1 INFO-VAX	Fri, 14 Apr 2006	Volume 2006 : Issue 206       Contents:+ Re: Cluster , locks and lock granting order  Re: DSPP and OpenVMS mediaC Re: Getting device/directory info for an arbitrary user (F$GETUAI?) ' Re: Internal to External PID conversion E Re: Is OpenVMS certified yet for 64-way Hard partitions (GS1280 M64). E Re: Is OpenVMS certified yet for 64-way Hard partitions (GS1280 M64). E Re: Is OpenVMS certified yet for 64-way Hard partitions (GS1280 M64). E Re: Is OpenVMS certified yet for 64-way Hard partitions (GS1280 M64). E Re: Is OpenVMS certified yet for 64-way Hard partitions (GS1280 M64). E Re: Is OpenVMS certified yet for 64-way Hard partitions (GS1280 M64). E Re: Is OpenVMS certified yet for 64-way Hard partitions (GS1280 M64). E Re: Is OpenVMS certified yet for 64-way Hard partitions (GS1280 M64). E Re: Is OpenVMS certified yet for 64-way Hard partitions (GS1280 M64). E Re: Is OpenVMS certified yet for 64-way Hard partitions (GS1280 M64). E Re: Is OpenVMS certified yet for 64-way Hard partitions (GS1280 M64). E Re: Is OpenVMS certified yet for 64-way Hard partitions (GS1280 M64). E Re: Is OpenVMS certified yet for 64-way Hard partitions (GS1280 M64). E Re: Is OpenVMS certified yet for 64-way Hard partitions (GS1280 M64). E Re: Is OpenVMS certified yet for 64-way Hard partitions (GS1280 M64). D Re: Last VAX release (WAS: How does a fix become a published patch?)* Re: manually resetting file revision dates4 Re: set file empty (dfu set <file>/eblock=1/ebyte=0)4 Re: set file empty (dfu set <file>/eblock=1/ebyte=0). Re: SMTP: stop sending "no such user" messages  F ----------------------------------------------------------------------  % Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2006 15:59:10 -0400 - From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> 4 Subject: Re: Cluster , locks and lock granting order, Message-ID: <443EAD87.642B956E@teksavvy.com>   Ian Miller wrote:  > $SETCLUEVT  C Many thanks. It is available in 7.2 so this is great. But this only G seems to notify of an event happening. Is there a way to find out which A node came in our left, or must I build a list of node present and G compare it with the previous list to know which nodes came in our out ?    Now onto the next question:   1 What is the system service equivalent of F$CSID ?    ------------------------------  # Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2006 21:57:52 GMT  From: dittman@dittman.net # Subject: Re: DSPP and OpenVMS media ) Message-ID: <APz%f.5669$XI6.675@trnddc05>    Ian Miller <ijm@uk2.net> wrote: G > I noticed that there is a special offer at present so the Itanium VMS E > SDK and PAKs are free. I know this does not help with the Alpha VMS / > problem but I thought it was worth a mention.  Where did you see this?    --   Eric Dittman dittman@dittman.net    ------------------------------  # Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2006 20:38:44 GMT L From: winston@SSRL.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU (Alan Winston - SSRL Central Computing)L Subject: Re: Getting device/directory info for an arbitrary user (F$GETUAI?)6 Message-ID: <00A54288.0C628EEE@SSRL.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU>  J In article <e1lbou$gkl$1@news.mdx.ac.uk>, david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk writes: >In article <00A5422D.D5029ED7@SSRL.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU>, winston@SSRL.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU (Alan Winston - SSRL Central Computing) writes: >>Q >>What's the recommended way for DCL to get information for a particular user out - >>of the SYSUAF?  I want his /dev and /dir.    >>O >There is a public domain utility GETUAI which can get this information and put  >it into symbols eg  > 6 >Alpha2:getuai dummy1 /device=device_name/dir=user_dir >Alpha2:sh sym device_name >  DEVICE_NAME = "USER5:"  >Alpha2:sh sym user_dir  >  USER_DIR = "[DUMMY1]" >   M Thanks!  That looks like just the ticket.  (I'd still think there ought to be E a lexical or something, but this looks like it fills the gap nicely.)    -- Alan    ------------------------------  + Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2006 01:31:00 +0000 (UTC) 7 From: moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) 0 Subject: Re: Internal to External PID conversion( Message-ID: <e1mu0k$nke$1@pcls4.std.com>  / Kilgallen@SpamCop.net (Larry Kilgallen) writes:   [ >In article <1144945026.1798@smirk>, Alan Frisbie <Usenet02_REMOVE@Flying-Disk.com> writes:   > >> I still don't understand why DECwindows "terminals" and SSH? >> sessions have to have the same device prefix.   Do you know?   ? >I always presumed they both use the Pseudo-terminal interface.   
 Yes, exactly.   I FWIW, DECwindows once had its own pseudoterminal driver, with a different D device prefix.  That pseudoterminal was also much easier to use as a generic pseudoterminal as well.    ------------------------------  # Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2006 17:56:05 GMT & From: John Reagan <john.reagan@hp.com>N Subject: Re: Is OpenVMS certified yet for 64-way Hard partitions (GS1280 M64).2 Message-ID: <Vgw%f.6295$IU5.5654@news.cpqcorp.net>  B I just thought I'd mention that with the last sale date for Alpha G systems coming later this year, it is very reasonable for customers to  I evaluate their current system load and try to predict their future Alpha  F requirements.  For instance, do you buy another M32 or do you inquire 1 about an M32 to M64 upgrade with OpenVMS support.   G I've heard that while the announced date is October, you might be able  H to buy new Alpha system afterwards just as long as you give HP a 'heads G up' about your future system needs by October.  All the more reason to  E do evaluations/predictions today and pass them along to your account   person/reseller.   --   John Reagan / HP Pascal/{A|I}MACRO for OpenVMS Project Leader  Hewlett-Packard Company    ------------------------------  % Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2006 15:37:17 -0400 - From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> N Subject: Re: Is OpenVMS certified yet for 64-way Hard partitions (GS1280 M64)., Message-ID: <443EA86A.3D791356@teksavvy.com>   Robert Deininger wrote:   ! > HP woudn't need an order on the ! > books to know there was demand.   D But could they justify spending what is needed to prepare VMS for GSA with 64 CPUs (work that would have to be done for that IA64 thing F anyways) if they only have an indication of demand, without any actual orders ?  E This is where Vision and Commitment to product growth come into play. G Companies that want to grow their product and make it succeed will take H leaps of faiths and develop the product before customers are begging forD it. By being first to market, they get the rush of customers who had silently been waiting for this.   G In the case of Alpha, once EV7 came out with the better speed (and EV79 G cancelled), the only option left to increase performance of systems was E to add CPUs. If you spent megabucks to buy a GS class machine that is ? advertised as being able to have at least 64 CPUs, then as your H computing needs grow, being able to grow beyond the current 32 CPU limitB is one way to paliate for the fact that Alpha chips aren't getting faster anymore.   G In fact, one could argue that the first version of VMS qualified to run F on GS class machines should have had support for more than 32 CPUs out@ of the box because it was already known at that time that Alphas# wouldn't be getting faster anymore.   ? There may be internal policies to make it harder and harder for H customers to remain on Alpha and try to force them to leave Alpha in theF hopes that some of them might choose IA64. Such policies would make itA very hard for VMS to get the funding to allow the use of 64 CPUs.   E However, when you consider that it is a common code base, and that HP F would not say "no" to a project allowing VMS to use 64 IA64 CPUs, thenH it might be possible to coin the project "64 IA64 CPU" and have Alpha 64D CPU just tag along for the free ride since it is a shared code base.  / > Big system orders have long lead times anyway   H But in these cases, we would be talking about existing systems that justA want to add more CPUs. When you see those large systems, they are G advertised as being extremely scalable, and the ability to add new CPUs > is one of the big selling points. And this would often be doneG incrememtally, so I am not sure you woudl be seeing "big system orders" G for this. You would simply see additional sales of CPU modules. So this  may be harder to cost justify.  ? One thing is sure though, if support for 64 CPUs on Alpha isn't H announced soon, it will never happen. Once it is past the "end of sales"D date, it would be next to impossible to cost justify such a project.    K > The current situation seems to be that customers are window shopping, but  > DON'T want to buy.    H No, The current situation is that customers know of the impending end ofH sales of Alpha and are FORCED to consider their options. If they are notG allowed to grow their GS machines beyond 32 CPUs within the next couple E of years, then they will need to start looking at all alternatives to H replace their perfectly good alpha systems that canoot grow because of aF vanity decision at HP. And it is exactly that process that will result* in HP losing 33% of its BCS customer base.   ------------------------------  % Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2006 15:46:10 -0400 - From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> N Subject: Re: Is OpenVMS certified yet for 64-way Hard partitions (GS1280 M64)., Message-ID: <443EAA7B.100B99BC@teksavvy.com>   "Main, Kerry" wrote:I > wall issue was perceived, then the amount of $'s to certify VMS 64cpu's D > would be a fraction of what it would take to make a major platform. > change - think about staffing changes alone.  H You are forgeting that the Cerner software is already available on otherE platforms, and that on Cerner's web site, they mention IBM before HP. G And a few years ago., AIX was listed prominently, and they made it look   like VMS was *still* available.   0 HP let go of Swift. Will they let go of Cerner ?  ? Will Hobbysists soon form the largest use base of VMS systems ?     D > Second - Major app vendors do not certify their app on every majorC > release of a vendors OS release. These re-cert's can be extremely  > expensive.  A This depends. If your app must co-exist with other apps, then the H vendors will be expected to get their apps to run on the latest releases4 because customers may require it to run another app.   ------------------------------    Date: 13 Apr 2006 14:00:25 -0700- From: "Doug Phillips" <dphill46@netscape.net> N Subject: Re: Is OpenVMS certified yet for 64-way Hard partitions (GS1280 M64).C Message-ID: <1144962024.987888.165490@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>    David J. Dachtera wrote:% > dave.baxter@bannerhealth.com wrote:  > > J > > I am running 2 x M32's (currently both 24-way) which will be maxed outD > > by spring 2007.   I am looking at my upgrade paths for 2007, and& > > upgrade to M64 is one possibility. > > 	 > > Dave.  >  > Dave,  > G > You're not alone. Most large Cerner sites are looking at "hitting the I > wall", pretty much at mach speeds prior to the arrival of 64-CPU Alphas H > (if they are even on the map), and long before Cerner will be preparedG > to certify either V8.2 or I64. Exactly when we could expect to see 64 G > CPU I64 SuperDomes, and whether they'd measure up to 32 CPU Alphas is D > anyone's guess (especially Intel's!), Cerner considerations aside. > I > The AlphaServer website does show 64 CPU Alphas. My preliminary feelers I > have indicated negative awareness of this among the HP field personnel.  > H > HP management have been apprised since roughly -5 days. No response to > date.  >   B Please forgive my ignorance, but I thought the Cerner (data-centerB software) load is  mostly transaction processing, data storage andC retrieval and it uses SAN. The stuff I see from Cerner preaches the G gospel of multiple-servers sharing SAN. Wouldn't it be wiser to put the 6 CPU intensive services like image processing & such on  specialized/dedicated system(s)?  D Is it a licensing/cost issue, footprint consideration, or is there aA technical reason why a single 64cpu system is more desirable than D multiple "lesser" clustered systems in a data intensive environment?  A (BTW: I propose a contest with the Grand Prize of "Fleeting Fame" F awarded to the person who can get to the first mention of OpenVMS withD the fewest mouse-clicks from Cerner, Oracle and EMC's home pages ---8 access from Google or other search engine not allowed;-)   ------------------------------  % Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2006 17:45:44 -0400 - From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> N Subject: Re: Is OpenVMS certified yet for 64-way Hard partitions (GS1280 M64)., Message-ID: <443EC67B.BD2A4EE7@teksavvy.com>   Doug Phillips wrote:C > (BTW: I propose a contest with the Grand Prize of "Fleeting Fame" H > awarded to the person who can get to the first mention of OpenVMS with& > the fewest mouse-clicks from Cerner,  F Hey, I though I would be smart and find VMS with the "SEARCH" functionH of the Cerner web site. Unfortunatly, even with javascript enabled, thatG doesn't work. It seems that the form contains only hidden fields, so it D is impossible to enter the search text before clicking on the submit button !  @ This is undeniable proof that cerner doesn't want anyone findingD references to VMS easily on their web site ... a definite conspiracyE theory.... Is Bob Palmer on the BOD of Cerner by any chance ? :-) :-)  :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-)   - <form id="frmSearchForm" name="frmSearchForm" 3 action="/public/search/default.aspx" method="GET" > 5         <input type="hidden" name="ip_text" value=""> ]         <input type="hidden" name="ip_server" value="schqryprd.northamerica.cerner.net:8500"> @         <input type="hidden" name="ip_searchWithin" value="off"> </form>      OK,  interest of fair game:    > http://www.cerner.com/public/search/default.aspx?ip_text=OpenVMS&ip_server=schqryprd.northamerica.cerner.net:8500&ip_searchWithin=off   F So someone clicking on the above can get to VMS in a single click :-) ? (Looking for "VMS" instead of "OpenVMS" yields a few more hits.   H Most of the hits are simply references to patches and documents aimed at existing customers.    ------------------------------   Date: 13 Apr 2006 23:33:07 GMT( From: bill@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon)N Subject: Re: Is OpenVMS certified yet for 64-way Hard partitions (GS1280 M64).+ Message-ID: <4a85djFs2519U1@individual.net>   , In article <443EAA7B.100B99BC@teksavvy.com>,0 	JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> writes: > A > Will Hobbysists soon form the largest use base of VMS systems ?  >    I would imagine it already is.   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: Thu, 13 Apr 2006 21:46:33 -0500 @ From: "David J. Dachtera" <djesys.nospam@NeOaSrPtAhMlNiOnWk.net>N Subject: Re: Is OpenVMS certified yet for 64-way Hard partitions (GS1280 M64).6 Message-ID: <443F0D09.E244F5A6@NeOaSrPtAhMlNiOnWk.net>   Dave Froble wrote: >  > David J. Dachtera wrote: > > Dave Froble wrote: > >  > >>JF Mezei wrote:  > >> > >>>Dave Froble wrote:  > >>>  > >>> G > >>>>If HP cared about keeping these customers, they'd be pro-actively K > >>>>talking to them and insuring them they'd have whatever they need.  If P > >>>>that's 64 CPU Alphas until Cerner is running on the itanic, then so be it. > >>>  > >>> K > >>>Consider Swift. Once Swift had agreed to heed's Palmer suggestion they J > >>>abandon VMS, there was no turning back, and the owner of VMS wouldn'tM > >>>have lifted a finger to try to retain customers it knew wouldn't be able J > >>>to remain on VMS for long anyways. (and during the Compaq era, CompaqJ > >>>would have known the odds were very slim that a Swift customer on VMSJ > >>>would migrate to a windows based solution which didn't fully exist at5 > >>>that time, and that is all Compaq had to offer).  > >>> J > >>>**IF** Cerner doesn't have intentions of remaining on VMS in the longF > >>>term and prefers to focus on other platforms such as AIX, then HPG > >>>wouldn't have much in terms of incentives to spend money to retain - > >>>customers it knows it will lose anyways.  > >>> K > >>>On the other hand, if the VMS engineers know that VMS works on 64 CPUs G > >>>but that they just never got around to documenting it, adding this L > >>>qualified support might be easy, or they may simply tell Cerner that itA > >>>should work and gice Cerner the tools to test it themselves.  > >>K > >>Jumping to conclusions without any reason.  I've not read one word that H > >>says Cerner is abandoning VMS.  Not saying they are, or aren't, justK > >>haven't seen anything to indicate they are.  Unless you have some solid L > >>information, speculating on one of your pet theories isn't very helpful. > >  > > I > > Well, consider that two of Cerner's largest sites in the Chicago area > > > have been lost by HP as storage customers in favor of EMC. > > F > > Consider that Cerner's three largest sites in the Chicago area areJ > > contemplating an eventualy move to AIX to obtain 64 CPU support (and a8 > > somewhat less uncertain future for their platforms). > ; > I'd think that an entity could make that switch anytime.    F Mighty big investment to discard, and another mighty big investment to" gamble on a whim, don't you think?   > If that's D > true, why would any intelligent entity perform what I'd guess is a= > rather expensive exercise immediately and upon speculation?   " To which speculation do you refer?  G Remember: I am "insider" in one of the organizations mentioned. This is  not speculation, it is FACT!  E Our growth rates are the stuff that IT has been dealing with in years @ since PCs went from hundreds of megabytes on their hard discs toH hundreds of gigabytes. It isn't just storage demands that increase (oursF has doubled in the last three years), but processing power as well. IfB you understand the mathematical laws of compounding, the situation  should spell itself out for you.  K > > Consider also that we're on the threshold of V8.3 and Cerner has yet to H > > certify V8.2 (which will be two versions back, allowing for V8.2-1). > H > Does Cerner have anything to say about their current and future plans?J > I'd think that a vendor would be up front and open with their customers.H >   Has anybody just come out and asked Cerner what their VMS plans are? > If not, why not?  H We've been asking for many months. We are still awaiting a reply for the# non-sales side of the organization.   J > > Consider that the last sale dates for Alpha are just around the corner& > > and Cerner has yet to certify I64. > F > Same questions as above.  What does Cerner say about VMS on the good > ship itanic?     "Not yet certified."   > If nobody has asked, why not?    See the above.  L > > I know you're an intelligent guy, Dave. I'm sure you can put 2.0 and 2.0E > > together come with something approximating 4.0, even allowing for  > > floating-point errors. > I > No, I don't think that that is the proper way to run an enterprise.  If H > I was running things at your shop, and I had concerns, I'd be in touchB > with upper management at Cerner and be demanding some guidance.    Been there, done that.  	 > As your H > vendor, it's their responsibility to let you know where they're going,5 > and to keep you from wasting money on speculation.     Preaching to the choir.    > I'd be asking Cerner > what is the total of 2 + 2.   H They'll have to ask their engineering people to see if that kind of math has been certified yet.   L > > As someone in my office put it, the "marriage" between Cerner and VMS is > > seriously on the rocks.  >  > Do they know this?   Yes.  # > Has anyone just asked the vendor?   F The vendor has made its intentions/directions unmistakable through its actions and inactions.  H > Such things can feed upon themselves.  Customers are heard to say that > Cerner is abandoning VMS.    Based on the evidence apparent.   * > Cerner hears such, and thinks that their > customers are abandoning VMS,   D Try again: Cerner hears VMS customers screaming, and chooses its ownA direction regardless. (probably took that cue from DEC/Compaq/HP)   * > so they had better place their resources > elsewhere.  F Try again. Until it threatens their bottom line rather than supportingH it, they're going to keep drifting away from HP and eventually away from VMS.   > Has anyone  	 EVERYONE!   > > told Cerner that they'd rather remain on VMS, and asked when8 > the latest version of VMS on itanic will be certified?   Repeatedly.   4 > Maybe you need to ask, so they know what you want.  D We have asked. They know. They do like HP and do as they damned well please anyway.  - > Am I the only one who can see this clearly?   F Forgive what sounds like a dig at you, but perhaps you're the only oneG naive enough to think that those bases haven't been covered since ages.   $ C'mon, Dave, plug back into reality.  H This is not just the frustrated rantings of disgusted techies, this is a7 reflection of what we are exposed to every working day.   & Cerner knows what its customers know:   F o VMS is a dead-end proposition, barring a major miracle (maybe a dealG with Samsung to keep the Alpha fabs cranking out EV7z's or something, a G miraculous technical breakthrough that makes all of the billions pumped F down the Itanic drain finally come to profitable fruition, voices fromE the heavens speaking to someone of influence who brings the news that B x86-64 is the one, true savior of OpenVMS and HP, ... who knows?).  A o Alpha is a dead-end proposition, regardless of how infirm those D last-sale dates are touted to be. The mere annunciation of last-sale dates sealed that fate.   C o Even if Itanic does finally arrive in a form that rivals the last H Alphas, it will come years too late - 32 CPU Alphas will have been maxed6 out long before then and replaced with something else.  % Cerner knows what its customers want:   . o Quality application software (not there now)  B o A future for their OpenVMS investment (not within their power to guarantee).   B o Assurance that performance goals will be achievable, even at the# expense of migrating away from VMS.    --   David J Dachtera dba DJE Systems  http://www.djesys.com/  & Unofficial OpenVMS Marketing Home Page! http://www.djesys.com/vms/market/   ( Unofficial Affordable OpenVMS Home Page: http://www.djesys.com/vms/soho/   " Unofficial OpenVMS-IA32 Home Page: http://www.djesys.com/vms/ia32/   ) Unofficial OpenVMS Hobbyist Support Page: " http://www.djesys.com/vms/support/   ------------------------------  % Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2006 21:55:11 -0500 @ From: "David J. Dachtera" <djesys.nospam@NeOaSrPtAhMlNiOnWk.net>N Subject: Re: Is OpenVMS certified yet for 64-way Hard partitions (GS1280 M64).6 Message-ID: <443F0F0F.6B9482ED@NeOaSrPtAhMlNiOnWk.net>   Doug Phillips wrote: >  > David J. Dachtera wrote:' > > dave.baxter@bannerhealth.com wrote:  > > > L > > > I am running 2 x M32's (currently both 24-way) which will be maxed outF > > > by spring 2007.   I am looking at my upgrade paths for 2007, and( > > > upgrade to M64 is one possibility. > > >  > > > Dave.  > > 	 > > Dave,  > > I > > You're not alone. Most large Cerner sites are looking at "hitting the K > > wall", pretty much at mach speeds prior to the arrival of 64-CPU Alphas J > > (if they are even on the map), and long before Cerner will be preparedI > > to certify either V8.2 or I64. Exactly when we could expect to see 64 I > > CPU I64 SuperDomes, and whether they'd measure up to 32 CPU Alphas is F > > anyone's guess (especially Intel's!), Cerner considerations aside. > > K > > The AlphaServer website does show 64 CPU Alphas. My preliminary feelers K > > have indicated negative awareness of this among the HP field personnel.  > > J > > HP management have been apprised since roughly -5 days. No response to	 > > date.  > >  > D > Please forgive my ignorance, but I thought the Cerner (data-center3 > software) load is  mostly transaction processing,   G Indeed. Transaction volumes mostly unheard of outside of Cerner-land or  the financial environment.   > data storage andE > retrieval and it uses SAN. The stuff I see from Cerner preaches the ) > gospel of multiple-servers sharing SAN.   D Trouble is the basis of that argument: cost of storage. This has notH been a major issue for some time now. Whatever savings might be realizedF by not putting 28 gigs of stuff on a 130GB drive is quickly eaten away; by the overhead of SAN managment which then becomes its own  self-perpetuating money pit.  ! > Wouldn't it be wiser to put the 8 > CPU intensive services like image processing & such on" > specialized/dedicated system(s)?   Already there. Not the issue.   F > Is it a licensing/cost issue, footprint consideration, or is there aC > technical reason why a single 64cpu system is more desirable than F > multiple "lesser" clustered systems in a data intensive environment?  @ The biggest problem is the lack of cluster awareness in both theH application and Oracle. Oracle can't run "across nodes" (it can't handleE bound volume sets either). In this regard, Oracle is "monolithic". So 7 that one "database node" has to pack one helluva punch!   = Add in the inherent inefficiencies of healthcare "three-tier" G applications, and the dominoes begin to fall rather quickly from there.    --   David J Dachtera dba DJE Systems  http://www.djesys.com/  & Unofficial OpenVMS Marketing Home Page! http://www.djesys.com/vms/market/   ( Unofficial Affordable OpenVMS Home Page: http://www.djesys.com/vms/soho/   " Unofficial OpenVMS-IA32 Home Page: http://www.djesys.com/vms/ia32/   ) Unofficial OpenVMS Hobbyist Support Page: " http://www.djesys.com/vms/support/   ------------------------------  % Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2006 21:57:28 -0500 @ From: "David J. Dachtera" <djesys.nospam@NeOaSrPtAhMlNiOnWk.net>N Subject: Re: Is OpenVMS certified yet for 64-way Hard partitions (GS1280 M64).6 Message-ID: <443F0F98.CAECF0C4@NeOaSrPtAhMlNiOnWk.net>   Dave Froble wrote: >  > David J. Dachtera wrote: > > Dave Froble wrote: > > 
 > >>[snip]4 > >>The concept of "If you build it, they will come" > >>? > >>has a converse of "If you don't build it, they won't come".  > >  > > I > > More like, "If you don't build it, your competition wins since that's " > > where your customers will go". > > J > > ...on the other hand, it appears that this is exactly what HP intends;5 > > so, obviously, their plan is working as intended.  > >  > . > Have you asked HP for a 64 CPU Alpha system?   Take a guess...    Did anyone ask for:    o PCs? o Cell phones? o iPODs? o PDAs?   < If they need to be asked, the case was lost a long time ago.   --   David J Dachtera dba DJE Systems  http://www.djesys.com/  & Unofficial OpenVMS Marketing Home Page! http://www.djesys.com/vms/market/   ( Unofficial Affordable OpenVMS Home Page: http://www.djesys.com/vms/soho/   " Unofficial OpenVMS-IA32 Home Page: http://www.djesys.com/vms/ia32/   ) Unofficial OpenVMS Hobbyist Support Page: " http://www.djesys.com/vms/support/   ------------------------------  % Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2006 22:08:02 -0500 @ From: "David J. Dachtera" <djesys.nospam@NeOaSrPtAhMlNiOnWk.net>N Subject: Re: Is OpenVMS certified yet for 64-way Hard partitions (GS1280 M64).6 Message-ID: <443F1212.66B3AE8B@NeOaSrPtAhMlNiOnWk.net>   Bill Gunshannon wrote: > . > In article <443EAA7B.100B99BC@teksavvy.com>,9 >         JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> writes:  > > C > > Will Hobbysists soon form the largest use base of VMS systems ?  > >  >   > I would imagine it already is.   If not yet, it soon will be.   --   David J Dachtera dba DJE Systems  http://www.djesys.com/  & Unofficial OpenVMS Marketing Home Page! http://www.djesys.com/vms/market/   ( Unofficial Affordable OpenVMS Home Page: http://www.djesys.com/vms/soho/   " Unofficial OpenVMS-IA32 Home Page: http://www.djesys.com/vms/ia32/   ) Unofficial OpenVMS Hobbyist Support Page: " http://www.djesys.com/vms/support/   ------------------------------  % Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2006 22:07:28 -0500 @ From: "David J. Dachtera" <djesys.nospam@NeOaSrPtAhMlNiOnWk.net>N Subject: Re: Is OpenVMS certified yet for 64-way Hard partitions (GS1280 M64).6 Message-ID: <443F11F0.55543E6D@NeOaSrPtAhMlNiOnWk.net>   "Main, Kerry" wrote: >  > > -----Original Message-----I > > From: David J. Dachtera [mailto:djesys.nospam@NeOaSrPtAhMlNiOnWk.net]   > > Sent: April 12, 2006 9:30 PM > > To: Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Com 9 > > Subject: Re: Is OpenVMS certified yet for 64-way Hard  > > partitions (GS1280 M64). > >  > > Dave Froble wrote: > > >  > > > JF Mezei wrote:  > > > > Dave Froble wrote: > > > > I > > > >>If HP cared about keeping these customers, they'd be pro-actively > > > > >>talking to them and insuring them they'd have whatever > > they need.  If; > > > >>that's 64 CPU Alphas until Cerner is running on the  > > itanic, then so be it. > > > >  > > > > > > > > > Consider Swift. Once Swift had agreed to heed's Palmer > > suggestion they @ > > > > abandon VMS, there was no turning back, and the owner of > > VMS wouldn't? > > > > have lifted a finger to try to retain customers it knew  > > wouldn't be ableA > > > > to remain on VMS for long anyways. (and during the Compaq  > > era, Compaq = > > > > would have known the odds were very slim that a Swift  > > customer on VMS > > > > > would migrate to a windows based solution which didn't > > fully exist at8 > > > > that time, and that is all Compaq had to offer). > > > > A > > > > **IF** Cerner doesn't have intentions of remaining on VMS  > > in the long I > > > > term and prefers to focus on other platforms such as AIX, then HP J > > > > wouldn't have much in terms of incentives to spend money to retain0 > > > > customers it knows it will lose anyways. > > > > = > > > > On the other hand, if the VMS engineers know that VMS  > > works on 64 CPUsJ > > > > but that they just never got around to documenting it, adding this@ > > > > qualified support might be easy, or they may simply tell > > Cerner that itD > > > > should work and gice Cerner the tools to test it themselves. > > > ? > > > Jumping to conclusions without any reason.  I've not read  > > one word that J > > > says Cerner is abandoning VMS.  Not saying they are, or aren't, just= > > > haven't seen anything to indicate they are.  Unless you  > > have some solid @ > > > information, speculating on one of your pet theories isn't > > very helpful.  > > I > > Well, consider that two of Cerner's largest sites in the Chicago area > > > have been lost by HP as storage customers in favor of EMC. > >  > B > While I would prefer an HP storage solution, a number of OpenVMS > Customers use EMC SAN's. > F > > Consider that Cerner's three largest sites in the Chicago area areJ > > contemplating an eventualy move to AIX to obtain 64 CPU support (and a8 > > somewhat less uncertain future for their platforms). > >  > F > Given the medical environment is extremely conservative and cautiousH > (with good reason), making a major change like this would only be doneG > if there was serious dissatisfaction or major wall issues. If a major I > wall issue was perceived, then the amount of $'s to certify VMS 64cpu's D > would be a fraction of what it would take to make a major platform	 > change    G Cost is not the issue. The issue that no future is seen for OpenVMS, at * least not at the needed scale/performance.  & >- think about staffing changes alone.   Say, "retrain".    > Also HA and DR means 2 x6 > number of server replacements. Twice x 64cpu server?  G DR = 2x whatever. Not really a consideration. Either you have DR or you  don't.  @ > > Consider also that we're on the threshold of V8.3 and Cerner > > has yet toH > > certify V8.2 (which will be two versions back, allowing for V8.2-1). > >  > J > First, the recommended version is V8.2-1 on IA64, so Cust's would not do > 8.2 first   H ...unless they were staying on Alpha until Itanic matures a bit more and% achieve better performance figures...   ; > and then do 8.2-1. From V7.3-2, they would go straight to 	 > V8.2-1.    Maybe.  D > Second - Major app vendors do not certify their app on every majorC > release of a vendors OS release. These re-cert's can be extremely I > expensive. There has to be good reason and if the current OS version is G > perceived to be working well, then they will wait for a good business 2 > reason to re-cert their app on a new OS version.  & Ever dealt with healthcare very much?   J > > Consider that the last sale dates for Alpha are just around the corner& > > and Cerner has yet to certify I64. > >  > F > I wonder if the availability of Oracle 10G on IA64 had any impact on > that?   C Arguable, but unlikely. Cerner's disenchantment with VMS/HP is fast  becoming the stuff of legend.   G > And before anyone jumps on Oracle, keep in mind that they also had to 1 > get the 10G Alpha release out the door as well.  > G > Here is a question for you - has Cerner cert'ed Oracle 10G yet on any F > platform? What about RAC? [Perhaps they have, but I am interested to
 > confirm]  7 9i-RAC, yes. We're puuting that in soon. 10g, doubtful.   @ > > I know you're an intelligent guy, Dave. I'm sure you can put > > 2.0 and 2.0 E > > together come with something approximating 4.0, even allowing for  > > floating-point errors. > > A > > As someone in my office put it, the "marriage" between Cerner  > > and VMS is > > seriously on the rocks.  > >  >  > David, > J > I am not involved, so have no idea of what the Cerner-HP relationship isG > right now. I do know that a significant number of both new and GS1280 G > upgrades's are continuing to be sold to Cerner sites as I see the win  > info.  > H > Keep in mind the generic pro's-n-con's of scale up vs scale out. ThereG > are obviously places for both. If the app can not scale out, then the I > only solution is scale up, but what about HA and DR requirements now as  > well?   E As noted earlier, the issue is not the app., its the database and its ! limited of cluster compatibility.   F > You now need 2 64 CPU servers [+ big memory which can cost more than > CPU's] instead of one.  . Can't do it unless you go active/active (RAC).  1 > And if the second server can not be effectively C > used, then that is one large pile of HW sitting around doing very ; > little. Does that impact overall cost? Of course it does.    Cost of DR.   F > As others have stated, the 64CPU cert on OpenVMS Alpha can likely beA > done, but it will require some firm business justifications and ! > commitment from real Customers.   G How 'bout, "staying in business"? Is that considered a "justification"?    --   David J Dachtera dba DJE Systems  http://www.djesys.com/  & Unofficial OpenVMS Marketing Home Page! http://www.djesys.com/vms/market/   ( Unofficial Affordable OpenVMS Home Page: http://www.djesys.com/vms/soho/   " Unofficial OpenVMS-IA32 Home Page: http://www.djesys.com/vms/ia32/   ) Unofficial OpenVMS Hobbyist Support Page: " http://www.djesys.com/vms/support/   ------------------------------  % Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2006 12:17:37 +0800 3 From: "Richard Maher" <maher_rj@hotspamnotmail.com> N Subject: Re: Is OpenVMS certified yet for 64-way Hard partitions (GS1280 M64).1 Message-ID: <e1n7nj$3h3$1@news-02.connect.com.au>   	 Hi David,    > Did anyone ask for:  >  > o PCs? > o Cell phones?
 > o iPODs?	 > o PDAs?  > > > If they need to be asked, the case was lost a long time ago.  H Ah, those commodity-based 64CPU widgets that you get free with 12 monthsI line rental. But those bastards still haven't got one in Fluoro-Apple :-(    Regards Richard Maher   G PS. I wonder if Cerner programmers would design a computer the same way  Homer Simpson designed a car?   K "David J. Dachtera" <djesys.nospam@NeOaSrPtAhMlNiOnWk.net> wrote in message 0 news:443F0F98.CAECF0C4@NeOaSrPtAhMlNiOnWk.net... > Dave Froble wrote: > >  > > David J. Dachtera wrote: > > > Dave Froble wrote: > > >  > > >>[snip]6 > > >>The concept of "If you build it, they will come" > > >>A > > >>has a converse of "If you don't build it, they won't come".  > > >  > > > K > > > More like, "If you don't build it, your competition wins since that's $ > > > where your customers will go". > > > L > > > ...on the other hand, it appears that this is exactly what HP intends;7 > > > so, obviously, their plan is working as intended.  > > >  > > 0 > > Have you asked HP for a 64 CPU Alpha system? >  > Take a guess...  >  > Did anyone ask for:  >  > o PCs? > o Cell phones?
 > o iPODs?	 > o PDAs?  > > > If they need to be asked, the case was lost a long time ago. >  > --   > David J Dachtera > dba DJE Systems  > http://www.djesys.com/ > ( > Unofficial OpenVMS Marketing Home Page# > http://www.djesys.com/vms/market/  > * > Unofficial Affordable OpenVMS Home Page:! > http://www.djesys.com/vms/soho/  > $ > Unofficial OpenVMS-IA32 Home Page:! > http://www.djesys.com/vms/ia32/  > + > Unofficial OpenVMS Hobbyist Support Page: $ > http://www.djesys.com/vms/support/   ------------------------------  % Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2006 12:07:07 +0800 3 From: "Richard Maher" <maher_rj@hotspamnotmail.com> N Subject: Re: Is OpenVMS certified yet for 64-way Hard partitions (GS1280 M64).1 Message-ID: <e1n73u$2n6$1@news-02.connect.com.au>   	 Hi David,   " >  Oracle can't run "across nodes"  = Now I'm definitely interested! Do tell - more details please.   ' 8< snipping and summarizing the rest 8<   C Does Cerner have some sort of strangle-hold on the health industry?   J If these accounts are to be believed then Cerner's crap! And you should beF using a potential hardware-migration to AIX to float the idea of a newL Health-System vendor entirely (Hosted on AIX,Linux,Solaris,NT whatever), andF hopefully finding something that scales. If VMS customers using CernerL amount to a hill-o'-beans and get zero support from Cerner engineering, then; yes you appear to be stuffed. But I've never known a single ? application-vendor that is happy to walk away from any revenue.   I If today's VMS lament is "We're horribly locked into Cerner but can leave J VMS at the drop of a hat" then I say: - "On the off-chance that that's notF complete bullshit - good-bye!". Just ask Health-System-B to install anI evaluation system in one of your smaller sites and then get quoted in the F Industry glossy "Haemorrhoid-Daily" as saying something like "Plan-B'sL Service-Oriented-Archictecture compliance is a perfect fit for where we wantL to be in the years to come.". If your Cerner rep is not on your doorstep theI next day then you're better off planning the ten-year move NOW! I've also D heard that Plan-B's Windows integration is seemless when compared toI Cerner's "legacy" application suite. Tragically, this is the same sort of K buzzword-bingo crap that the VMS dept for strategy/fortune-telling has been ; feeding us for years. Just look at the Bootcamp itinary :-(    Regards Richard Maher   K "David J. Dachtera" <djesys.nospam@NeOaSrPtAhMlNiOnWk.net> wrote in message 0 news:443F0F0F.6B9482ED@NeOaSrPtAhMlNiOnWk.net... > Doug Phillips wrote: > >  > > David J. Dachtera wrote:) > > > dave.baxter@bannerhealth.com wrote:  > > > > J > > > > I am running 2 x M32's (currently both 24-way) which will be maxed out H > > > > by spring 2007.   I am looking at my upgrade paths for 2007, and* > > > > upgrade to M64 is one possibility. > > > > 
 > > > > Dave.  > > >  > > > Dave,  > > > K > > > You're not alone. Most large Cerner sites are looking at "hitting the F > > > wall", pretty much at mach speeds prior to the arrival of 64-CPU AlphasL > > > (if they are even on the map), and long before Cerner will be preparedK > > > to certify either V8.2 or I64. Exactly when we could expect to see 64 K > > > CPU I64 SuperDomes, and whether they'd measure up to 32 CPU Alphas is H > > > anyone's guess (especially Intel's!), Cerner considerations aside. > > > E > > > The AlphaServer website does show 64 CPU Alphas. My preliminary  feelers B > > > have indicated negative awareness of this among the HP field
 personnel. > > > L > > > HP management have been apprised since roughly -5 days. No response to > > > date.  > > >  > > F > > Please forgive my ignorance, but I thought the Cerner (data-center5 > > software) load is  mostly transaction processing,  > I > Indeed. Transaction volumes mostly unheard of outside of Cerner-land or  > the financial environment. >  > > data storage andG > > retrieval and it uses SAN. The stuff I see from Cerner preaches the + > > gospel of multiple-servers sharing SAN.  > F > Trouble is the basis of that argument: cost of storage. This has notJ > been a major issue for some time now. Whatever savings might be realizedH > by not putting 28 gigs of stuff on a 130GB drive is quickly eaten away= > by the overhead of SAN managment which then becomes its own  > self-perpetuating money pit. > # > > Wouldn't it be wiser to put the : > > CPU intensive services like image processing & such on$ > > specialized/dedicated system(s)? >  > Already there. Not the issue.  > H > > Is it a licensing/cost issue, footprint consideration, or is there aE > > technical reason why a single 64cpu system is more desirable than H > > multiple "lesser" clustered systems in a data intensive environment? > B > The biggest problem is the lack of cluster awareness in both theJ > application and Oracle. Oracle can't run "across nodes" (it can't handleG > bound volume sets either). In this regard, Oracle is "monolithic". So 9 > that one "database node" has to pack one helluva punch!  > ? > Add in the inherent inefficiencies of healthcare "three-tier" I > applications, and the dominoes begin to fall rather quickly from there.  >  > --   > David J Dachtera > dba DJE Systems  > http://www.djesys.com/ > ( > Unofficial OpenVMS Marketing Home Page# > http://www.djesys.com/vms/market/  > * > Unofficial Affordable OpenVMS Home Page:! > http://www.djesys.com/vms/soho/  > $ > Unofficial OpenVMS-IA32 Home Page:! > http://www.djesys.com/vms/ia32/  > + > Unofficial OpenVMS Hobbyist Support Page: $ > http://www.djesys.com/vms/support/   ------------------------------  % Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2006 12:24:55 +0800 3 From: "Richard Maher" <maher_rj@hotspamnotmail.com> N Subject: Re: Is OpenVMS certified yet for 64-way Hard partitions (GS1280 M64).1 Message-ID: <e1n85a$461$1@news-02.connect.com.au>   	 Hi David,   J Thanks again for the background. I'll just assume that it doesn't work forI some reason. But if Oracle 9iRAC or 10g can't work in a VMS active/active I cluster configurations then we're in a lot worse shape than I thought :-(    Cheers Richard Maher  F PS. Do you have a need to integrate your Cerner Oracle data (client orC otherwise) with your Windows SQL Server applications and databases?   4 "Dave Harrold" <DHarrold@wi.rr.com> wrote in message2 news:t8os325t37eg3qhqtmro6gd0crqlrj16n7@4ax.com...
 > Hi Richard,  > 5 > On Thu, 13 Apr 2006 06:53:30 +0800, "Richard Maher" & > <maher_rj@hotspamnotmail.com> wrote: >  > >Hi Dave,  > > ) > >Thanks for taking the time to explain.  > >  > >>K > >> They support clusters, but they use Oracle for their database and they I > >> have problems going to a multiple-active-instance RAC configuration.  > > K > >So a) push the envelope and build a new supercomputer b) Continue to get , > >Oracle and VMS to fix the software. Hmmm? > > G > >Again, I don't want to waste everyone's time with idle curiosity and K > >frivolous speculation (it's not the ITRC after all) but If someone would J > >like to discuss the problems with getting multiple-active-instances and RAC H > >(or Grid) working with VMS then I would be very interested. (I'm sure alotH > >of VMS users not using the Cerner applications would be interested as well!) > >  > ? > Sorry if I gave the impression the problem was VMS or Oracle.  > < > Warning! I am not an Oracle DBA nor do I play on on TV.... > D > My understanding is that the way Cerner has implemented their dataC > design is what causes the issues.  I have talked with various VMS B > sites at DECUS, etc. that are using and have been using multipleF > active instances of an Oracle database.  So, to my understanding, itD > has more to do with the design of the application and the databaseD > design for the application than the capabilities of Oracle or VMS. > H > Some one with a better Oracle background (or any Oracle background :-)7 > can probably give a more detailed discussion of this.  > L > >What happened to that disaster tolerant proof-of-concept whitepaper? Only+ > >one active instance? Where's Kerry Main?  > >  > >Regards Richard Maher >  > Hope that helps, >  > Dave >  >  > L ............................................................................ ..7 > David Harrold                                 E-Mail:  David.Harrold@aurora.orgG > Lead Software Systems Engineer                 Phone:           (414)  647-6204G >                                                Pager:           (414)  941-4634G > Aurora Health Care                               Fax:           (414)  647-4999 > 3031 W. Montana Street > Milwaukee, WI 53215    ------------------------------  % Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2006 01:16:51 -0400 - From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> N Subject: Re: Is OpenVMS certified yet for 64-way Hard partitions (GS1280 M64)., Message-ID: <443F301A.D9192F54@teksavvy.com>   Richard Maher wrote:L > If these accounts are to be believed then Cerner's crap! And you should beH > using a potential hardware-migration to AIX to float the idea of a new > Health-System vendor entirely   D One doesn't build such a large application overnight, unless you areG Bill gates with lots of money to spend with no expectation of return on  investment for a long time.   @ The Swift application I worked with  was a dog. Extremely poorlyE designed. A pain as a system manager. But guess what, it provided the > "official" support from SWIFT and gave banks all of the neededF functionality and message type support, as well as interfaces to otherC systems. Once you've implemented this and begun to exchange certain H types of transactions, you don't switch to another platform that doesn't' support the full range of transactions.   F Hospitals aren't in business of building "neat" computer systems, theyG are in business to treat patients (and in the USA, they are in business H to make money). If the Cerner software gives hospitals the functionalityC that is perfect to manage the hospital, then that is what they will H choose even if the underlying platform design isn't all that great/neat.  F And the minute Cerner decided its application suite wasn't going to beB VMS only, it also meant that the core design had to accomodate theG lowest common denominator of all patforms it is expected to run on. And D that means not using VMS specific features with no equivalent on the other platforms.  H In the end, it is still better to still have the application on VMS evenB if it isn't truly "native" to VMS, compared to the application not available at all on VMS.   ------------------------------  % Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2006 16:01:20 -0400 - From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> M Subject: Re: Last VAX release (WAS: How does a fix become a published patch?) , Message-ID: <443EAE09.12081309@teksavvy.com>   Tom Linden wrote: 4 > Sorry, that was ambiguous, what I meant is 7.3 theA > last to be released for the VAX?  Haven't followed this closely 2 > but I thought that 8.2 was going to be the last.  E If one is to trust the "roadmap", then yes, VAX VMS 8.2 was promised. F Then, that promise vanished as if it had never existsed. But a week orA two ago right here on c.o.v, someone gave a hint that they may be N reconsidering and we might still see a new version of VAX VMS. (possibly 8.3).   ------------------------------  % Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2006 22:08:47 -0500 @ From: "David J. Dachtera" <djesys.nospam@NeOaSrPtAhMlNiOnWk.net>3 Subject: Re: manually resetting file revision dates 5 Message-ID: <443F123F.4FAD63E@NeOaSrPtAhMlNiOnWk.net>    Guy Peleg wrote: > & > <mabbuttg@yahoo.ca> wrote in message> > news:1144887298.226134.26490@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...E > > I'm testing a script of mine which is checking some file revision K > > dates.  For proper testing, I need to create files with a few different 
 > > dates. > > J > > I did some searching through past newsgroup posts, and found some infoF > > on changing the rev. date with some of the freeware apps (DFU) andI > > someone posted a C program.  However, we're running a stock 7.3-1/AXP G > > install - no freeware, just COBOL installed as an extra (other than  > > TCP/IP, of course).  > > G > > Is there any way to do this on my setup without changing the system  > > time repeatedly?J > > I'm hesistant to start installing additional things if I don't have to" > > (agressive SOX auditors, etc). > >  > > Thanks, 	 > > Glenn  > >  > ? > SET FILE has been modified to allow changing all date related 4 > fields, however this is shipping with OpenVMS V8.2  0 I sure hope it leaves an Audit (Server) trail...   --   David J Dachtera dba DJE Systems  http://www.djesys.com/  & Unofficial OpenVMS Marketing Home Page! http://www.djesys.com/vms/market/   ( Unofficial Affordable OpenVMS Home Page: http://www.djesys.com/vms/soho/   " Unofficial OpenVMS-IA32 Home Page: http://www.djesys.com/vms/ia32/   ) Unofficial OpenVMS Hobbyist Support Page: " http://www.djesys.com/vms/support/   ------------------------------  % Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2006 22:10:26 -0500 @ From: "David J. Dachtera" <djesys.nospam@NeOaSrPtAhMlNiOnWk.net>= Subject: Re: set file empty (dfu set <file>/eblock=1/ebyte=0) 6 Message-ID: <443F12A2.6265592C@NeOaSrPtAhMlNiOnWk.net>   mckinneyj@saic.com wrote:  > G > > I've a (sequential) file I want to truncate to empty, so that I can J > > rewrite it from DCL. I don't believe vms has a built-in tool to do it. > G > I know that you weren't looking for a solution (you've got one), but,  > how's this (DCL only)? >  > $ dir/siz=all x.x  >   > Directory DISK$CIR:[MCKINNEYJ] > " > X.X;1                      15/18 >   > Total of 1 file, 15/18 blocks. > $ set file/attr=ebk:0 x.x  > $ set file/trunc x.x  % Leave that out. It serves no purpose.    > $ dir/siz=all x.x  >   > Directory DISK$CIR:[MCKINNEYJ] > ! > X.X;1                      0/18  >  > Total of 1 file, 0/18 blocks.  > $    --   David J Dachtera dba DJE Systems  http://www.djesys.com/  & Unofficial OpenVMS Marketing Home Page! http://www.djesys.com/vms/market/   ( Unofficial Affordable OpenVMS Home Page: http://www.djesys.com/vms/soho/   " Unofficial OpenVMS-IA32 Home Page: http://www.djesys.com/vms/ia32/   ) Unofficial OpenVMS Hobbyist Support Page: " http://www.djesys.com/vms/support/   ------------------------------  + Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2006 22:56:02 -0500 (CDT) * From: sms@antinode.org (Steven M. Schweda)= Subject: Re: set file empty (dfu set <file>/eblock=1/ebyte=0) 2 Message-ID: <06041322560257_202002C3@antinode.org>  @ From: "David J. Dachtera" <djesys.nospam@NeOaSrPtAhMlNiOnWk.net>   > mckinneyj@saic.com wrote:  > >  > > $ dir/siz=all x.x  > > " > > Directory DISK$CIR:[MCKINNEYJ] > > $ > > X.X;1                      15/18 > > " > > Total of 1 file, 15/18 blocks. > > $ set file/attr=ebk:0 x.x  > > $ set file/trunc x.x > ' > Leave that out. It serves no purpose.   3    Leave what out?  No purpose?  What am I missing?   ; alp $ dire /size = all xxx.pdf  ! (Output edited slightly.)     XXX.PDF;1                234/245  - alp $ set file /attr = (ebk:1, ffb:0) xxx.pdf   ; alp $ dire /size = all xxx.pdf  ! (Output edited slightly.)     XXX.PDF;1                  0/245    alp $ set file /truncate xxx.pdf  ; alp $ dire /size = all xxx.pdf  ! (Output edited slightly.)    XXX.PDF;1                  0/0    E    It appears to me that "SET FILE /TRUNCATE" may have some effect on  the allocated storage.  I alp $ write sys$output f$getsyi( "arch_name")+ "  "+ f$getsyi( "version") 
 Alpha  V7.3-2   H ------------------------------------------------------------------------  3    Steven M. Schweda               sms@antinode-org 4    382 South Warwick Street        (+1) 651-699-9818    Saint Paul  MN  55105-2547    ------------------------------  # Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2006 04:13:14 GMT   From: John Santos <john@egh.com>7 Subject: Re: SMTP: stop sending "no such user" messages ) Message-ID: <ujF%f.7249$7Z6.253@trnddc06>    Michael Unger wrote:+ > On 2006-04-12 05:39, "John Santos" wrote:  >  >  >>[...]  >>D >>What I think they mean is it is okay to reject for a syntacticallyH >>invalid HELO message (protocol violation), but not for an non-existent= >>or spurious, but syntactically correct address on the HELO. F >>"HELO foo.bar.invalid" is valid, but "HELO foo.b%$<BEL><FF>*.com" is > # >         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^  > ' >>not and can be legitimately rejected.  >  > J > No, it isn't (see RFC 2606 section 2) -- as well as ".test", ".example",G > and ".localhost". And according to RFC 2606 section 3, "example.com", 7 > "example.org", and "example.net" are invalid as well.   D Wrong in this context.  The issue isn't whether foo.bar.invalid is a> real address (it isn't and can't be), but whether, since it isB syntactically valid, it *MUST* be accepted as the argument to HELO0 in smtp.  RFC 2606 has no bearing on this issue.  F In fact, my example above constitutes an "example in documentation" asE explicitly listed in RFC 2606, though they would have preferred I use  foo.bar.example.   > J > "foo.bar.co.uk.fraud.org.vu" would most probably be valid. (Shouldn't at* > least the TLD be checked for existance?) >   B No, the server can do this, but only for logging, etc.  Never as aD reason for rejecting the message.  See section 4.1.4 of RFC 2821 andF <http://homepages.tesco.net/J.deBoynePollard/FGA/smtp-avoid-helo.html> for an interesting discussion.   >  >>[...]  >  > 	 > Michael  >      --   John Santos  Evans Griffiths & Hart, Inc. 781-861-0670 ext 539   ------------------------------   End of INFO-VAX 2006.206 ************************