1 INFO-VAX	Sun, 16 Jul 2006	Volume 2006 : Issue 392       Contents:# Re: HP to cut down on telecommuting 1 Re: Parsec webinar (2006-07-12) OpenVMS Licensing 1 Re: Parsec webinar (2006-07-12) OpenVMS Licensing  update SCSI to IDE bridge  Re: VMS and HPVM Re: VMS and HPVME RE: VMS and HPVM (was: Parsec webinar (2006-07-12) OpenVMS Licensing) E Re: VMS and HPVM (was: Parsec webinar (2006-07-12) OpenVMS Licensing) E Re: VMS and HPVM (was: Parsec webinar (2006-07-12) OpenVMS Licensing)   F ----------------------------------------------------------------------  % Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2006 22:09:25 -0400 + From: Steve Matzura <number6@speakeasy.net> , Subject: Re: HP to cut down on telecommuting8 Message-ID: <qi7jb2prp7d2prqjnjruolhrb2i7e0uam7@4ax.com>  C This is a trend I'm finding is taking hold across the VMS board.  I A was just recently let go from a job where I'd been asking for the F ability to telecommute since '99. Unfortunately, it was 9/11 that gaveB me that ability when the building in which my ofice was housed wasE closed for three months thereafter while they cleaned it up. After it E reopened in January, 2002, I worked at home at first two days a week, C then three, then I got a new supervisor who permitted me to work at E home full time.  It was the best possible situation for both sides--I E was available for more hours per day, which was good for the company, D and I got to lose a commute with which I really couldn't deal due toF physical limitations, which was good for me.  Since my separation fromD this company earlier this year, I've been looking for VMS work whereD telecommuting is embraced, but there's a trend going on out there toD bring everybody back into the ofice that very well may spell the endF of this 25-year VMS professional's work life. And here I thought I had& at least another decade or more to go.  , On Mon, 05 Jun 2006 16:44:09 -0400, JF Mezei% <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> wrote:   = >http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/14732974.htm  > G >About 1000 employess in the IT division will no longer be able to work B >from home. Those who don't accept to work in one of 25 designated+ >offices will be let go without severance.   > 4 >Not known if this is to spread to other divisions.  > A >HP had been a world leader in flexible work rules startting with C >introduction of flextime back in 1967. Last July, they hired an ex F >Walmast IT director and it seems he doesn't believe in telecommuting.   ------------------------------    Date: 15 Jul 2006 11:32:55 -0700; From: "johnhreinhardt@yahoo.com" <johnhreinhardt@yahoo.com> : Subject: Re: Parsec webinar (2006-07-12) OpenVMS LicensingC Message-ID: <1152988375.436511.106740@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>    Neil Rieck wrote: < > "Larry Kilgallen" <Kilgallen@SpamCop.net> wrote in message/ > news:ZJD3AimEFW07@eisner.encompasserve.org... L > > In article <44b7796f$0$4475$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com>, "Neil Rieck"" > > <n.rieck@sympatico.ca> writes: > [...snip...] > > L > > Why is it cool when Parsec posts VMS information in a VMS-hostile format& > > but unacceptable when HP does not. > L > Have I ever criticized HP? If I've left anyone with that impression then I > haven't been clear.  >   C Usually it's Larry that starts any complaint about collateral being ? posted in "VMS hostile" formats.  I think his question was just ! semi-retorical, not a jab at you.      > So here is my position:  > M > HP is probably the only company that could save OpenVMS. I was a big fan of I > DEC until Ken Olsen was pushed aside (and he was pushed). In the Palmer G > years VMS and OpenVMS were allowed to drift aimlessly (allowing DEC's M > inertia to spin down) until DEC was taken over by Compaq where they totally N > dropped the ball. With HP at the helm they've started marketing this productJ > again. TUD (technical update days) are a welcome surprise. HP is gettingH > back to doing in-house training. As a OpenVMS customer with a softwareN > support contract, it is obvious to everyone in my staff that this product is > coming back to life.  E A further good sign (although not a huge one) is that recently HP has C been advertising for a salesperson for enterprise class systems and G requiring that the person be familiar with HP-UX, OpenVMS and IA64.  So 4 at least they are still including it in their needs.   ------------------------------    Date: 15 Jul 2006 15:36:32 -0500- From: Kilgallen@SpamCop.net (Larry Kilgallen) : Subject: Re: Parsec webinar (2006-07-12) OpenVMS Licensing3 Message-ID: <JVP72933u7Xj@eisner.encompasserve.org>    In article <1152988375.436511.106740@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, "johnhreinhardt@yahoo.com" <johnhreinhardt@yahoo.com> writes:  >  > Neil Rieck wrote: = >> "Larry Kilgallen" <Kilgallen@SpamCop.net> wrote in message 0 >> news:ZJD3AimEFW07@eisner.encompasserve.org...M >> > In article <44b7796f$0$4475$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com>, "Neil Rieck" # >> > <n.rieck@sympatico.ca> writes:  >> [...snip...]  >> >M >> > Why is it cool when Parsec posts VMS information in a VMS-hostile format ' >> > but unacceptable when HP does not.  >>M >> Have I ever criticized HP? If I've left anyone with that impression then I  >> haven't been clear. >> > E > Usually it's Larry that starts any complaint about collateral being A > posted in "VMS hostile" formats.  I think his question was just # > semi-retorical, not a jab at you.   H That is correct.  Consider it a firm jab at Parsec, who are small enough
 to do better.    ------------------------------    Date: 15 Jul 2006 18:05:56 -0700 From: tomarsin2015@comcast.net" Subject: update SCSI to IDE bridgeC Message-ID: <1153011956.408805.107600@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>    Hello G I received two scsi to ide bridges. They are a Hoei Precision iXT/S and  a Acard TechD AEC-7720U models. For the test I tried a Seagate st33232a (3.2 gigs) ide drive. The; test systems are a VAX 4000-100, a VAX 3100-40 and 95 and a  AlphaStation 200/233G all running VMS 7.3. The AlphaStation had no problem seeing and int the  drive. The AlphaE treated the drive just like it was a regular scsi drive - no mess. So  far no VAX has been E able to see the drive. No matter what bridge I used the VAXs will not  see the drive. I wasF thinking of trying the bridges on a CMD 22X qbus scsi controller,  but with the luck I amD having with the VAX  I may not even try it. I was really hoping they would work on the VAX.7 If anything does work on a VAX I will post the results.    ------------------------------  % Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2006 02:17:51 +0200 + From: Karsten Nyblad <nospam@nospam.nospam>  Subject: Re: VMS and HPVM = Message-ID: <44b985ad$0$67255$157c6196@dreader2.cybercity.dk>    JF Mezei wrote: & >>> Why would anyone want to do this ? >  > G > Say you have a 64 CPU IA64 thing.  You load HP-UX on it. Create a VMS I > application/instance that only has 4 logical CPUs. VMS only sees 4 CPUs I > , as do your applications. So from a licencing point of view, you could > > end up saving lots of money because you need not licence all# > applications on VMS for 64 CPUs.   ... J > Personally, I think this is more of a marketing scam than anything else,= > but it CAN be of great value to certain specific customers.   I And yet many companies have implemented features like that.  IBM has for  I years had VM on their zSeries machines.  HP has had Galaxy on Alpha, and  G so on.  AMD and Intel have been fighting to be the first with a useful  @ set of features for virtualization on IA32.  It seems like many F customers consider this a useful feature.  On zSeries machines it has C been common to use one virtual machine for development and one for   production.   G Application Service Providers can let customers share the same machine  H while each customer is free to chose their own setup, e.g., a web hotel I can let each customer have its own set of Java scripts without and there  G will be little risk that a security in one customers setup will affect   the other customers.   ------------------------------  % Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2006 21:49:42 -0400 - From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com>  Subject: Re: VMS and HPVM , Message-ID: <44B99B26.F3EAFF79@teksavvy.com>   Karsten Nyblad wrote: J > And yet many companies have implemented features like that.  IBM has for+ > years had VM on their zSeries machines.     F IBM went from VM (a software solution on 360s and 370 ) to firmware in its mainframes. (390 and later)   G VMS is going from firmware (in GS series machines) to software (HP-UX). A In the case of VM, it was designed specifically to host different E operating systems and was "lightweight".   With HP's scheme, HP-UX is F far from lightweight and VMS will run as an application/process on it.      H > so on.  AMD and Intel have been fighting to be the first with a useful- > set of features for virtualization on IA32.   G Yes, because Windows is too often only able to run one application. So  G having a "VM" on an 8086 allows you to run multiple applications on the G same box. (one VM, and then multiple instanmces of widows, each running 	 one app).     G > customers consider this a useful feature.  On zSeries machines it has D > been common to use one virtual machine for development and one for
 > production.   G Correct.  But that was in the days where it was impossible to get a low 2 cost small IBM 360-370 mainframe for development.   H > Application Service Providers can let customers share the same machineI > while each customer is free to chose their own setup, e.g., a web hotel J > can let each customer have its own set of Java scripts without and thereH > will be little risk that a security in one customers setup will affect > the other customers.    C Yes, that is one interesting application. However, from the "hotel" F point of view, it is far easier to maintain one instance of an OS with= multiple users on it than to maintaini a gazillion instances.    ------------------------------    Date: 15 Jul 2006 15:45:50 -0500- From: Kilgallen@SpamCop.net (Larry Kilgallen) N Subject: RE: VMS and HPVM (was: Parsec webinar (2006-07-12) OpenVMS Licensing)3 Message-ID: <zt62eQ4Pa4sx@eisner.encompasserve.org>   J In article <e9b33l$shr$1@news.mdx.ac.uk>, david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk writes:  K >>Folks at the boot camp last month had the chance to view my demonstration A >>of a VMS guest on top of HPVM; the VMS guest was clustered with P >>another VMS guest and several other Alpha and I64 systems (and a VAX thrown inK >>for good measure).  We still have a lot of work to do, but features like  J >>shadowing are working with no problem.  It is expected that this will be- >>shipping and supported at the end of 2007.   >> > $ > Why would anyone want to do this ?  E Some people want to subdivide a large machine into multiple operating E systems or multiple instances of a single operating system.  On Alpha C that is done with Galaxy.  On Itanium it is possible to do it fully C in software, since (I gather) the Itanium instruction set design is ; such that it can be virtualized, like OS360 and unlike VAX.   4 Why is it good to do this with HP-UX underpinnings ?  C Because some other department pays for the underpinnings.  When one A gets to the point where all the HPVM guests are VMS, then perhaps > HP should consider rewriting the host as a VMS implementation.  > The whole thing (VMS on top of HPVM/HPUX) is likely to be lessB reliable that VMS right on top of the hardware, and more expensive? in the software area (even if they make it "free" that does not ? cover training efforts for running a more complex arrangement). > But the prices of the complexity (more pieces to go wrong) are> something that each shop must calculate on their own, based on their own business model.   < If someone gave me a machine to run this (and a new electricB service feed, I think), I would use it to harbor multiple versions1 of VMS at the same time for testing new releases.    ------------------------------    Date: 15 Jul 2006 14:00:23 -0700; From: "johnhreinhardt@yahoo.com" <johnhreinhardt@yahoo.com> N Subject: Re: VMS and HPVM (was: Parsec webinar (2006-07-12) OpenVMS Licensing)C Message-ID: <1152997223.477905.245500@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>    Larry Kilgallen wrote:L > In article <e9b33l$shr$1@news.mdx.ac.uk>, david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk writes: > M > >>Folks at the boot camp last month had the chance to view my demonstration C > >>of a VMS guest on top of HPVM; the VMS guest was clustered with R > >>another VMS guest and several other Alpha and I64 systems (and a VAX thrown inL > >>for good measure).  We still have a lot of work to do, but features likeL > >>shadowing are working with no problem.  It is expected that this will be. > >>shipping and supported at the end of 2007. > >> > > & > > Why would anyone want to do this ? > G > Some people want to subdivide a large machine into multiple operating G > systems or multiple instances of a single operating system.  On Alpha E > that is done with Galaxy.  On Itanium it is possible to do it fully E > in software, since (I gather) the Itanium instruction set design is = > such that it can be virtualized, like OS360 and unlike VAX.  >   @ In addition it gives you a bit more flexibility in dividing your? system.  If I am not mistaken, the cell-based Integrity servers B (Superdome, rx74xx,rx84xx) all support running multiple OSs on theG different cells of the same server.  However, to re-distribute the CPUs A between the cells requires the machine be downed and the hardware ? configuration changed.  With the HPVM it seems like it would be E possible to make such changes without downing the whole server - only D the affected virtual machines.  Possibly it could be done on the fly3 without requiring a shutdown of any virtual server.    ------------------------------  % Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2006 17:39:59 -0400 - From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> N Subject: Re: VMS and HPVM (was: Parsec webinar (2006-07-12) OpenVMS Licensing), Message-ID: <44B960AE.5F2CBDFC@teksavvy.com>  & > > Why would anyone want to do this ?    E Say you have a 64 CPU IA64 thing.  You load HP-UX on it. Create a VMS G application/instance that only has 4 logical CPUs. VMS only sees 4 CPUs G , as do your applications. So from a licencing point of view, you could < end up saving lots of money because you need not licence all! applications on VMS for 64 CPUs.    H What this allows is flexibility in licencing where you could dynamicallyG add CPUs to VMS and it will "draw" from some licencing credits that you G installed before (which you can refill by sending $$$ to HP). Note that = some of the IA64 systems will also have these capabilities to J dynamically activate CPUs without the need for HP-UX instance to host VMS.  H Personally, I think this is more of a marketing scam than anything else,; but it CAN be of great value to certain specific customers.   > And since VMS is now restricted to serving only a small set ofF customers, where the needs of the few outweight the needs of the many,> perhaps this is considered a high priority for VMS management.   ------------------------------   End of INFO-VAX 2006.392 ************************                                                                                                    =fȉtSeSm雩WG5{T:sGs?ߢ=u¸Q|piL%4Q;78p源4Y^s>~tXӴ?&=jԽkI$:4nz>}ջڳW4]w.5ĬbҦf<=plK& ?Zǘ3KKf=pN>eu.Fɬ_lxC1_{zƾObw-K?LҦ秘-,=#¡WZn<7jSUviqcs*j+Ɂjr)'F]|lw)b!h:Y&ă{ݽz.<uJNϦgmq+jx[eVs#D^J㮅Oō%ZxɸI9y3fG(Tלa]4c~9햨cƖ~)dE=oz.m7רu;3g?s[-y_<U6%{Fg1|?ꜩGng/~Rs%l5s^?]ݿrƹ2ͲqqC+ίyikfyXɆ=|~@KOT&}?_?;
IثGcut}cAL֑O]/2{ݚuQyai"U]i+s%]+ƯHX)Nsf%W+?o:k[IhI߲_%7?Z<v^(:s~jD}G;/=}FV=n>c*_T%g?xh%ۑ).xHi6#[DӣE\!˦,OZ0ɾt
Qx65c0p|q"`