1 INFO-VAX	Fri, 02 Sep 2005	Volume 2005 : Issue 490       Contents: Re: CSWB browser troubles...& Re: Freely distributable FMS runtime ?& Re: Freely distributable FMS runtime ? RE: Freely distributed FMS Re: Freely distributed FMS0 Re: Hp Technology forum (New Orleans sept 12-15)0 Re: Hp Technology forum (New Orleans sept 12-15)0 Re: Hp Technology forum (New Orleans sept 12-15)0 Re: Hp Technology forum (New Orleans sept 12-15)0 Re: Hp Technology forum (New Orleans sept 12-15)0 Re: Hp Technology forum (New Orleans sept 12-15)0 Re: Hp Technology forum (New Orleans sept 12-15)0 Re: Hp Technology forum (New Orleans sept 12-15)0 Re: Hp Technology forum (New Orleans sept 12-15)0 Re: Hp Technology forum (New Orleans sept 12-15)0 Re: Hp Technology forum (New Orleans sept 12-15)0 Re: Hp Technology forum (New Orleans sept 12-15)0 Re: Hp Technology forum (New Orleans sept 12-15) Re: Itanium Solutions Alliance Re: Itanium Solutions Alliance Re: Itanium Solutions Alliance Re: Itanium Solutions Alliance Re: Itanium Solutions Alliance Re: Itanium Solutions Alliance4 Re: Mixed interconnect VAX VMS 6.2 cluster challenge< OT: OS X , with OpenVPN for bridging simh to the real world?@ Re: OT: OS X , with OpenVPN for bridging simh to the real world?@ Re: OT: OS X , with OpenVPN for bridging simh to the real world?, Re: Percentage of customers with X-windows ?  Re: simh with logical networking Re: VAXen as a plural of VAX Re: VAXen as a plural of VAX Re: VAXen as a plural of VAX Re: VAXen as a plural of VAX8 Re: Why is disk I/O operation rate .GT. direct I/O rate?E [OpenVMS V7.3-2,DWMOTIF V1.3-1] DECW$SERVER in Endless Loop at Prio 6   F ----------------------------------------------------------------------  % Date: Fri, 02 Sep 2005 07:45:54 +0100 # From: issinoho <issinoho@gmail.com> % Subject: Re: CSWB browser troubles... 4 Message-ID: <df8sf7$8uo$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk>   Brad Hamilton wrote:7 > I'm just a hobbyist, but I'm hoping someone can help.  >  > Environment:% > VMS V7.3-2 with all current patches % > TCPware V5.6-2, all current patches  > DWMotif V1.3-1, ECO2
 > CSWB V1.7-8  > ! > I've installed the CSWB images.  > D > CSWB "hangs" (no I/O after an initial start-up); I've enabled all J > logging (that I can see) using the logicals NSPR_LOG_MODULES(FILE), and > > the NSPR log spits out the following message, over and over: >  > "PR_Poll timed out" % > "calling PR-Poll [active=0 idle=0]"  > ? > I'm at a loss - has anyone seen this (or know how to fix it)?  >   F How much memory do you have? In my experience CSWB is a hungry little  monster for RAM.   ------------------------------  # Date: Fri, 02 Sep 2005 10:14:25 GMT 5 From: rdeininger@mindspringdot.com (Robert Deininger) / Subject: Re: Freely distributable FMS runtime ? L Message-ID: <rdeininger-0209050614240001@user-105n8as.dialup.mindspring.com>  5 In article <4317D51A.E300CB81@teksavvy.com>, JF Mezei % <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> wrote:   H >Since FMS has been mature since the early 1990s, how difficult would itE >be to convince VMS management to make FMS run time included in VMS ?    Why don't you ask them?    ------------------------------   Date: 2 Sep 2005 10:39:14 -0700 ' From: "MattF" <mf-g2@mfsrv.demon.co.uk> / Subject: Re: Freely distributable FMS runtime ? B Message-ID: <1125682754.372895.91760@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>  C Looking on ITRC, in the patch list for  OpenVMS/Alpha 8.2, there is    >>   AXP_FMSFDVECO1-V25- PRODUCT       : HP FMS V2.5 Alpha Runtime-Kit    3  KIT DEPENDENCIES:  D        This ECO 1 kit contains the complete software for of FMS V2.5 RUNTIME, and does not >        require any base kit prior to installation of this kit.   <</ Doesn't appear to be there for VAX/IA64 though.   0 Doesn't mention any licensing relaxation though.  * (ITRC patch speling/gramer  not corrected)   ------------------------------  $ Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2005 19:02:13 +10006 From: "O'Brien Paddy" <Paddy.O'Brien@transgrid.com.au># Subject: RE: Freely distributed FMS X Message-ID: <8BAD914A0B8CA84C9E94187103A1AB9E05BE9A@EX-TG2-PR.corporate.transgrid.local>  , This is a multi-part message in MIME format.  ' ------_=_NextPart_001_01C5AF9D.021EDD55 . Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"+ Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable    JF,   E I agree and there are some other products that should be so included.   G FMS went to V2.5 in Q1(2?) merely to put it onto that IA thing (TM: JF)   L GKS has been in maintenance for a long while, and Fortran is in maintenance=5  ever since our Fortran hero (SL) was given to Intel.   L I also understand that CXML programmers were donated.  I cannot get any ans=A wers on Fortran problems or CXML problems -- even writing to Sue.   L Sorry for top-posting, but OWA (Outlook Web Access is all that I have left =L available to me from my VMS boxes (boxen :-).  And, of course being Microsh=2 aft, it is the most pathetic interface imaginable.   Regards, Paddy   -----Original Message-----4 From: JF Mezei [mailto:jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com] Sent: Fri 9/2/2005 2:29 PM 0To: Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Com+ Subject: Freely distributable FMS runtime ?  =20 G Since FMS has been mature since the early 1990s, how difficult would it D be to convince VMS management to make FMS run time included in VMS ?H They could include a "public" license on the freeware site, and the nextH time FMS is recompiled, have it check for a VMS licence instead of a FMS% run time or development license ?????       > (To those not aware, FMS was available in 2 versions: the fullF (development) version that includes the editor and other utilities (asD well as the run time shareable images), and the FMS Run Time licence2 which includes only the run time shareable image.)        G ***********************************************************************   C "This electronic message and any attachments may contain privileged @ and confidential information intended only for the use of the=20D addressees named above.  If you are not the intended recipient of=20C this email, please delete the message and any attachment and advise D the sender.  You are hereby notified that any use, dissemination,=207 distribution, reproduction of this email is prohibited.   C If you have received the email in error, please notify TransGrid=20 C immediately.  Any views expressed in this email are those of the=20 ? individual sender except where the sender expressly and with=20 C authority states them to be the views of TransGrid.  TransGrid uses > virus-scanning software but excludes any liability for viruses contained in any attachment.  < Please note the email address for TransGrid personnel is now$ firstname.lastname@transgrid.com.au"  G ***********************************************************************     ' ------_=_NextPart_001_01C5AF9D.021EDD55 - Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" + Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable   1 <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">  <HTML> <HEAD>L <META HTTP-EQUIV=3D"Content-Type" CONTENT=3D"text/html; charset=3Diso-8859-= 1"> K <META NAME=3D"Generator" CONTENT=3D"MS Exchange Server version 6.5.7226.0"> ) <TITLE>RE: Freely distributed FMS</TITLE>  </HEAD>  <BODY>) <!-- Converted from text/plain format -->    <P><FONT SIZE=3D2>JF,<BR>  <BR>I I agree and there are some other products that should be so included.<BR>  <BR>K FMS went to V2.5 in Q1(2?) merely to put it onto that IA thing (TM: JF)<BR>  <BR>L GKS has been in maintenance for a long while, and Fortran is in maintenance=9  ever since our Fortran hero (SL) was given to Intel.<BR>  <BR>L I also understand that CXML programmers were donated.&nbsp; I cannot get an=J y answers on Fortran problems or CXML problems -- even writing to Sue.<BR> <BR>L Sorry for top-posting, but OWA (Outlook Web Access is all that I have left =L available to me from my VMS boxes (boxen :-).&nbsp; And, of course being Mi=; croshaft, it is the most pathetic interface imaginable.<BR>  <BR> Regards, Paddy<BR> <BR> -----Original Message-----<BR>L From: JF Mezei [<A HREF=3D"mailto:jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com">mailto:jfme=! zei.spamnot@teksavvy.com</A>]<BR>  Sent: Fri 9/2/2005 2:29 PM<BR> 0To: Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Com<BR>/ Subject: Freely distributable FMS runtime ?<BR>  <BR>K Since FMS has been mature since the early 1990s, how difficult would it<BR> H be to convince VMS management to make FMS run time included in VMS ?<BR>L They could include a &quot;public&quot; license on the freeware site, and t= he next<BR> L time FMS is recompiled, have it check for a VMS licence instead of a FMS<BR>) run time or development license ?????<BR>  <BR> <BR> <BR>B (To those not aware, FMS was available in 2 versions: the full<BR>J (development) version that includes the editor and other utilities (as<BR>H well as the run time shareable images), and the FMS Run Time licence<BR>6 which includes only the run time shareable image.)<BR> <BR> <BR> </FONT>  </P>   <FONT SIZE=3D3><BR>  <BR>K ***********************************************************************<BR>  <BR>G "This electronic message and any attachments may contain privileged<BR> B and confidential information intended only for the use of the <BR>F addressees named above.  If you are not the intended recipient of <BR>G this email, please delete the message and any attachment and advise<BR> F the sender.  You are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, <BR>; distribution, reproduction of this email is prohibited.<BR>  <BR>E If you have received the email in error, please notify TransGrid <BR> E immediately.  Any views expressed in this email are those of the <BR> A individual sender except where the sender expressly and with <BR> G authority states them to be the views of TransGrid.  TransGrid uses<BR> B virus-scanning software but excludes any liability for viruses<BR>  contained in any attachment.<BR> <BR>@ Please note the email address for TransGrid personnel is now<BR>( firstname.lastname@transgrid.com.au"<BR> <BR>K ***********************************************************************<BR>  </FONT>  </BODY>  </HTML> ) ------_=_NextPart_001_01C5AF9D.021EDD55--    ------------------------------   Date: 2 Sep 2005 03:03:04 -0700  From: dooleys@snowy.net.au# Subject: Re: Freely distributed FMS C Message-ID: <1125655384.062663.256710@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>   1 I was going to say that at least that gets rid of 1 the long transgrid discaimer, but I see that your % system managed to botom-post that. :)  Phil   ------------------------------   Date: 2 Sep 2005 08:14:07 -0500 ; From: koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) 9 Subject: Re: Hp Technology forum (New Orleans sept 12-15) 3 Message-ID: <uADbL8dKhv8N@eisner.encompasserve.org>   Z In article <FFHRe.11594$Td.9972@news.cpqcorp.net>, Rick Jones <rick.jones2@hp.com> writes: > D > I'd heard something about one of the airports being able to handle  > limited flights at this point.  A    It looks from satellite photos that the larger airport (to the C    southwest of the city) is dry.  Newspapers are rporting that its      open for relief flights only.  H > But can they hold as many or more people than a bus, and can take them > all the way to Houston?   B    There area a lot of poor people in NO who didn't have thier own@    transportation out.  Why weren't they bussed out prior to theF    hurricance?  Most of these people get around by city bus.  It wouldF    have been bettr to bus them out than leave the busses in the flood.   ------------------------------   Date: 2 Sep 2005 08:32:22 -0500 ; From: koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) 9 Subject: Re: Hp Technology forum (New Orleans sept 12-15) 3 Message-ID: <FCu7x6Z9JRRu@eisner.encompasserve.org>   \ In article <43174F0D.E1446A8D@teksavvy.com>, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> writes: > C > I am not impressed with the response. FEMA said that 4-5 days was B > acceptable.  The military should have been in there with the bigG > artillery within HOURS of the winds dying down, along with amphibious J > vehicles capable of moving on dry portions of streets as well as floodedI > portions of streets. But the military can't do anything until the mayor C > asks the governor to ask the president to allow the military in.    D    The administration stated yesterday that they couldn't anticipateD    the levies breaking.  The media pointed out that FEMA completed aC    study last month showing that in a catagory 3 or higher huricane ,    hitting NO that levy breakage was likely.  H > The mayors, governmors and Bush should have agreed to deploy military I > BEFORE the hurricane so that the military could be on site within hours  > (not days) of the storm.  E   The big heavy resources should have been deployed to get people out E   before the storm, and should have hit the ground within 24 hours of B   the storm.  How is it that we can invade Haiti on several hour's+   notice but we can't get into NO for days?    ------------------------------   Date: 2 Sep 2005 08:47:13 -0500 ; From: koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) 9 Subject: Re: Hp Technology forum (New Orleans sept 12-15) 3 Message-ID: <f4yDGSslh+eM@eisner.encompasserve.org>   V In article <3npeu1F2molfU1@individual.net>, bill@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) writes:    >> commandeer amtrak trains  > @ > Not legally.  You seem to have mistaken us for the Communists.  A    There is no need to commandeer Amtrak trains.  Amtrack is part     of the government.   D    The government already has the authority to mobilize Amtrak in anH    emergency, even though the tracks are privately owned.  But I suspectE    the tracks in and near the entire gulf coast are currently unsafe.    ------------------------------   Date: 2 Sep 2005 08:50:58 -0500 ; From: koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) 9 Subject: Re: Hp Technology forum (New Orleans sept 12-15) 3 Message-ID: <yR3ZR+eIwAFN@eisner.encompasserve.org>   V In article <3npgmvF2mnjkU1@individual.net>, bill@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) writes: > 9 > Amphibious vehicles!!  What army are you talking about?  >   C    We've been talking about the possibility of sending in DWCK (aka E    "ducks"), as used during WW II.  Unfortuneatley very few are left  /    and are scattered around doing tourist duty.   =    The Marine Corps has modern replacements and the Guard has E    access to them, but I think other assets could be deployed faster.    ------------------------------   Date: 2 Sep 2005 08:38:42 -0500 ; From: koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) 9 Subject: Re: Hp Technology forum (New Orleans sept 12-15) 3 Message-ID: <kCMwZflziR3s@eisner.encompasserve.org>   V In article <3np6jbF2lkmbU2@individual.net>, bill@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) writes: > I > Actually, that isn't exactly true.  It is very difficult to utilize the " > military within our own borders.  A    The military can be used within our borders on short notice on B    either of at least two conditions:  1)  we are under attack,   F    2)  martial law is declared.  Under the circumstances few citizens G    would have been upset if Bush declared martial law in NO on Tuesday.   G > I still lay the blame primarily on FEMA.  They are supposed to be the L > ones to take control at a higher level to prevent this kind of politicing.  F    At the top, FEMA is run by political appointees like any other partD    of the administration.  They get thier budget and thier direction    from politicians.  A    It's time to remember Truman's plaque:  "The buck stops here".    ------------------------------   Date: 2 Sep 2005 08:43:25 -0500 ; From: koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) 9 Subject: Re: Hp Technology forum (New Orleans sept 12-15) 3 Message-ID: <oU6GnE+YgryC@eisner.encompasserve.org>   _ In article <05090116381685_2040835C@antinode.org>, sms@antinode.org (Steven M. Schweda) writes: / > From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com>  > H >    Would it be possible to solve this problem in some forum other thanC > comp.os.vms?  I doubt that the FEMA people will be following this H > discussion, and thus will miss all the brilliant advice offered here.  > Please contact them directly.  >   9    If we can't grouse amoungst freinds, what's the point?   (    I think FEMA _is_ getting an earfull.   ------------------------------   Date: 2 Sep 2005 08:54:42 -0500 ; From: koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) 9 Subject: Re: Hp Technology forum (New Orleans sept 12-15) 3 Message-ID: <rmUNwhO4duC+@eisner.encompasserve.org>   [ In article <4317B55C.8FD0BA1@teksavvy.com>, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> writes:   E > Who said trains would get to the downtown section ? Initially, they G > could only get to the outskirts where railbed isn't flooded/damaged.    F    I passed through Iowa via Amtrack shortly after the tracks reopenedE    after flooding in 1993.  Where they would normally travel 60 to 70 G    mph they were under orders to a 25 mph limit.  And this is on tracks D    that had been under use and inspection, not tracks which had just    been flooded.   ------------------------------  # Date: Fri, 02 Sep 2005 14:37:10 GMT 1 From: Jay Maynard <jmaynard@thebrain.conmicro.cx> 9 Subject: Re: Hp Technology forum (New Orleans sept 12-15) : Message-ID: <slrndhgosf.h17.jmaynard@thebrain.conmicro.cx>  K On 2005-09-02, Bob Koehler <koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org> wrote: F >    The government already has the authority to mobilize Amtrak in anJ >    emergency, even though the tracks are privately owned.  But I suspectG >    the tracks in and near the entire gulf coast are currently unsafe.   F That's the current state of affairs, yes. Supposedly, BNSF and NorfolkK Southern are close to getting their track usable again; others, such as CSX  and CN, are a long way away.   ------------------------------   Date: 2 Sep 2005 07:44:55 -0700 $ From: "AEF" <spamsink2001@yahoo.com>9 Subject: Re: Hp Technology forum (New Orleans sept 12-15) B Message-ID: <1125672295.118497.20430@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>   JF Mezei wrote:  > Larry Kilgallen wrote:E > > Presuming there was no damage to railbeds, my recollection of the D > > rail connection to the Amtrak station (quite near the Superdome)E > > is that it is a single track.  This means you cannot have inbound 1 > > traffic at the same time as outbound traffic.  > E > Who said trains would get to the downtown section ? Initially, they F > could only get to the outskirts where railbed isn't flooded/damaged. > E > 2- Even with single track, you can have service.  Think half duplex H > communications instead of full duplex. Inbound train enters the singleG > track section while train at station is loading. Then, as the inbound J > train arrives, the outbound train can leave, and inbound train can startI > loading and then wait for track to be clear before it leaves. Railroads N > are used to operate on single tracks, just like IBM was used to half duplex. > ' > Where there is a will there is a way.     F There could be -- make that -- there are likely multiple tracks at the station.  G There are sidings where one train can wait while another zips by in the F other direction. I believe these are still used. NJ Transit has single= track in some places. They must have sidings to make it work.    ------------------------------  # Date: Fri, 02 Sep 2005 15:04:23 GMT 6 From: "Kenneth Farmer" <kfarmer@NOSPAM.spyderbyte.com>9 Subject: Re: Hp Technology forum (New Orleans sept 12-15) = Message-ID: <XRZRe.27025$Tq2.119374@twister.southeast.rr.com>   I "Bob Koehler" <koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org> wrote in message  - news:yR3ZR+eIwAFN@eisner.encompasserve.org... E > In article <3npgmvF2mnjkU1@individual.net>, bill@cs.uofs.edu (Bill   > Gunshannon) writes:  >>: >> Amphibious vehicles!!  What army are you talking about? >> > D >   We've been talking about the possibility of sending in DWCK (akaE >   "ducks"), as used during WW II.  Unfortuneatley very few are left 0 >   and are scattered around doing tourist duty. > > >   The Marine Corps has modern replacements and the Guard hasF >   access to them, but I think other assets could be deployed faster.    L Wasn't the Higgin's boat made in NO?  They're the amphibious craft that hit  the Normandy beaches and more.   http://www.higginsboat.org/    The website sunk.        Ken    ------------------------------   Date: 2 Sep 2005 16:01:09 GMT ( From: bill@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon)9 Subject: Re: Hp Technology forum (New Orleans sept 12-15) + Message-ID: <3nrba4F2ueclU1@individual.net>   ; In article <PTZRe.2023$hv5.1647@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk>, + 	Alan Greig <greigaln@netscape.net> writes:  >  >  > Bob Koehler wrote: > Y >> In article <3npgmvF2mnjkU1@individual.net>, bill@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) writes:  >>  : >>>Amphibious vehicles!!  What army are you talking about? >>>  >>   >>  F >>    We've been talking about the possibility of sending in DWCK (akaH >>    "ducks"), as used during WW II.  Unfortuneatley very few are left 2 >>    and are scattered around doing tourist duty. > J > I used to work for the company which made the Bradley Fighting Vehicle. K > It's supposed to be amphibious but early production models just sank and  H > FMC covered that up from the army and knowingly defrauded the Federal G > Government. Do a search for "bradley fmc whistleblower" for the full  K > story. Shortly afterwards FMC sold the division but presumably currently  % > Bradleys can float. Where are they?   E How many people does a Bradley carry?  Rhetorical question, I used to G drive one, I know.  And swimming any armored vehicle is only done under G the direst of situations.  You know, the old M151A1 Jeep was capable of B deepwater fording in depths up to 10-12 feet.  Too bad the driversI didn't have gills.  Military vehicles are designed for specific purposes. 4 Rescuing civilians from floods is not one of them.    J APC's "can" float as well and hold more people.  And the same thing I said* about the Bradley applies to them as well.   bill   --  J Bill Gunshannon          |  de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n.  Three wolvesD bill@cs.scranton.edu     |  and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. University of Scranton   |A Scranton, Pennsylvania   |         #include <std.disclaimer.h>       ------------------------------  # Date: Fri, 02 Sep 2005 16:15:13 GMT ( From: Alan Greig <greigaln@netscape.net>9 Subject: Re: Hp Technology forum (New Orleans sept 12-15) 9 Message-ID: <lU_Re.459$ix3.368@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk>    Bill Gunshannon wrote:   > G > How many people does a Bradley carry?  Rhetorical question, I used to I > drive one, I know.  And swimming any armored vehicle is only done under I > the direst of situations.  You know, the old M151A1 Jeep was capable of   G And this isn't the direst of situations? There is no ideal solution to   this. It's all bad.   D > deepwater fording in depths up to 10-12 feet.  Too bad the driversK > didn't have gills.  Military vehicles are designed for specific purposes. 6 > Rescuing civilians from floods is not one of them.    C But getting armed personnel into flooded areas to provide armoured  D protection, even if not rescue, for civilians perhaps could be? The E police had to pull back from the convention centre because they were  H shot at. Armoured amphibous vehicles are surely needed. I know it's not 
 a magic wand.   L > APC's "can" float as well and hold more people.  And the same thing I said, > about the Bradley applies to them as well. >  > bill >    --  
 Alan Greig   ------------------------------  # Date: Fri, 02 Sep 2005 17:00:12 GMT ( From: Alan Greig <greigaln@netscape.net>9 Subject: Re: Hp Technology forum (New Orleans sept 12-15) 9 Message-ID: <wy%Re.914$pm2.323@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk>    > E > But getting armed personnel into flooded areas to provide armoured  F > protection, even if not rescue, for civilians perhaps could be? The G > police had to pull back from the convention centre because they were    G Can anyone confirm this conference centre is the same one the HP forum  F was supposed to take place? Seems to be one and the same to me? Looks > like there is a large military convoy heading there right now.   --  
 Alan Greig   ------------------------------  % Date: Fri, 02 Sep 2005 01:43:11 -0500 % From: Dan Foster <usenet@evilphb.org> ' Subject: Re: Itanium Solutions Alliance 5 Message-ID: <slrndhft3v.su4.usenet@zappy.catbert.org>   ` In article <vdpTmbrsh3FR@eisner.encompasserve.org>, Rob Young <young_r@encompasserve.org> wrote: > 7 > 	Montecito will pull past Power5 in performance [...]   F It seems to me like many of your posts on this topic has put it in the form of:  4 	<Next gen Intel I64 processor code name> *WILL* ...  # [Note: emphasis on 'will' is mine.]   G How about a comparison of today's products that one can actually order?   G Otherwise, it just seems like you keep moving the goal posts every year  or two.   @ Comparing unshipped hardware vs shipping is rather disingenuous.  F Now, don't get me wrong, I64 isn't all bad. I wouldn't mind running my; SPARC, POWER, and Alpha systems alongside with I64 systems.   C To their credit, Intel's done a lot of work to improve its original - abysmal performance from about 5-6 years ago.   ? But, even if <next gen stuff> becomes technically superior, the E marketplace may or may not necessarily follow -- they've seen quite a ; few false starts over the past ten years with the I64 line.   E You're probably aware of the old example of Betamax vs VHS, I'm sure.   A Still, there's a small chance that Intel will manage to even more H aggressively market I64 for its current market niche -- HPC and high-endE servers, and rebound. Won't know if they succeeded for another 2 or 3  years.  D I can't write off Intel entirely since they do have some of the best? marketing people in the entire industry, and are also known for G extremely aggressive approaches and their aggressive corporate culture.   C But it's still sufficiently tenuous enough that I'd be reluctant to - recommend I64 purchases at work at this time.   G For my employer, Intel would have a realistic chance with I64 here only : if they had a presence in low-end and mid-range space as aH 'foot-in-the-door' thing leading to greater confidence by management and) the CIO in recommending larger purchases.   F We've been buying a number of AMD64 systems and they've blown away the> older machines they replaced by a larger than expected margin.  < 	- First gen servers required 30 mins to load our large app.# 	- Second gen required 12 1/2 mins. ( 	- Third (previous) gen required 3 mins.* 	- Fourth (newest) gen required 6 seconds.  ( From 30 minutes to 6 seconds in 9 years.  E Granted, we don't have quite the same RAS (reliability, availability, F serviceability) features we do with our midrange servers, but it's not too bad.  D One of the few things I feel cripples x86-64 is that terrible, trulyC awful ancient kludge they call 'PC BIOS'. I would *so* welcome EFI.    -Dan   ------------------------------  % Date: Fri, 02 Sep 2005 04:00:54 -0400 ( From: Bill Todd <billtodd@metrocast.net>' Subject: Re: Itanium Solutions Alliance R Message-ID: <OdadnZ2dnZ2TqKu0nZ2dnSqbhd6dnZ2dRVn-0J2dnZ0@metrocastcablevision.com>   Rob Young wrote:   ...       As Gelsinger points out > 	about Itanium:   9 Mot exactly a completely unbiased source, one might note.    > M > But Intel has convinced Unisys, NEC, SGI, Fujitsu and Hitachi to join HP in D > designing mammoth Itanium systems and bringing them to the market.  B And they may now be as unhappy about having thrown all that time, G effort, and cash into the Great Itanic Sink-Hole as HP in its heart of   hearts probably is.   F Not, of course, that they can afford to say so publicly until they've & got a credible exit strategy in place.   > Q > "The industry has lined up--all but one--with Itanium as the platform of choice N > for RISC replacement and mainframe platforms for the future," Pat Gelsinger,L > general manager of Intel's digital enterprise group, said last week at the) > Intel Developer Forum in San Francisco.   I I guess Pat can count about as well as he can bring new architectures to   market success:   A IBM (that's one:  no current interest in Itanic at all, and only    luke-warm interest in the past).  @ Sun (that's two, rather than 'all but one':  hasn't been at all ) interested in Itanic for many years now).   F Fujitsu (that's three, even farther from 'all but one':  their Itanic E offering is pretty late to the party - or funeral - and pales beside  I their more per-core-performant and *far* more expandible SPARC64 systems  I which they are showing no sign whatsoever of preparing for the knacker's   yard).  
 Which leaves:   H HP (well, since Itanic was, however misguidedly, *created* by HP as its G PA-RISC successor, that's not exactly a vendor one can count as a coup   for Itanic).  H SGI (unlike IBM, Sun, and Fujitsu, believed the hype to the degree that G it scrapped its own MIPS architecture long before a viable replacement  D became available, only barely lived - at least so far - to tell the D tale, and is now preparing to field large x86 systems as an adjunct  and/or exit strategy).  G Unisys, NEC (who sell a few handfuls of Itanic systems each and didn't  B have commercially important processors of their own anyway:  they H undoubtedly wished to capitalize upon an unstoppable Itanic juggernaut, ? but will be just as happy to try to ride on the coattails of a   reinvigorated x86).   E Hitachi (whose new Itanic chipset appears to be a disappointment and  G which, like the other dwarves, doesn't sell enough Itanics to be worth   mentioning).   >  > 1 > 	Montecito will pull past Power5 in performance   H Horseshit.  Even *Intel* isn't claiming that - not even for the low-end ; systems where it might have had any chance at all to do so.   ? An Intel slide at IDF projected dual-chip 1.6 GHz Itanic TPC-C  G performance at 200K tpmC.  While a dual-chip POWER5 Oracle system only  E managed 194K tpmC a year or so ago, a quad-chip system hit 430K tpmC  B using DB2 and subsequent large Oracle system scores indicate that I they've learned how to tune Oracle to similar performance levels - i.e.,  E *at least* 215K tpmC for a dual-chip system if scaling to 4 chips is  B perfectly linear, and somewhat more if scaling is more real-world H (though POWER5 systems, in marked contract to Superdomes, do scale with  impressive linearity in TPC-C).   G Perhaps a 1.8 GHz Montecito system (if they actually manage to ship it  I at that clock rate) can equal that, but it will hardly 'pull past' it by  H any significant amount.  And that's in low-end, two-chip servers, where G Itanic was at least within shouting distance of POWER5 already (POWER5  D enjoying at most a 33% per-core lead over Madison II):  in high-end G servers, POWER5 out-performs Itanic per core *by 3.2 to 1 in TPC-C and  G by factors of 2:1 or better in other major commercial benchmarks*, and  B Montecito won't close that gap enough even to taste POWER5's dust.  G Not to mention that by then POWER5+ will be out (which Intel laughably  ; projected to hit only 235K tpmC at 2.4 GHz for a dual-chip  H configuration, rather reminiscent of their out-right mendacious LINPACK D comparison early this summer:  in fact, if POWER5+ hits 2.4 GHz, it  should hit about 270K tpmC).     and there isA > 	speculation in realworldtech.com that it will match Power5+ in ( > 	performance (where it counts - tpmC).  G Not any more, Rob, save for Paul's pathetic professions of pure faith.  F Anyone with their eyes open at RWT - even Itanic's fervent supporters ; there - started seeing the writing on the wall a while ago.   E But I guess you don't get out enough to have noticed that.  Too busy  3 spinning and whistling past the graveyard, perhaps.    - bill   ------------------------------  % Date: Fri, 02 Sep 2005 08:48:22 -0400 " From: "Col. Panic" <blip@spam.org>' Subject: Re: Itanium Solutions Alliance < Message-ID: <p-WdnXgp3egZ1IXenZ2dnUVZ_tGdnZ2d@warpdrive.net>   Bill Todd wrote:   > Rob Young wrote: >  > ...  >>  K >> "The industry has lined up--all but one--with Itanium as the platform of K >> choice for RISC replacement and mainframe platforms for the future," Pat L >> Gelsinger, general manager of Intel's digital enterprise group, said last6 >> week at the Intel Developer Forum in San Francisco. > J > I guess Pat can count about as well as he can bring new architectures to > market success:  > +    " At Intel, quality is job 0.999999998 "    --   --   ------------------------------  % Date: Fri, 02 Sep 2005 11:01:29 -0400 ' From: Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> ' Subject: Re: Itanium Solutions Alliance / Message-ID: <11hgq17n1rtb58@corp.supernews.com>    Rob Young wrote:\ > In article <11hfkb64qbh9n4d@corp.supernews.com>, Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> writes: >  > I >>That's not the real problem.  Yes, there can be roadmaps and such.  In  I >>2007, if even one vendor's x86 CPUs are faster/better/cheaper than the  9 >>itanic, what do you think most people are going to buy?  >>D >>Remember, as mentioned earlier, it appears like intel is throwing I >>everything including the kitchen sink at x86-64, or is that AMD-64, so  - >>it's possibly that itanic will be eclipsed.  >>H >>You jumped on the itanic bandwagon real quickly when Alpha was killed J >>for being low volume, too few users with respect to the entire computer G >>industry, etc.  Well, what will happen to itanic when it has too few  J >>users, and an owner who has lots less to lose than Compaq did when they K >>killed Alpha?  All Intel has is the CPUs.  Compaq had the entire VMS and  H >>T64 user base.  Compaq's solution, move to itanic.  Intel's solution, 7 >>move to Xeon.  AMD's position, we're waiting for you.  >> >  > A > 	You talk in generalities.   There is a pretty good reason that A > 	Power5 is thriving.  It is a high performing CPU.  Look at how A > 	narrow its market is and yet it is doing well.  It runs on IBM $ > 	hardware with 2 OSes to its name.  E The reason Power is surviving is because IBM has the will to make it  H survive.  A hugh contrast to Compaq, which didn't want to be in the CPU 	 business.   E There is much at stake with IBM and Power.  Should they ever give up  E their 'better solution', the customers will realize that they are no  I different than the rest of the 'sheep', and their 'special place' in the  G eyes of their customers will no longer exist.  That will be the end of  H IBM as a company that is viewed as the standard against which all other  competitors are compared.   F IBM retains the 'guts' to continue to be IBM.  Capallas, and probably H the BOD, just wanted to be another Dell.  Problem is, there can be only 	 one Dell.    >  As Gelsinger points out > 	about Itanium:  > M > But Intel has convinced Unisys, NEC, SGI, Fujitsu and Hitachi to join HP in D > designing mammoth Itanium systems and bringing them to the market. > Q > "The industry has lined up--all but one--with Itanium as the platform of choice N > for RISC replacement and mainframe platforms for the future," Pat Gelsinger,L > general manager of Intel's digital enterprise group, said last week at the* > Intel Developer Forum in San Francisco.   G So bigger is better?  Don't forget the claims about the Titanic, "It's  A too big to sink".  Yout itanic is in the same position, and it's   nickname is Oh so appropriate.  D It's not the companies who develop systems using the chip that will I determine it's fate, it's the customers who will, or will not, buy these   systems.  C Once again, since you seem to miss it every time I write it, if an  G x86-64 CPU eclipses the performance of itanic, and is cheaper, what do   you think people will buy?  H Intel can no longer insure the performance of itanic over x86 by simply @ not developing faster and more capable x86 chips.  They will be I advancing the x86 chips as far and as fast as they can, because AMD sure  E won't accomodate them and restrict their development.  That 'far and  D fast' part will eclipse the itanic effort, and if they also eclipse 6 itanic's performance, people just won't buy the thing.  > > 	Montecito will pull past Power5 in performance and there isA > 	speculation in realworldtech.com that it will match Power5+ in ( > 	performance (where it counts - tpmC).  G When?  When IBM has Power6 out?  As an exercise, can you name even one  H single version of the itanic that has actually matched the prior claims 9 of what it would be capable of?  Just one Rob.  Just one!    >  Power5, Power5+, ? > 	Montecito, Montvale , Tukwila will be in a different segment @ > 	compared to commodity server parts (Xeon, Opteron).  It isn't@ > 	as if Hitachi, NEC, SGI, Fujitsu, HP, Unisys are all guessingB > 	at what is coming... Intel is/has been briefing them all along.F > 	There is serious money involved - you don't do billion+ investmentsA > 	like Fujitsu for example if you didn't have a long term future D > 	in the architecture of choice.  Don't talk Alpha.  Alpha's ownersB > 	never had the scale to do what Intel is doing with Itanium (1).  E Companies have been stupid before, and will be again.  It may all be  E Intel money.  Regardless, it isn't the decisions of the vandors that  ; matters, it is the decisions of the customers that matters.   H If Intel spun off the itanic as a seperate company, to stand or fall on C it's own, how many shares would you buy Rob?  With your own money?   Starting to get the idea?   	 > 				Rob  > G > (1)  Still a big Alpha fan I am.  But it is fading into the sunset.    >      Get over it.  >   F I'm long past being 'over it'.  Doesn't mean I have to forget it ever " existed, or forget it's potential.   --  4 David Froble                       Tel: 724-529-04504 Dave Froble Enterprises, Inc.      Fax: 724-529-0596> DFE Ultralights, Inc.              E-Mail: davef@tsoft-inc.com 170 Grimplin Road  Vanderbilt, PA  15486    ------------------------------   Date: 2 Sep 2005 12:45:39 -0500 + From: young_r@encompasserve.org (Rob Young) ' Subject: Re: Itanium Solutions Alliance 3 Message-ID: <i$zPgBLLr+rK@eisner.encompasserve.org>   } In article <OdadnZ2dnZ2TqKu0nZ2dnSqbhd6dnZ2dRVn-0J2dnZ0@metrocastcablevision.com>, Bill Todd <billtodd@metrocast.net> writes:  > Rob Young wrote: >  > ...  >  >    As Gelsinger points out >> 	about Itanium: > ; > Mot exactly a completely unbiased source, one might note.  >   ' 	True.  But factual nonetheless, right?    >>  N >> But Intel has convinced Unisys, NEC, SGI, Fujitsu and Hitachi to join HP inE >> designing mammoth Itanium systems and bringing them to the market.  > D > And they may now be as unhappy about having thrown all that time, I > effort, and cash into the Great Itanic Sink-Hole as HP in its heart of   > hearts probably is.  >   9 	I don't think so.  You are confusing UltraSparc somehow.   H > Not, of course, that they can afford to say so publicly until they've ( > got a credible exit strategy in place.  @ 	Sun won't do that and shake their already shaky installed base.   >  >>  R >> "The industry has lined up--all but one--with Itanium as the platform of choiceO >> for RISC replacement and mainframe platforms for the future," Pat Gelsinger, M >> general manager of Intel's digital enterprise group, said last week at the * >> Intel Developer Forum in San Francisco. > K > I guess Pat can count about as well as he can bring new architectures to   > market success:  > C > IBM (that's one:  no current interest in Itanic at all, and only  " > luke-warm interest in the past). > B > Sun (that's two, rather than 'all but one':  hasn't been at all + > interested in Itanic for many years now).  >   2 	Need to scroll down a bit in that same article...  K The lone holdout Gelsinger referred to is IBM, whose Power processor is the K second horse in what Intel likes to call a two-horse race, but it should be K noted that Sun also shuns Itanium in favor of high-end systems built around  Sparc processors.     A 	UltraSparc is "dead man walking".  He knows it, Sun's continuing ! 	shrinking server share shows it.     H > Fujitsu (that's three, even farther from 'all but one':  their Itanic G > offering is pretty late to the party - or funeral - and pales beside  K > their more per-core-performant and *far* more expandible SPARC64 systems  K > which they are showing no sign whatsoever of preparing for the knacker's   > yard).  : 	Come on Bill... you are losing your edge.  I mean, it was7 	2 weeks ago whereby this presentation was made at IPF:   K Optimizing Your Datacenter with Intel-based Fujitsu Mainframe-class Mission  Critical Server   D https://www28.cplan.com/cbi_export/PS_ISDS006_275590_82-9_FIN_v2.pdf  E 	You'll notice on slide 11 their dual-syncrhonous system architecture C 	has 34 patents applied.  Pointing out effort spent.  You'll notice F 	on slide 23 the cpu is Itanium, and the two different models.  You'llA 	notice on slide 24 the PrimeQuest roadmap shows 3 generations of ( 	Itanium (Madison, Montecito, Montvale).  - 	Sharpen your FUD stick, you're getting weak.    > Which leaves:  > J > HP (well, since Itanic was, however misguidedly, *created* by HP as its I > PA-RISC successor, that's not exactly a vendor one can count as a coup   > for Itanic). > J > SGI (unlike IBM, Sun, and Fujitsu, believed the hype to the degree that I > it scrapped its own MIPS architecture long before a viable replacement  F > became available, only barely lived - at least so far - to tell the F > tale, and is now preparing to field large x86 systems as an adjunct  > and/or exit strategy). > I > Unisys, NEC (who sell a few handfuls of Itanic systems each and didn't  D > have commercially important processors of their own anyway:  they J > undoubtedly wished to capitalize upon an unstoppable Itanic juggernaut, A > but will be just as happy to try to ride on the coattails of a   > reinvigorated x86).  > G > Hitachi (whose new Itanic chipset appears to be a disappointment and  I > which, like the other dwarves, doesn't sell enough Itanics to be worth   > mentioning). >  >>   >>  9 >> 	Montecito will pull past Power5 in [tpmC] performance  > J > Horseshit.  Even *Intel* isn't claiming that - not even for the low-end = > systems where it might have had any chance at all to do so.  >   % 	Hey... never saw you challenge this:   e http://realworldtech.com/forums/index.cfm?action=detail&PostNum=3689&Thread=5&entryID=55974&roomID=11   - 2) 1.8(2.0) GHz 24 MB Montecito + zx2 chipset   
 280k TPC-C  ? 	That number is higher than Power5, quite a bit in fact.  Maybe > 	Paul is off the mark but he is a great technical writer, etc.  I > Perhaps a 1.8 GHz Montecito system (if they actually manage to ship it  K > at that clock rate) can equal that, but it will hardly 'pull past' it by   > any significant amount.      	I disagree, but we will see.    > I > Not any more, Rob, save for Paul's pathetic professions of pure faith.  H > Anyone with their eyes open at RWT - even Itanic's fervent supporters = > there - started seeing the writing on the wall a while ago.  > G > But I guess you don't get out enough to have noticed that.  Too busy  5 > spinning and whistling past the graveyard, perhaps.  >   ? 	He isn't alone.  Plus... the vast installed base hasn't really > 	begun the migration, that won't happen for a bit (1-2 years).  	PA-RISC had its last spin, etc.   				Rob    ------------------------------   Date: 2 Sep 2005 12:48:41 -0500 + From: young_r@encompasserve.org (Rob Young) ' Subject: Re: Itanium Solutions Alliance 3 Message-ID: <Qnq6BZzYJe78@eisner.encompasserve.org>   c In article <kHWRe.267$pm2.65@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk>, Alan Greig <greigaln@netscape.net> writes:  >  >  > Rob Young wrote: >  >>  B >> 	Is puffery.  Go click around on the .pdfs of the presentationsA >> 	and verify.  You may not have heard it, but it was presented.  > F > About 5 years ago a number of customers, including myself, began to I > become very concerned about the downplay of Alpha by the very top tier  K > of Compaq management and began wondering just what exactly was going on.  G > When Windows 2000 was dropped much of the IT news industry commented  J > they believed it signified the end of Alpha - and yes, I'm sure you can H > dredge up counter-examples if you try hard enough. At that time there K > were plenty of presentations on Alphas glorious future (I attended quite  J > a few UK DECUS sessions) but Capellas never put his name to them. Now I K > see the top management of Intel apparently very careful to say little or  K > nothing at all and, once again, I am asked to believe there's nothing to   > worry about. > J > Simple question? Do you believe that Intel CEO Otellini really just ran L > out of time and that's why he didn't mention Intel's "flagship" processor? > H > "In terms of Itanium, it was time budget," Otellini said. "I was given$ > 59 minutes, and I hit 59 minutes." > " > Again, Rob, do you believe that?  : 	Why not?  I don't believe he is a liar.  Can you prove it 	otherwise?   ? 	But back to your broader point (Death of Alpha. . . "The Death ? 	that keeps on Dying").  Alpha is small potatoes in comparison. C 	You are looking at much larger scale and committment.  Think about F 	the multiple billions Itanium partners have invested.  Keep searchingD 	for an Itanium exit strategy, let me know when you find the smoking 	gun.    				Rob    ------------------------------   Date: 2 Sep 2005 07:55:49 -0700 ' From: "syslost" <wm.reynolds@gmail.com> = Subject: Re: Mixed interconnect VAX VMS 6.2 cluster challenge C Message-ID: <1125672949.511543.205060@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>     Thanks for the responses.  F     The SCS and LAN links are on different lines. The SCS circuit only has      SCS traffic on it.  E     We have been told we can not go to VMS 7.3.  There was no attempt  toB     check the systems for Y2K in 1999, because the VAX's are going away...   G     The net work is maintained by a separate group, so I'll be a little ,     slow getting answers to those questions.  E     ( Keith I've all your material numerous times, and every time new  piece      of information pops out. )  ?     The alloclass for the MSCP served HSJ at Site 1 is set to 1 ?     The alloclass for the MSCP served HSJ at Site 2 is set to 2   C     Both sites have more HSJ's than we're attempting to serve right  now.  F     Writeback cache is turned on on all drives, weather MSCP served or not.  D     I'm not seeing collisions or errors on either Site 1 or 2s NICs.       The voting scheme is:   "     for all nodes expected_votes 3                   votes 1   $     We bring up 3 machines at Site 1     and 2 macines at Site 2   D     If we lose all machines at Site 1, Site 2 will hang until we get the goB     ahead from the Applications Group to bring up the third Site 2 machine.  G     I'll get the answers to the rest of the questions as soon as I can.    ------------------------------   Date: 2 Sep 2005 08:06:21 -0700 # From: "Galen" <gltackett@gmail.com> E Subject: OT: OS X , with OpenVPN for bridging simh to the real world? C Message-ID: <1125673581.542182.256450@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>   E I'm not very familiar with OpenVPN but I see that its current version E can bridge two Ethernets and supports OS X. I wonder if this would do G the trick to network my simh system to/thru my OSX system? I'll have to  look into it further.   ? I also think my DI-604+ NAT firewall may be causing me problems E currently. For some reason it reports IP spoofing whenever simh tries G to talk IP over its own simh device, which simh hooks up to a dedicated B Mac Ethernet port that isn't running IP itself. Perhaps because itC thinks there's spoofing, maybe it drops the packet from simh on the 0 floor--they sure don't seem to go anywhere else.  E It appears that the NAT box's firewall is not set up to block attacks D on the LAN side at all, so I wonder why it would report and block an2 attack in this case (if that's what is happening.)   ------------------------------  # Date: Fri, 02 Sep 2005 15:13:24 GMT ( From: Alan Greig <greigaln@netscape.net>I Subject: Re: OT: OS X , with OpenVPN for bridging simh to the real world? 9 Message-ID: <o_ZRe.401$ix3.232@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk>    Galen wrote:  G > I'm not very familiar with OpenVPN but I see that its current version G > can bridge two Ethernets and supports OS X. I wonder if this would do I > the trick to network my simh system to/thru my OSX system? I'll have to  > look into it further.   E Yes it will. At least it works that way under Windows and Linux so I  # can't see it not working under OSX.   A > I also think my DI-604+ NAT firewall may be causing me problems G > currently. For some reason it reports IP spoofing whenever simh tries I > to talk IP over its own simh device, which simh hooks up to a dedicated D > Mac Ethernet port that isn't running IP itself. Perhaps because itE > thinks there's spoofing, maybe it drops the packet from simh on the 2 > floor--they sure don't seem to go anywhere else.  I Are you running Phase IV DECNET? That forces a MAC address change on the  H host drivers which mean they have to go into promiscuous mode to do it. H That MAC address change might be noticed by the firewall. Also, I guess E you have done this, but double check nothing else has the IP address  A simh has. Have you tried just resetting the NAT box to clear any   previous MAC tables?  G > It appears that the NAT box's firewall is not set up to block attacks F > on the LAN side at all, so I wonder why it would report and block an4 > attack in this case (if that's what is happening.) >    --  
 Alan Greig   ------------------------------  # Date: Fri, 02 Sep 2005 15:36:11 GMT ( From: Alan Greig <greigaln@netscape.net>I Subject: Re: OT: OS X , with OpenVPN for bridging simh to the real world? 8 Message-ID: <Lj_Re.828$pm2.77@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk>   Galen wrote:  G > I'm not very familiar with OpenVPN but I see that its current version G > can bridge two Ethernets and supports OS X. I wonder if this would do I > the trick to network my simh system to/thru my OSX system? I'll have to  > look into it further.   F To add a bit more. While the OpenVPN docs talk about all sorts of VPN C bridging etc, in its simplest mode it will just provide what looks  A exactly like another ethernet adaptor to the host O/S. When simh  E ATTACHes to it it appears to the host O/S as if simh is just another  * real system at the end of a real ethernet.     --  
 Alan Greig   ------------------------------   Date: 2 Sep 2005 06:52:27 -0700  From: jordan@ccs4vms.com5 Subject: Re: Percentage of customers with X-windows ? C Message-ID: <1125669147.793962.188820@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>    JF Mezei wrote: I > Does anyone have some rough idea of percentage of customers who have at 6 > least one X-windows device attached to the VMS box ? > D > For instance, if one is to write a small utility that needs a userG > interface, would writing it as an xwindows utility prevent many users  > from using that utility ?  > 2 >  Or is SMG still the lowest common denominator ?  C We have nearly 20 customers running VMS.  None of them use graphics C capability (only two have the capability if they attach monitor and D keyboard, but they chose a terminal console).  My desktop VAXstation? and home Alphastation are the only graphics capable VMS systems  associated with my work.  C Even our in house DS10 lost its graphics when we moved to a smaller E facility; lost the monitor to a stinking peecee server, and the small C space available made stacking the DS10, MV3100, and VT420 dual port ! console terminal the only option.   D I prefer X-windows but based on our environment I'd have to vote for SMG.   ------------------------------    Date: 02 Sep 2005 09:46:00 +0200( From: Andreas Davour <ante@update.uu.se>) Subject: Re: simh with logical networking 4 Message-ID: <cs97jdzzzd3.fsf@Psilocybe.Update.UU.SE>  * "Chris Allen" <ca.allen@gmail.com> writes:   > Andreas Davour wrote: + > > Dan Foster <usenet@evilphb.org> writes: ' > > > TAP is a virtual ethernet device.  > > > N > > > In a SIMH context, it makes it appear there is a second Ethernet adapterN > > > installed in the system, so that you can connect to the virtual ethernetL > > > network interface from within the host system instead of having to put3 > > > in a second actual physical Ethernet adapter.  > > I > > Fine and ok. What I have never been able to understand is how the tap J > > interface are going to reach the world outside my machine. I ahve read6 > > about bridges and such but they never work for me. >   = > Here's a nice article on TAP and software ethernet bridging  >   > http://openvpn.net/bridge.html   Nice.    /andreas   --  A A: Because it fouls the order in which people normally read text. ' Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?  A: Top-posting. ; Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?    ------------------------------    Date: 02 Sep 2005 09:51:36 +0200( From: Andreas Davour <ante@update.uu.se>% Subject: Re: VAXen as a plural of VAX 4 Message-ID: <cs93bonzz3r.fsf@Psilocybe.Update.UU.SE>  * bill@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) writes:  5 > In article <gjkSXfhnEcUq@eisner.encompasserve.org>, @ > 	koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) writes:t > > In article <OFA2C1908B.B2E2E5BF-ON8525706F.005D5075-8525706F.005E000C@metso.com>, norm.raphael@metso.com writes: > > I > >> VAXen, to the point, is probably a corruption suggested by Oxen, and F > >> has made a place in our argot because it appeals to the desire toH > >> be slightly obscure and too strange by half.  I would not use it in > >> the non-VAX world.  > > L > >    I was always under the impression that VAXen was a half-joking slang.F > >    At best jargon peculiar to the VMS community (I've never had an! > >    ULTRIX lover say "VAXen").  > D > You certainly have.  I always refer to the plural of VAX as VAXen.F > And I have been an ULTRIX lover since ULTRIX-11, which I still run!!  H ...and I was going to ask if there were such a thing as an ULTRIX lover!   /andreas   --  A A: Because it fouls the order in which people normally read text. ' Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?  A: Top-posting. ; Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?    ------------------------------  # Date: Fri, 02 Sep 2005 12:15:30 GMT < From: Kevin Andreoli <I.post.and@you.post.the.reply.invalid>% Subject: Re: VAXen as a plural of VAX ) Message-ID: <df9j71.388.1@andreoli.co.uk>   W On Thu, 1 Sep 2005 13:06:44 -0400, in article <OFA2C1908B.B2E2E5BF-ON8525706F.005D5075- 6 8525706F.005E000C@metso.com>, I saw that norm wrote...    @ |Well, actually, the Latin plural of "appendix" is "appendices."2 |The English plural of "appendix" is "appendixes." |  Not in my part of England!  E The documents which my colleagues and I write all contain appendices.    --   Kev  NNNN   ------------------------------   Date: 2 Sep 2005 08:20:44 -0500 ; From: koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) % Subject: Re: VAXen as a plural of VAX 3 Message-ID: <XPzGBZ+j8oIB@eisner.encompasserve.org>   V In article <3nph1aF2mnjkU2@individual.net>, bill@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) writes: > D > You certainly have.  I always refer to the plural of VAX as VAXen.F > And I have been an ULTRIX lover since ULTRIX-11, which I still run!!  <    I can recall no previuous data point, but I have one now.   ------------------------------  $ Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2005 10:31:48 -0400 From: norm.raphael@metso.com% Subject: Re: VAXen as a plural of VAX Q Message-ID: <OF1619E870.3D9A95E7-ON85257070.004F532E-85257070.004FD0FC@metso.com>   H Kevin Andreoli <I.post.and@you.post.the.reply.invalid> wrote on 09/02/2= 005  08:15:30 AM:  E > On Thu, 1 Sep 2005 13:06:44 -0400, in article <OFA2C1908B.B2E2E5BF-  > ON8525706F.005D5075-8 > 8525706F.005E000C@metso.com>, I saw that norm wrote... >  > B > |Well, actually, the Latin plural of "appendix" is "appendices."4 > |The English plural of "appendix" is "appendixes." > |  > Not in my part of England! > H > The documents which my colleagues and I write all contain appendices.=    B Well, well, well.  I stand corrected.  Apparently the Latin plural9 forms, while not preferred, are still "acceptable" usage. + (Hippopotimi as well, ugly as that sounds.)  And not just in the UK either.   Sorry, Kev.   
 "Never mind."    Main Entry: ap=B7pen=B7dix Pronunciation: &-'pen-diks Function: nounE Inflected Form(s): plural -dix=B7es or ap=B7pen=B7di=B7ces /-d&-"sEz/ 4 Etymology: Latin appendic-, appendix, from appendereH 1 a : APPENDAGE b : supplementary material usually attached at the end = of a piece of writing   >  > -- > Kev  > NNNN=    ------------------------------   Date: 2 Sep 2005 07:39:49 -0700 $ From: "AEF" <spamsink2001@yahoo.com>A Subject: Re: Why is disk I/O operation rate .GT. direct I/O rate? C Message-ID: <1125671989.158610.108340@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>     Hein (RMS) van den Heuvel wrote: > AEF,3 >       - Why leave your name as a complete riddle? 1 >       - Why pose a question mostly as a riddle? I > Are you concerned about the difference of 4.55  disk IO/sec versus 3.62  > Direct IO over 10 hours?@ >       - What problem are you really trying to solve? Just idle > speculation?B > There is no IO to worry about, not from a average point of view,' > neither from a max Ioad point of view  > .  > >> Is this a bug?  > What?   A Here is a bug in MONITOR. If you run MONITOR IO for too long, the B average memory size statistic goes wacko. Sometimes it goes to allE asterisks. Here, it is simply less than the MIN. So there is at least ! one bug in MONITOR. (VAX/VMS 6.1)   1                           VAX/VMS Monitor Utility 2                              I/O SYSTEM STATISTICS.                                  on node IDS032                                2-SEP-2005 14:32:32  @                                        CUR        AVE        MIN MAX   @     Direct I/O Rate                   0.00       4.54       0.00 284.66@     Buffered I/O Rate                 1.00       9.54       0.99 600.00@     Mailbox Write Rate                0.00       0.22       0.00 107.33@     Split Transfer Rate               0.00       0.52       0.00 71.33 @     Log Name Translation Rate         0.00      14.11       0.00 396.33@     File Open Rate                    0.00       2.50       0.00 149.66  @     Page Fault Rate                   0.00      47.16       0.00 2152.66 @     Page Read Rate                    0.00      27.76       0.00 1340.66 @     Page Read I/O Rate                0.00       2.38       0.00 57.33 @     Page Write Rate                   0.00       0.00       0.00 0.00@     Page Write I/O Rate               0.00       0.00       0.00 0.00@     Inswap Rate                       0.00       0.00       0.00 0.00@     Free List Size                94828.00   15441.12   64683.00 97073.00@     Modified List Size             3027.00    3027.94    2423.00 4647.00   3 > Are some I/O operations to disk not direct I/O's?  > Yes, notably paging IO.  > If so, how does that work?* > That works very well. Thanks for asking. > Is it something else? ' > Is what something else? Yes probably. & > Nothing is what it seems these days. > B > Paul wrote: "Disk IO done by the XQP is counted as buffered IO."C > An ambiguish answer, welll in line with the question. To expand a 	 > little: I > Some file operations like OPEN, CREATE, EXTEND, CLOSE cause one or more F > physical IOs but are counted as buffered IO because it does not meet > the definition of direct IO. >  > fwiw,  > Hein.    Thanks again for your answers.   ------------------------------   Date: 2 Sep 2005 17:48:16 +0100 6 From: peter@langstoeger.at (Peter 'EPLAN' LANGSTOEGER)N Subject: [OpenVMS V7.3-2,DWMOTIF V1.3-1] DECW$SERVER in Endless Loop at Prio 6, Message-ID: <43189060$1@news.langstoeger.at>  F Today I was able to reproduce a long lasting and very annoying problemJ of my home workstation also in the office. So it is not a hardware problemE as I once thought (my graphic adapter - not my LCD monitor - has many I pixel errors and so I first assumed there might be other errors as well).   F Ok, it wasn't exactly the same situation, but the symptom is the same:G DECW$SERVER goes into an infinite loop at prio 6 and renders the system 	 unusable.   G Fix is to kill the process via AMDS/AVAILMAN (from another VMS or a PC) J and then start CDE again. But then all my sessions are gone and I hate it.  H Workaround could be reducing the priority of the DECW$SERVER from 6 to 4G to avoid blocking other processes (with prio lower than 6) but I so far G haven't it done (Loosing all my sessions is the bigger problem and this  I can't workaround).  C Note: I have this bug now for months/years, means, I surely have it 9 for more than the most current version of VMS and/or CDE.     I At work, I was able to reproduce it within seconds by opening a big (8MB) H PDF with XPDF, at home it happens often when switching context menues inG (MOZILLA earlier and now in) CSWB, but I was so far unable to reproduce F it at will (so it seems it's time for a big or much bigger PDF now ;-)  M btw: @home PWS433au/640MB/3D30(ZLX2-E,GYA0) @work PWS500/256MB/?(ZLX2-E,GYA0)    Anyone seen the error/symptom ? / Maybe already sent to VMS support/engineering ?  Ideally a fix is now underway ?    Many TIA   --   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 2005.490 ************************                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            e exerpt he posted was "$$$", implying he most likely *was* usingo3 the CD.  (Or maybe he just did "$ set prompt=$$$"?)-  & So then what happened to his pagefile?  E Maybe he's booted from a different root, which is lacking a pagefile?t   -- d John SantosA Evans Griffiths & Hart, Inc. 781-861-0670 ext 539   ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2003 13:14:57 +0100 * From: Nic Clews <sendspamhere@[127.0.0.1]> Subject: Re: OpenVms Backupp' Message-ID: <bfja1p$ag6$1@lore.csc.com>t   "John E. Malmberg" wrote:  >  > David Froble wrote:e > >tJ > > Can you specify a scenario where, when there is no activity that wouldH > > update any files on the system disk, a BACK/IMAGE/IGNORE=INTER wouldJ > > give you a backup with any problems?  Let's go one further and specifyM > > that the storage on the system dusk is limited to VMS and static storage.a > @ > If your SYSUAF is on the disk, and you are running the OpenVMS< > Management Station agent, you risk a corrupted SYSUAF.DAT. > L > There are ways around this of course.  But here is one real world example.  C Why is that? Is there some odd way that the Ovms management station 0 accesses the file that could lead to corruption?  G > I recommend that everyone know how to rebuild their system from knowne3 > good sources, and have archives of critical data.-  8 Yes I do agree with that advice, despite what I've said.   -- @? Regards, Nic Clews a.k.a. Mr. CP Charges, CSC Computer Sciencesr nclews at csc dot comD   ------------------------------    Date: 22 Jul 2003 07:39:21 -0500 From: briggs@encompasserve.org Subject: Re: OpenVms Backupg3 Message-ID: <2c0eqrARbd$N@eisner.encompasserve.org>y  e In article <KyWSa.521$5X.420@news.cpqcorp.net>, hammond@not@peek.ssr.hp.com (Charlie Hammond) writes:tL > In a production environment, a backup strategy that uses /INGORE=INTERLOCKL > is bogus.  Period.  The cost of lost information will usually exceed by a . > LARGE amount the cost of doing backup right. > J In a production environment, a backup strategy that uses /IGNORE=INTERLOCKD can be sound.  Your statement to the contrary is hyperbole.  Period.   	John Briggs   ------------------------------    Date: 22 Jul 2003 09:07:34 -0500; From: koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler)t Subject: Re: OpenVms Backupc3 Message-ID: <IvXrSU0F1I$c@eisner.encompasserve.org>   f In article <bfg4s4$3q7$3@n.ruf.uni-freiburg.de>, gartmann@immunbio.mpg.de (Christoph Gartmann) writes: > O > You used an inappropriate BACKUP command. All the files that were open duringsL > the time of the backup have not been backed up. Thus, you have no pagefile  H    Tests I've tun on my 6.2 system show that pagefile is not interlocked    against backup.  G    Is it possible that the orginal backup was done from an account thatl)    did not have read access to all files?    ------------------------------    Date: 22 Jul 2003 09:01:43 -0500; From: koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler)  Subject: Re: OpenVms Backuph3 Message-ID: <Gtii9JBdauTx@eisner.encompasserve.o