox@domain.com", which results in %SYSTEM-F-NOLOGNAM E error being generated as the address is parsed.  I did use SET WATCH  F FILE/CLASS=ALL and everything was successful for *ALL* file accesses, M including creating a temporary file in my SYS$LOGIN directory that was to be  K queued up for processing by the SMTP symbiont.  Right after that temporary  2 file is created is when the NOLOGNAM error occurs.     --   Chuck Chopp   8 ChuckChopp (at) rtfmcsi (dot) com http://www.rtfmcsi.com  @ RTFM Consulting Services Inc.     864 801 2795 voice & voicemail2 103 Autumn Hill Road              864 801 2774 fax Greer, SC  29651  , Do not send me unsolicited commercial email.   ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2005 15:51:33 -0400 * From: Chuck Chopp <ChuckChopp@rtfmcsi.com>@ Subject: Re: Need a UCX outbound SMTP refresher...... Arghhhhhh!7 Message-ID: <XaVAe.1871$ag7.529@bignews4.bellsouth.net>    Found it...   I A chance comparison of SHOW COMM vs.  SHOW CONFIG COMM revealed that the  M active settings for communications were lacking a local host name and domain  K name.  For some reason, the local hosts file was lacking a fully qualified  J host name for the system [shouldn't this only come from the DNS servers?] G and that was what was somehow preventing the SMTP service from working  B properly.  Adding the local hosts entry and rebooting allowed the B communication settings to be properly loaded from the nonvolatile K configuration, and then the SMTP service began to work properly after that.      --   Chuck Chopp   8 ChuckChopp (at) rtfmcsi (dot) com http://www.rtfmcsi.com  @ RTFM Consulting Services Inc.     864 801 2795 voice & voicemail2 103 Autumn Hill Road              864 801 2774 fax Greer, SC  29651  , Do not send me unsolicited commercial email.   ------------------------------    Date: 12 Jul 2005 14:33:06 -0700$ From: "AEF" <spamsink2001@yahoo.com>M Subject: Re: Now the UK Has it's own date in the history of al quiada attacks C Message-ID: <1121203986.767433.272480@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>    Dr. Dweeb wrote:1 > "AEF" <spamsink2001@yahoo.com> wrote in message ? > news:1121180028.095729.222790@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...  > >  > >  > > Lurker wrote: 4 > >> "AEF" <spamsink2001@yahoo.com> wrote in messageA > >> news:1121133429.394226.14760@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...  > >> > > >> > Dr. Dweeb wrote: D > >> > > "JF Mezei" <jfmezei.spoamnot@teksavvy.com> wrote in message/ > >> > > news:42D151ED.3DD354DC@teksavvy.com...  > >>M > >> > > Has anybody actually bothered to find out what the optimal speed for  > >> minimumN > >> > > fuel consumption is for modern vehicles.  I have a sneaking suspicion	 > >> that J > >> > > it may be somewhat higher than 55 mph. but have not investigated. [...] G > >> Older studies determined that maximum fuel milage is obtained with  > >> constant,L > >> moderate throttle settings at speeds between 35 - 45 mph, and avoidance > >> or L > >> braking and acceleration. The key is to maximize (or optimize) velocityM > >> while minimizing wind drag and tire rolling resistance. In the '70's BMW J > >> determined that optimum fuel consumption could be achieved by rapidlyA > >> shifting to the highest gear feasible, given road conditions  > > I > > Of course a steady speed is needed for optimal mileage. But you can't G > > get around the fact that the engine needs to do more work at 85 mph ! > > than at 65 mph. That is fact.  > 1 > Engine efficiency is not linear per revolution.   C Please clarify. What does "linear per revolution" mean? Do you mean G that efficiency is not a linear function of the RPM's? OK. I never said 
 otherwise.  E You still need to do more work to push through the air at 85 mph than B at 65 mph. (Unless there's some strange aerodynamic change between( those speeds, and I never heard of any.)     >  > Dweeb. > >    ------------------------------    Date: 12 Jul 2005 15:02:45 -0700$ From: "AEF" <spamsink2001@yahoo.com>M Subject: Re: Now the UK Has it's own date in the history of al quiada attacks B Message-ID: <1121205765.872466.84950@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>   Bill Gunshannon wrote:D > In article <1121133429.394226.14760@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,) > 	"AEF" <spamsink2001@yahoo.com> writes:  > >  > > Dr. Dweeb wrote:@ > >> "JF Mezei" <jfmezei.spoamnot@teksavvy.com> wrote in message+ > >> news:42D151ED.3DD354DC@teksavvy.com... A > >> > Re: Solar panels covering vegetation on a planetary scale.  > >> clip .. > >>M > >> > Consider this: the Internatinal Energy Agency had released a paper not  > >> > long K > >> > ago about emergency measures that could be taken to reduce WORLD oil 
 > >> > demand P > >> > should the need arise. The first recommendation is an immediate reduction	 > >> > of P > >> > the maximum speed in USA highways to 55 mph, which would reduce US demand
 > >> > for$ > >> > foreign oil by 3% right away. > > Q > >> Has anybody actually bothered to find out what the optimal speed for minimum O > >> fuel consumption is for modern vehicles.  I have a sneaking suspicion that Q > >> it may be somewhat higher than 55 mph. but have not investigated.  The 55mph O > >> was a 70s value, and might have been accurate then.  I doubt that it still  > >> is. > > K > > 55mph was likely *never* the optimal speed. It was a compromise between H > > the real optimal speed (prob. between 30 and 40 mph) and what people > G > 30 to 40!!  I doubt that seriously.  I drive an old MG (dates back to F > that period of time.) and at 30 MPH I wouyld be driving it around inB > 3rd gear.  Surely that wouldn't provide the optimal gas mileage.  " OK, it varies from model to model.   > I > > wanted to drive at. Remember: the first energy conservation speed was K > > 50 mph but Congress didn't want to give Nixon anything he asked for, so - > > it was upped to 55 mph (or so I've read).  > > E > > While I often disagree with JF, and his record on physics in this I > > newsgroup is not great, to say the least (but he's quoting a study in J > > this case), I have to call 'em as I see 'em. And as much as I hate theI > > 55 mph speed limit, the physics of the matter favors lower speeds for  > > higher mileage.  > F > That makes no sense. It's just no that simple.  The optimal speed isH > totally dependant on the gearing of the car.  Any speed that keeps you& > out of your top gear is sub-optimal.  B You're calling me too early! Read on. (My point here was that dragC increases with speed, so the physics favors lower speeds, all other C factors being equal. Of course they're not equal, so I elaborated.)    > K > >                 The amount of work you have to do to get from A to B is G > > equal to the average force times the distance travelled. So given a K > > fixed distance, the amount of work the engine has to do to push the car H > > is proportional to the average force. And at highway speeds the mainI > > force is drag due to air resistance which varies approx. as the speed J > > (v). IIRC, it varies more like v**2 at higher speeds. So the drag on aG > > car going at 70mph is greater than at 55mph, period. Therefore, the F > > work expended by the engine is greater, period. That's a matter of > > physics, not technology. > G > And too simplistic.  Good aerodynamic design can make a car traveling  > very fast efficient as well.    G Well, I suppose you can make a car that applies dampers at lower speeds ; to make the higher speeds more efficient. :-) Just kidding.   D Maybe higher and higher gears will raise the optimal speed somewhat,: but I think there has to be a point where the drag is just
 overwhelming.   G I don't think you can have an aerodynamic design at highway speeds that A doesn't give higher drag at higher speeds. IOW, higher speed will  *still* yield higher drag.  I > > (I actually confirmed this by experiment in the early 80's. If you do K > > try this experiment, you must be very careful that you measure what you F > > think you're measuring and that all factors are taken into accountH > > (head winds and tail winds are an obvious possible complication, for> > > one -- accurately measuring the gas consumed is another).) > > F > > The best mileage is probably at the lowest speed you can go in the6 > > highest gear available without lugging the engine. > A > And that might be true if the road was always totally flat, but C > when you factor in things like hills, I would expect that inertia 7 > begins to play a very big part in overall efficiency.   C Yes, I was ignoring hills, as I was a tuneup, tire inflation, shaky E foot syndrome, A/C, head winds, tail winds. I assumed from the outset C that we were trying to determine the optimal speed for mileage with G reasonable assumptions like flat road, proper tire inflation, engine in E good tune, flat road, etc., or just average it all out. Those factors F certainly apply, but they're not really of interest to the question at hand.   E > > Higher revs with the same load (same speed, hence same drag) only I > > create more heat (by burning more gas, and that extra power has to go I > > somewhere!), which is wasted energy, which of course reduces mileage. 0 > > So a higher gear at a given speed is better. > B > Which is what most of the car manufacturers did to meet federalyF > mandated mileage requirements.  For example, while my MG has 4 gearsF > the two Miata's I am currently looking at have 5 and 6 respectively.A > (because I have had to travel a lot recently and don't see that @ > ending, I am opting for the 6 speed.)  There are very few carsG > being manufactured today that do not have at more gears or overdrive. J > That means the old "double nickel" which may have made sense in the 70'sE > (and I am not saying it did, because I don't believe the government J > has the knowledge to make a technical decision like that) today it wouldJ > make no sense at all.  My 25 year old car gets it's best mileage runningE > at 60-65 MPH.  I know that because I measure my mileage on all long I > trips and in the past couple years I have made a number of trips up and L > down the eastern seaboard.  Of course, the route can make a big differenceM > as well.  I used to run up and down I81.  Going to the same place using I95 I > was (according to mapping software) about 50 miles longer.  Guess what. J > Turns out the I95 route is not only faster, but requires less gas.  Why?H > Because it's mostly flat, being close the coast and all while I81 goesF > up and down through the mountains. Route planning can be a big help.  B OK, maybe your car is an exception. But it is difficult to do such? measurements in normal driving. So many things are varying. And F measuring gas consumption is subject to some error. Still, I bet you'd  do considerably worse at 80 mph!   Upon looking at   3    http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/driveHabits.shtml   E (yeah, it's a gov site, which you will pooh pooh, but that's all I've  had time to find so far)  G the optimal speed appears to be around the low 50's. I'm surprised it's @ that high, but I suppose overdrive helps. Of course this is justA "typical" or average according to a source who didn't specify the E conditions the curve was obtained under. I don't know how much things  vary with model of car.    >  > > E > > There are various factors: gear ratio, engine speed, drag, engine I > > efficiency (at burning gasoline). But the physics of the situation is H > > against you at higher speeds as far as mileage goes. Whatever you toJ > > technology-wise to make things more efficient at the higher speed, the: > > same thing will help you even more at the lower speed. >  >  > K > >t efficient speed is the engine turning at a specific RPM in the highest K > gear.  Car manufactureres don't provide that information and most drivers J > would be incapable of actually maintining it.  Of course, thast's why myK > new car is going to have cruise-control too.  There are a  lot of factors K > in fuel economy.  Simply picking an arbitrary speed won;t do it.  And, as J > was proven after the last mandated 55 limit, it doesn't reduce accidents > or highway deaths either.   E I am also against 55 mph. But if everyone went 55 instead of 70, less  gas would be consumed.  A > > Sorry, but that's the way it is. Hey, I'm just the messenger!  > > B > > The question then is: what speed should we drive at to balanceG > > competing interests: better times and less driving agony on the one H > > hand, vs. better mileage on the other. That's where opinion comes inK > > and mine is against limiting speeds to 55 mph because I've been through H > > that and I hated it. Others may disagree. But the physics is what it > > is.  > D > Sorry, it is not just a matter of physics unless you eliminate theE > human element and while CMU did it in a single test, we are still a  > long way from doing that.   C You can't get around the fact that it takes more energy to drive at A higher speeds. That's all I'm saying. If a car can be built whose A efficiency somehow increases more quickly than the drag at higher F speeds, okay, but I think most, if not all, cars are going to do worse at 80 than at 60, e.g.   > [...]  > K > >       I am not familiar enough with overdrive cars to say what it would F > > be for them. So for this I ask: What's the typical lowest speed atJ > > which you can go into overdrive without lugging the engine? Can anyone > > supply that? > G > The point at which the engine "lugs" is already way below the optimum H > engine speed.  And that is a matter of physics.  Why do you think whenG > the specs are published (seldom anymore) they specify the torque  and J > horsepower at a particular RPM?   For example, my 1978 MGB generates its  * I didn't know what any such specs specify!  E > peak BHP at 4600 RPM.  Without Overdrive (my car) top gear speed is I > 18 MPH/1000 RPM.  A little limple math and we see that the engine would J > be generating optimum power at 82.8 MPH.  If it had overdrive that wouldI > increase to 22 MPH/1000 RPM or 101.2 MPH.  What does this mean?  Simply J > that most people are already driving at less than optimum speed and thatL > the general design of the car did not take any of this into consideration.  G You forgot to take into account the fact that drag increases with speed B and that robs you of much of that power, more so at higher speeds.  H > Personally, I tend to drive with the RPM's between 3500 and 4000 whichF > keeps me around 65 MPH. Speeds above this feel uncomfortable (again,J > because the government got involved in automotive engineering and reallyI > messed the car's design up) and speeds below that would require driving K > in 3rd gear.  The same calculation can be made for every car.  If you do, L > what you will find is that there is no optimum highway speed because everyB > car is different and some of them are different by large ranges.   OK.    >  > > J > > I'm sure there are people who will say "But MY car/truck/whatever gets= > > better mileage at 70 than at 55 mph." I don't believe it.  > H > Doesn't matter wether you believe it or not.  You can do the math justE > like I just did (if you can find those numbers for any modern car). I > You cited the laws of physics above, this is a part of those same laws.   * So is increased drag with increased speed.  G And how much of this power goes into heat? If you consider a fixed RPM, C and differnt loads (that is, different drag levels due to different D speeds), you'll generate a lot more heat when the load is less. That heat is wasted gas.   D > All engines have an optimum speed at which they are generating theK > most power for energy consumed.  That point combined with the gear ratios J > of the transmission and rearend will give you the optimum speed.  No twoI > cars are the same.  And, of course, this does not take the human factor  > into effect at all.    Drag increases with speed.   > I > >                                                            If that is K > > the case for someone's car, then there's something very wrong with that  > > car at lower speeds! > H > Not necessarily, it might be a Ferrari.  Designed to be driven at muchC > higher speeds and sold based on the status that ability gives it.   - We're talking normal cars here, not Ferraris.      > K > >                      The efficiency of the engine may increase a little F > > with revs, but that's not enough to overcome the increase in drag. > J > Aerodynamics has changed that considerably over time (except for some ofJ > the recent boxes coming out of Japan that seem to have decided that dragG > is not enough to offset uniqueness of design in selling cars.)  Trust C > me, that Ferrari has less drag at 200 MPH than a Prius at 55 MPH.   = I bet the Prius gets better mileage at any speed, though! :-)    > [...]   > Thanks for your input. There is definitely a lot going on thatE determines mileage at a steady speed, on a flat road, with the car in  good shape, no wind, etc.!  F Bob Koehler put it best in his recent post about drag as a function of9 speed and various possible efficiency curves. Thanks Bob!    ------------------------------    Date: 12 Jul 2005 20:25:08 -0700$ From: "AEF" <spamsink2001@yahoo.com>M Subject: Re: Now the UK Has it's own date in the history of al quiada attacks C Message-ID: <1121225108.871460.158510@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>    Dr. Dweeb wrote:1 > "AEF" <spamsink2001@yahoo.com> wrote in message ? > news:1121203986.767433.272480@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...  > >  > >  > > Dr. Dweeb wrote:4 > >> "AEF" <spamsink2001@yahoo.com> wrote in messageB > >> news:1121180028.095729.222790@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > >> > > >> > > >> > Lurker wrote:7 > >> >> "AEF" <spamsink2001@yahoo.com> wrote in message D > >> >> news:1121133429.394226.14760@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...	 > >> >> >  > >> >> > Dr. Dweeb wrote: [...] L > >> > Of course a steady speed is needed for optimal mileage. But you can'tJ > >> > get around the fact that the engine needs to do more work at 85 mph$ > >> > than at 65 mph. That is fact. > >>4 > >> Engine efficiency is not linear per revolution. > > G > > Please clarify. What does "linear per revolution" mean? Do you mean K > > that efficiency is not a linear function of the RPM's? OK. I never said  > > otherwise. > > > Yes. But you did fail to recognise what that actually means.  6 And you did fail to explain yourself. I'm not psychic.  > Saying something is not linear is like saying something is notD straight. It doesn't really narrow down the possibilities very much!   >  > > I > > You still need to do more work to push through the air at 85 mph than F > > at 65 mph. (Unless there's some strange aerodynamic change between, > > those speeds, and I never heard of any.) > >  > >  > N > There is another post with details in this thread somewhere.  No sense in me > repeating.  G I don't recall anyone commenting about linearity of anything. The least F you can do is quote the post you have in mind. I'm not going to reread3 all this and try to guess what you're referring to.    ------------------------------    Date: 12 Jul 2005 20:36:50 -0700$ From: "AEF" <spamsink2001@yahoo.com>M Subject: Re: Now the UK Has it's own date in the history of al quiada attacks C Message-ID: <1121225810.705338.319330@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>    O'Brien Paddy wrote: > [everything snipped] > S > This is way OT from the original title, which was also way OT for this newsgroup.  >  > Why can't Messrs Feldman, Mezie, Todd and Gunshannon, conduct this betwixt themselves.  I enjoy all their contributions to VMS related topics, but this is going overboard.  Sue's contribution on this issue was more to the point. >  > Regards, Paddy  A Well, someone asked a question about mileage and I answered it. I ? didn't start this thread. And I can't recall having started any F off-topic thread except one which happened inadvertently -- that is, IG had no intention of starting it. In fact, I was actually trying to stop 4 some other off-topic thread! And it worked! sort of.  @ As for my responding to JF's tirade, sometimes I just can't helpG myself! I guess I should just not read his nonsense in the first place. F It's just beyond amazing some of the things he writes. He does seem to- be very knowledgeable about ALL-IN-1, though.    ------------------------------  # Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2005 19:53:10 GMT 1 From: Keith Parris <keithparris_NOSPAM@yahoo.com> 2 Subject: Re: Performance issue after 7.3-2 upgrade1 Message-ID: <GcVAe.8376$da.7823@news.cpqcorp.net>    David J Dachtera wrote:  > Keith Parris wrote: H >>queue depths allowed. (Aside: On MSCP controllers, I've observed queueG >>depths in the 100s, even 1000s, without problems. But the marketplace 5 >>said Proprietary is Bad, Industry Standard is Good.  > @ > Which standards body(-ies) publish(es) the standard(s) you are > referencing here?   D SCSI and Fibre Channel are ANSI standards. See http://ansi.org/ and J http://www.scsilibrary.com/standards.html and http://www.fibrechannel.org/   >>And we're doing our G >>best to provide all the advantages of the old Proprietary soluions on & >>the less-expensive Industry Standard >  > Same question ...?  F For Storage, same answer: SCSI and Fibre Channel under ANSI standards.  E For LANs and cluster interconnects, primarily the various flavors of  G Ethernet under IEEE standards (replacing the proprietary CI and DSSI).  F (Infiniband is a nice-looking standard, but really hasn't gotten much  marketplace acceptance.)  I For wide-area networking, the IP family of protocols (which don't really  9 have a formal standards body, but do have an orderly and  H quite-successful development process using RFCs) are the focus, yet you : can run DECnet over IP to retain the advantages of DECnet.  E You can buy PS/2 (an IBM ad-hoc standard) and USB keyboards with VMS   layouts.  E In some areas, standards are published by standards bodies. In other  A areas, there may be de-facto or concensus-based standards. Being  D published by a standards body doesn't guarantee success -- remember 
 Futurebus?  G When it comes right down to it, HP's customers are the ones who choose  H the standards -- which standards are important to their business -- and 8 those will inevitably be the standards that HP supports.  B It's sometimes hard to predict ahead of time what technology will I succeed in the marketplace (especially several years in the future), and  H it's easy to be mislead in thinking that the solution one feels has the J best technical advantages now will always win, especially in the long run.  G Zilog tried to hijack the x86 family with the Z80. It was a nice chip,  H had definite and demonstrable technical and performance advantages over ? the 8080 (for example, it extended the 8-bit 8080 chip in some  H compatible yet very-useful 16-bit ways), yet it and the Z8000 are today F only a footnote in history as Intel introduced the 8086, 8088, 80186, D 286, 386, 486, Pentium, etc. Intel has had many credible contenders ? along the way: MOS Technology with the 6502, Motorola with the  H more-elegant 6800 and almost-VAX-like 68000, etc. Intel won, they lost.   It's risky to bet against Intel.   ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2005 20:49:36 -0500 2 From: David J Dachtera <djesys.nospam@comcast.net>2 Subject: Re: Performance issue after 7.3-2 upgrade+ Message-ID: <42D47330.BFEC231D@comcast.net>    Keith Parris wrote:  >  > David J Dachtera wrote:  > > Keith Parris wrote: J > >>queue depths allowed. (Aside: On MSCP controllers, I've observed queueI > >>depths in the 100s, even 1000s, without problems. But the marketplace 7 > >>said Proprietary is Bad, Industry Standard is Good.  > > B > > Which standards body(-ies) publish(es) the standard(s) you are > > referencing here?  > , > SCSI and Fibre Channel are ANSI standards.  5 Oopsie!! SCSI is a *SPECIFICATION*, not a "standard".    > See http://ansi.org/ andL > http://www.scsilibrary.com/standards.html and http://www.fibrechannel.org/  ; Which of those documents specifies queue depth retrictions?    > >>And we're doing our I > >>best to provide all the advantages of the old Proprietary soluions on ( > >>the less-expensive Industry Standard > >  > > Same question ...? > H > For Storage, same answer: SCSI and Fibre Channel under ANSI standards.  9 Again, as most are quick to point out, SCSI is a (set of) G *SPECIFICATION*(s), not a "standard". If it were a standard, then VMS's C early implementations would have to be considered non-compliant, by  definition.   F > For LANs and cluster interconnects, primarily the various flavors ofH > Ethernet under IEEE standards (replacing the proprietary CI and DSSI).G > (Infiniband is a nice-looking standard, but really hasn't gotten much  > marketplace acceptance.) > J > For wide-area networking, the IP family of protocols (which don't really: > have a formal standards body, but do have an orderly andI > quite-successful development process using RFCs) are the focus, yet you < > can run DECnet over IP to retain the advantages of DECnet. > F > You can buy PS/2 (an IBM ad-hoc standard) and USB keyboards with VMS
 > layouts. > F > In some areas, standards are published by standards bodies. In otherB > areas, there may be de-facto or concensus-based standards. BeingE > published by a standards body doesn't guarantee success -- remember  > Futurebus?  F Then again, lack of publication doesn't guarantee non-acceptance. Just look at Mickey$lop.   H > When it comes right down to it, HP's customers are the ones who chooseI > the standards -- which standards are important to their business -- and : > those will inevitably be the standards that HP supports.  F Great! So, when do Samba and Wine become supported commercial products& bundled with the OpenVMS base license?  C > It's sometimes hard to predict ahead of time what technology will J > succeed in the marketplace (especially several years in the future), andI > it's easy to be mislead in thinking that the solution one feels has the L > best technical advantages now will always win, especially in the long run.  C Depends. There's still the "willingness to try" factor, the lack of B which keeps OpenVMS out of the IA32 and x86-64 "industry (read: de facto) standard" markets .  H > Zilog tried to hijack the x86 family with the Z80. It was a nice chip,I > had definite and demonstrable technical and performance advantages over @ > the 8080 (for example, it extended the 8-bit 8080 chip in someI > compatible yet very-useful 16-bit ways), yet it and the Z8000 are today G > only a footnote in history as Intel introduced the 8086, 8088, 80186, E > 286, 386, 486, Pentium, etc. Intel has had many credible contenders @ > along the way: MOS Technology with the 6502, Motorola with theI > more-elegant 6800 and almost-VAX-like 68000, etc. Intel won, they lost. " > It's risky to bet against Intel.  A IBM (Power), Sun (SPARC) and AMD (x86 and x86-64) seem to have no F problem competing in that arena. AMD even poses such a threat to Intel? that Intel finds itself facing the same music as Mickey$lop for E anti-trust violations. Consult the main stream trade media (you know, 5 the places you never see OpenVMS ads) for references.    --   David J Dachtera dba DJE Systems  http://www.djesys.com/  ) Unofficial OpenVMS Hobbyist Support Page: " http://www.djesys.com/vms/support/  ( Unofficial Affordable OpenVMS Home Page: http://www.djesys.com/vms/soho/   " Unofficial OpenVMS-IA32 Home Page: http://www.djesys.com/vms/ia32/    Coming soon:& Unofficial OpenVMS Marketing Home Page   ------------------------------  # Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2005 18:42:45 GMT # From: hoff@hp.nospam (Hoff Hoffman) V Subject: Re: Qlogic ISP12160 Ultra160, QLA12160/66 dual ultra wide SCSI PCI controller1 Message-ID: <FaUAe.8364$UB.1155@news.cpqcorp.net>    In article <1121128126.887112.97030@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, "johnhreinhardt@yahoo.com" <johnhreinhardt@yahoo.com> writes: : D :After reading this I went trolling through SYS$CONFIG.DAT I noticed@ :there are quite a few devices listed that don't have drivers inG :SYS$LOADABLE_IMAGES.  This is on a fresh 7.3-2 isntall with no patches  :applied.     1   You'll want to remedy that omission, of course.   = :What happened to the drivers?  Were they not quite ready for  :prime time?  Just curious.   @   These sorts of omissions tend not to be for any single reason.  H   I would expect various of the (uncited, omitted-from-the-installation)G   device drivers are installed by various product kits, some are latent F   support hooks, and some have not been released out into the wild forH   any of various potential reasons.  We tend to have all manner of stuff7   latent within the typical OpenVMS release, after all.     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: 12 Jul 2005 13:37:32 -0700; From: "johnhreinhardt@yahoo.com" <johnhreinhardt@yahoo.com> V Subject: Re: Qlogic ISP12160 Ultra160, QLA12160/66 dual ultra wide SCSI PCI controllerC Message-ID: <1121200652.736730.221260@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>    Hoff Hoffman wrote:  > In article <1121128126.887112.97030@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, "johnhreinhardt@yahoo.com" <johnhreinhardt@yahoo.com> writes: > : F > :After reading this I went trolling through SYS$CONFIG.DAT I noticedB > :there are quite a few devices listed that don't have drivers inI > :SYS$LOADABLE_IMAGES.  This is on a fresh 7.3-2 isntall with no patches  > :applied.  > 3 >   You'll want to remedy that omission, of course.  >   D Ah... yeah.  I'm getting there.  I just did a fresh install over theG weekend on my home stuff and that's what I was looking at.  All I meant C was that it was the base-level V7.3-2 install with nothing added or G fixed up so these entries had been "factory original".  Entries such as E the OP's QLogic QLA12160 and quite a number of Adaptec SCSI HBA's.  I E was surprised to see a rather large number of Adaptec chipsets listed B and with the matching drivers.  I guess I hadn't been watching theG hardware specs on recent Alpha systems as closely as I thought.  It was  an interesting read for sure.    ------------------------------  # Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2005 21:46:47 GMT " From: Lee <lytmah@telusplanet.net>- Subject: Response issues on GS1280, VMS 7.3-2 + Message-ID: <bTWAe.89003$wr.74721@clgrps12>   6 I'm experiencing response problem on a GS1280 cluster.- For those interested, here's the information.      Description of cluster: 9 Five-node Gigabit Ethernet VMScluster across three sites. . All nodes at VMS 7.3-2 patched up to Jun-2005. Site 1: DS10 quorum node. = Site 2: Two production nodes on GS1280/16.  Each 8 GB memory. ) 	First node 4 CPUs, second node 6 CPUs. = Site 3: Two production nodes on GS1280/16.  Each 8 GB memory. ) 	First node 4 CPUs, second node 6 CPUs. ! Third party SAN disk environment. ; Using HBVS with 80 shadow members at each of sites 2 and 3.      Problem:> 	Early this year, the cluster was at VMS 7.3-2 running on four; 	individual ES45s.  Since migrating from the ES45 nodes to ? 	four nodes on two GS1280s in May-2005, interactive users have > 	been experiencing intermittent several-second periods of slowC response.  The situation is occurring on all four production nodes. 8 Symptoms are more pronounced and wide-spread during peak= periods (mid-morning, noon).  I myself notice occasional lags 3 of several seconds after entering a command in DCL.     ) Some observations during problem periods:   ? OBSV #1  Memory, CPU usage, critical parameter usage is decent.   F Physical Memory Usage (pages):        Total      Free    In Use  Used  ModifiedH    Main Memory (8.00GB)              1048576    557009    314891  46.8% 
     176676E Virtual I/O Cache (Kbytes):           Total      Free    In Use  Used G    Cache Memory (MBytes)              125.00      1.56    123.43  98.7% F Granularity Hint Regions (pages):     Total      Free    In Use  Used  ReleasedH    Execlet code region                  1536       312      1224  79.6% 
          0H    Execlet data region                   408        72       336  82.3% 
          0H    S0/S1 Executive data region         12874         0     12874 100.0% 
          0H    Resident image code region           1024        16      1008  98.4% 
          0F Slot Usage (slots):                   Total      Free  Resident  Used 	   Swapped H    Process Entry Slots                  2000       955      1045  52.2% 
          0H    Balance Set Slots                    1998       955      1043  52.2% 
          0F Dynamic Memory Usage (bytes)          Total      Free    In Use  Used 	   Largest H    Nonpaged                            95.36     69.20     26.16  27.4% 
      56.26H    Bus Addressable Memory               4.12      4.10      0.01    .2% 
       4.10H    Paged                              143.04     90.12     52.92  36.9% 
      85.11G    Lock Manager Dyn Memory             62.01     23.08     38.93  62.7% @ Buffer Object Usage (pages):                  In Use        PeakA    32-bit System Space Windows (S0/S1)              0           2 A    64-bit System Space Windows (S2)               100         102 A    Physical pages locked by buffer objects        100         102 L Memory Reservations (pages):       Group    Reserved      In Use        TypeA    Total (0 bytes reserved)                         0           0 ! Write Bitmap (WBM) Memory Summary C    Local bitmap count:     0     Local bitmap memory usage (bytes)     0.00D    Master bitmap count:    0     Master bitmap memory usage (bytes)    0.00F Swap File Usage (8KB pages):                    Index      Free  Used 	      Size H    DISK$K_SYSTEM:[SYS0.SYSEXE]SWAPFILE.SYS           1     18744    .0% 
      18744F Paging File Usage (8KB pages):                  Index      Free  Used 	      Size H    SS635:[000000]PAGEFILE3_K.SYS;1                 252    187496    .0% 
     187496H    SS642:[000000]PAGEFILE2_K.SYS;1                 253    187496    .0% 
     187496H    DISK$K_SYSTEM:[SYS0.SYSEXE]PAGEFILE.SYS         254    365192    .0% 
     365192#    Total size of all paging files:  
     740184H    Total committed paging file usage:                               56% 
     414507G C:  1048576 pages of memory.  54310 pages (5.1%) permanently allocated   to VMS.     > OBSV #2  No resource hogs have been found on any of the nodes.    E OBSV #3  Sequential snapshots of the nodes show many processes in/out ; 	of MUTEX.  The processes in MUTEX range widely, from OPCOM : 	to production users.  These processes slide in and out of< 	MUTEX so quickly that there is inadequate time to determine  	the reason for the MUTEX state.  
 Display 1:  G OpenVMS V7.3-2  on node A  12-JUL-2005 14:29:21.22  Uptime  26 04:27:38 H    Pid    Process Name    State  Pri      I/O       CPU       Page flts    Pages   G OpenVMS V7.3-2  on node B  12-JUL-2005 14:29:21.24  Uptime  39 21:37:28 H    Pid    Process Name    State  Pri      I/O       CPU       Page flts    Pages G 23C00817 SECURITY_SERVER CUR  0  16   184409   0 07:50:51.19       433      513G 23C00934 TCPIP$TNS43     MUTEX    4  2338026   0 00:02:58.71    448114      211G 23C721AF _TNA1541:       MUTEX    4     2739   0 00:00:03.59      1890      455G 23C4FBC6 _TNA1555:       MUTEX    4      544   0 00:00:02.28       630      813G 23C32431 _TNA1560:       MUTEX    4       81   0 00:00:02.44       128      118G 23C0A433 _TNA788:        MUTEX    4    48874   0 00:00:23.25     45936      543G 23C3BC36 RA23C2BC91      MUTEX    4      133   0 00:00:00.05       328  	    544  S G 23D7E642 _TNA4059:       SUSP     0     3636   0 00:03:51.03      4264      146  G OpenVMS V7.3-2  on node C  12-JUL-2005 14:29:21.52  Uptime  40 22:08:12 H    Pid    Process Name    State  Pri      I/O       CPU       Page flts    Pages G 23A009B2 Epoch           SUSP     2101415952   0 14:16:04.80      7929     8079G 23A501C5 _TNA3820:       MUTEX    6       87   0 00:00:01.42       131      118G 23A069C7 _TNA3821:       MUTEX    6       83   0 00:00:02.11       128      118G 23A011C8 _TNA3822:       MUTEX    6      139   0 00:00:02.32       146      136G 23A079D5 RA_18           MUTEX   16        0   0 00:00:00.00        30  	     41  S G 23B1B32A _TNA2367:       MUTEX    6   108033   0 00:00:47.24     61677      433G 23A2441F DALE            MUTEX    5  3184258   0 02:13:07.11     43266     5397G 23A084D5 GR_23B1C4D2     MUTEX    6     4592   0 00:00:03.14    107295  	     63  S G 23BABE8D 0323            CUR  2   4   214154   0 00:01:50.15       654      641G 23A35710 _TNA3806:       MUTEX    6     1141   0 00:00:03.48      1248      491  G OpenVMS V7.3-2  on node D  12-JUL-2005 14:29:21.74  Uptime  38 21:10:47 H    Pid    Process Name    State  Pri      I/O       CPU       Page flts    Pages   G OpenVMS V7.3-2  on node E  12-JUL-2005 14:29:21.91  Uptime  47 00:19:52 H    Pid    Process Name    State  Pri      I/O       CPU       Page flts    Pages G 23227194 _TNA4239:       CUR  5  16   200856   0 00:00:25.24     17587      141G 2326535D _TNA5345:       MUTEX    8    95499   0 00:00:33.43      8715      944  ! Display 2: Several seconds later.   G OpenVMS V7.3-2  on node A  12-JUL-2005 14:29:25.14  Uptime  26 04:27:42 H    Pid    Process Name    State  Pri      I/O       CPU       Page flts    Pages   G OpenVMS V7.3-2  on node B  12-JUL-2005 14:29:25.16  Uptime  39 21:37:32 H    Pid    Process Name    State  Pri      I/O       CPU       Page flts    Pages G 23C183A6 _TNA1553:       MUTEX    6      920   0 00:00:04.46      1325      382G 23C32431 _TNA1560:       CUR  0  16       85   0 00:00:03.91       128      118G 23C0A433 _TNA788:        MUTEX    4    48936   0 00:00:23.30     45956      210G 23C3BC36 RA23C2BC91      RWSCS    6      348   0 00:00:00.24       505  	    767  S G 23C4F43A TCPIP$FTPC06025 MUTEX    5      117   0 00:00:00.22       238  	    256  N G 23D7E642 _TNA4059:       SUSP     0     3636   0 00:03:51.03      4264      146  G OpenVMS V7.3-2  on node C  12-JUL-2005 14:29:25.37  Uptime  40 22:08:16 H    Pid    Process Name    State  Pri      I/O       CPU       Page flts    Pages G 23A008F6 MONITOR_GATEWAY CUR  5   1 29282337   0 00:52:17.41  27612815      118G 23A009B2 Epoch           SUSP     2101415952   0 14:16:04.80      7929     8079G 23A2441F DALE            CUR  5   5  3184591   0 02:13:08.02     43266     5397G 23BABE8D 0323            CUR  5   5   215096   0 00:01:53.68       654      641  G OpenVMS V7.3-2  on node D  12-JUL-2005 14:29:25.56  Uptime  38 21:10:50 H    Pid    Process Name    State  Pri      I/O       CPU       Page flts    Pages G 23F8CA29 _TNA866:        RWSCS    4     8664   0 00:00:07.98      4622     1913  G OpenVMS V7.3-2  on node E  12-JUL-2005 14:29:25.83  Uptime  47 00:19:56 H    Pid    Process Name    State  Pri      I/O       CPU       Page flts    Pages   ! Display 3: Several seconds later.   G OpenVMS V7.3-2  on node A  12-JUL-2005 14:29:28.25  Uptime  26 04:27:45 H    Pid    Process Name    State  Pri      I/O       CPU       Page flts    Pages   G OpenVMS V7.3-2  on node B  12-JUL-2005 14:29:28.26  Uptime  39 21:37:35 H    Pid    Process Name    State  Pri      I/O       CPU       Page flts    Pages G 23D7E642 _TNA4059:       SUSP     0     3636   0 00:03:51.03      4264      146  G OpenVMS V7.3-2  on node D  12-JUL-2005 14:29:28.39  Uptime  40 22:08:19 H    Pid    Process Name    State  Pri      I/O       CPU       Page flts    Pages G 23A009B2 Epoch           SUSP     2101415952   0 14:16:04.80      7929     8079G 23A2441F DALE            CUR  2   4  3185385   0 02:13:09.77     43266     5397G 23BABE8D 0323            CUR  4   5   215645   0 00:01:56.57       654      641  G OpenVMS V7.3-2  on node D  12-JUL-2005 14:29:28.51  Uptime  38 21:10:53 H    Pid    Process Name    State  Pri      I/O       CPU       Page flts    Pages   G OpenVMS V7.3-2  on node E  12-JUL-2005 14:29:28.61  Uptime  47 00:19:58 H    Pid    Process Name    State  Pri      I/O       CPU       Page flts    Pages     E OBSV #4  HP has identified one main problem as being in logical name   translation.9 	Heres the status from the four nodes (from MONITOR IO). H                                     CUR        AVE        MIN        MAXG Log Name Translation Rate       198.66     906.97       0.00    9845.33 G Log Name Translation Rate      3902.00    3896.64       0.00   15286.00 G Log Name Translation Rate      2077.00    1341.27       0.00   13067.33 G Log Name Translation Rate      1690.66     621.39       0.00    3901.33   B On the ES45s, I could execute a procedure containing 1000 logical> name translations in a split second.  On the GS1280 nodes, the3 same procedure requires from several to 10 seconds.     E OBSV #5  I ran Autogen with feedback and a couple of items stood out.  	4 	The feedback data is based on 931 hours of up time. 	  " MSCP_BUFFER parameter information:          Feedback information.1             Old value was 1300, New value is 1300 6             MSCP server I/O rate: 367 I/Os per 10 sec.3             I/Os that waited for buffer space: 1564 >             I/Os that fragmented into multiple transfers: 3276  3 ** WARNING ** - The value of MIN_IMGIOCNT specified B          (228)  is less than the minimum permissible value of 332.A          Please review the MODPARAMS definitions of MIN_IMGIOCNT. -              MIN_IMGIOCNT will be set to 332.      Additional nodes:   : 	1. System parameter values on the GS1280 nodes are at the* 		same or higher level than on the ES45s.8 	2. Our disk defragger has not been running for the last/ 		6 months due to it breaking on SAN disks with # 		unexpected values coming from DVE  		(logical/total/expansion).) 		The vendor has fixed the problem, but I % 		havent implemented defragging yet. , 		However, I have not noticed any disk queue 		length problems.2 	3. The number of processes running on the cluster3 		has not increased appreciably since the migration  		to the GS1280s.; 	4. HPs T4 has been installed on the four production nodes  		but not yet running.; 	5. HPs System Health Check has been installed on the four ' 		production nodes but not yet running.     4 Has anyone else experienced similar response issues?
 Any ideas?   ------------------------------  # Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2005 19:00:08 GMT 1 From: Keith Parris <keithparris_NOSPAM@yahoo.com> 3 Subject: Re: Top Intel architect flees coop for AMD 1 Message-ID: <YqUAe.8365$vD.6428@news.cpqcorp.net>    Tom Linden wrote: + > http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=24500 ( > Top Intel architect flees coop for AMD  / It's not unusual for folks to change companies.   ? HP just stole the former CIO of Wal-Mart away from Dell -- see  9 http://www.hp.com/hpinfo/newsroom/press/2005/050711d.html    ------------------------------  # Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2005 19:04:48 GMT 1 From: Keith Parris <keithparris_NOSPAM@yahoo.com> 3 Subject: Re: Top Intel architect flees coop for AMD 1 Message-ID: <kvUAe.8368$JE.6866@news.cpqcorp.net>    Michael Unger wrote:G > A RTOS running on a *high* power CPU?? Strange, really. Usually RTOSs 0 > are running on embedded, i.e. low-power, CPUs.  E In all the hype about 130-watt high-end Itanium chips, you must have  G missed the announcement of the LV series of lower-voltage, lower-power  " Itanium chips (e.g. 62 watts: see B http://www.intel.com/pressroom/archive/releases/20041108comp.htm).  I It shouldn't be surprising to see Intel roadmaps continue to include the  G LV series as new generations of chips such as Montecito, Tukwila, etc.  I are developed. It gets much easier to keep power consumption down as you  I shrink chips into smaller process technologies like 65 nanometers and 45   nanometers.    ------------------------------  # Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2005 00:41:01 GMT " From:   VAXman-  @SendSpamHere.ORG3 Subject: Re: Top Intel architect flees coop for AMD 0 Message-ID: <00A46AAA.7AD59836@SendSpamHere.ORG>  e In article <YqUAe.8365$vD.6428@news.cpqcorp.net>, Keith Parris <keithparris_NOSPAM@yahoo.com> writes:  >Tom Linden wrote:, >> http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=24500) >> Top Intel architect flees coop for AMD  > 0 >It's not unusual for folks to change companies.  M No it's not.  However, at issue is whether or not they will get sued by their M scum-bucket fuckwit code thieving histrionic schmuck bastards without a heart M or a soul former employer and be made to miss their own borther's funeral for B sake of returning the equivalent of an EDT keypad reference chart!   --  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: Tue, 12 Jul 2005 17:35:59 -0400 # From: "John Smith" <a@nonymous.com>  Subject: Re: Upgrading VMS4 Message-ID: <42d438e7$1_1@spool9-west.superfeed.net>   David J Dachtera wrote: 
 > Evan wrote:  >> >> David D Miller wrote: >>>  >>>  >>> 
 >>> G'day: >>> E >>> How do you make a decision to upgrade?  Is your decision ruled by F >>> Policy? By convenience (nothing else to do today)?  Or do you have) >>> an objective criteria that you apply?  >>> B >>> Specifically, is 7.3 good enough (in some sense) or is 7.3-2 a >>> better bet?  >>> G >>> I suppose the same question could be applied to patches -- but then , >>> again, maybe you apply the same process. >>>  >>> Thanks, dave.  >>>  >>: >> No one has mentioned the Sarbanes-Oxley type influence. > H > Not sure what Sarb/Ox would have to do with OpenVMS or any other o.s.,= > since most of the work is done in the application "layers".     A One could hope that the auditors were sharp enough to know that a I virus-prone o/s or one needing patches every 28 minutes is more of a risk  than a stable mature o/s.   H Watch the howls if an auditor ever declared a company running Windows or, Linux as their primary server o/s "at risk".   --F OpenVMS - The never-advertised operating system with the dwindling ISV base.       O ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- S http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups K ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----    ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2005 20:52:06 -0500 2 From: David J Dachtera <djesys.nospam@comcast.net> Subject: Re: Upgrading VMS+ Message-ID: <42D473C6.C6042AC3@comcast.net>    John Smith wrote:  >  > David J Dachtera wrote:  > > Evan wrote:  > >> > >> David D Miller wrote: > >>>  > >>>  > >>>  > >>> G'day: > >>> G > >>> How do you make a decision to upgrade?  Is your decision ruled by H > >>> Policy? By convenience (nothing else to do today)?  Or do you have+ > >>> an objective criteria that you apply?  > >>> D > >>> Specifically, is 7.3 good enough (in some sense) or is 7.3-2 a > >>> better bet?  > >>> I > >>> I suppose the same question could be applied to patches -- but then . > >>> again, maybe you apply the same process. > >>>  > >>> Thanks, dave.  > >>>  > >>< > >> No one has mentioned the Sarbanes-Oxley type influence. > > J > > Not sure what Sarb/Ox would have to do with OpenVMS or any other o.s.,? > > since most of the work is done in the application "layers".  > C > One could hope that the auditors were sharp enough to know that a K > virus-prone o/s or one needing patches every 28 minutes is more of a risk  > than a stable mature o/s.  > J > Watch the howls if an auditor ever declared a company running Windows or. > Linux as their primary server o/s "at risk".  A Howls of laughter from the lemmings who who would consider such a  statement as patently absurd?   A ...or howls of despair from the newest MCSEs who would find their 8 newly-aqcuired accreditation rendered totally worthless?   --   David J Dachtera dba DJE Systems  http://www.djesys.com/  ) Unofficial OpenVMS Hobbyist Support Page: " http://www.djesys.com/vms/support/  ( Unofficial Affordable OpenVMS Home Page: http://www.djesys.com/vms/soho/   " Unofficial OpenVMS-IA32 Home Page: http://www.djesys.com/vms/ia32/    Coming soon:& Unofficial OpenVMS Marketing Home Page   ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2005 22:47:44 -0400 - From: William Webb <william.w.webb@gmail.com>  Subject: Re: Upgrading VMS7 Message-ID: <8660a3a10507121947427120d2@mail.gmail.com>   ? On 7/11/05, David J Dachtera <djesys.nospam@comcast.net> wrote: 
 > Evan wrote:  > >  > > David D Miller wrote:  > > >  > > >  > > >  > > > G'day: > > > L > > > How do you make a decision to upgrade?  Is your decision ruled by Pol= icy?L > > > By convenience (nothing else to do today)?  Or do you have an objecti= ve > > > criteria that you apply? > > > L > > > Specifically, is 7.3 good enough (in some sense) or is 7.3-2 a better=  bet?  > > > L > > > I suppose the same question could be applied to patches -- but then a= gain, ' > > > maybe you apply the same process.  > > >  > > > Thanks, dave.  > > >  > > ; > > No one has mentioned the Sarbanes-Oxley type influence.  >=20H > Not sure what Sarb/Ox would have to do with OpenVMS or any other o.s.,= > since most of the work is done in the application "layers".  >=20
 > > Is this a I > > non-issue? Some friends were recently commenting that they were being L > > forced to upgrade other pieces of software (Oracle in particular) as th= e K > > auditors would no longer certify the business as 'stable' (or whatever) A > > because it was reliant on software that had gone off support.  >=20B > That's like dropping certification for a medical/scientific/etc.J > instrument that goes out of warranty. Makes no sense. Show 'em the door. >=20
 > > Is this a B > > red herring or just a specific instance of agressive auditors? >=20 > Who certified the auditors?  >=20  - Ah, one of the greatest conundra of the ages.   B In all my years in IT, with time served in finance, government andE industry, I cannot to this day tell you whether having a competent DP : auditor or an incompetent DP auditor is the greater curse.   WWWebb   ------------------------------   End of INFO-VAX 2005.387 ************************