1 INFO-VAX	Tue, 06 Jun 2006	Volume 2006 : Issue 313       Contents: Re: .txt to .doc" Re: Compiling Problem with LibCurl# Re: HP to cut down on telecommuting " Problem with "New mail" broadcasts Re: rrd47-aa vs. rrd47-vc  Re: SimH 3.6-0 Re: SimH 3.6-0 Re: SimH 3.6-0 Re: SimH 3.6-0D Re: Unix runs faster, maybe (was: Re: Educating potential VMS users)D Re: Unix runs faster, maybe (was: Re: Educating potential VMS users)D Re: Unix runs faster, maybe (was: Re: Educating potential VMS users)? What wide SCSI constrollers will be recognized by SRM of PWS600 C Re: What wide SCSI constrollers will be recognized by SRM of PWS600   F ----------------------------------------------------------------------   Date: 6 Jun 2006 08:27:46 -0700  From: himansu114@gmail.com Subject: Re: .txt to .doc C Message-ID: <1149607665.969685.235860@h76g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>    Craig:  4 Thanks, but I don't see any specific DCL procedures.   -- Thanks,  Himansu    Craig A. Berry wrote: D > In article <1149516618.985873.36540@h76g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, >  himansu114@gmail.com wrote: > 5 > > Your suggestion worked, but here's another issue:  > > $ > > 1.  I do need special formattig.K > > 2. I do have a "command file" in DCL that generates a ".rtf" file.  But N > > as you know ".doc" is the standard for end-users.  Any ideas on how to get- > > the special formatting done on the alpha?  > I > You don't say much about where your data are coming from (database, RMS H > file) or what tools you are familiar with or have standardized on.  So> > here's what I do, which may or may not work for you.  I haveG > successfully generated MS Word tables on VMS using the Perl extension  > RTF::Writer: > 1 > http://search.cpan.org/~sburke/RTF-Writer-1.11/  > = > Although I don't recall using it myself, the Perl extension G > Spreadsheet::WriteExcel might be suitable for tabular reports and the  > like:  > @ > http://search.cpan.org/~jmcnamara/Spreadsheet-WriteExcel-2.17/ > I > There are also various text-to-PDF converters around, and various tools 3 > for generating PDF, XML, HTML, and other formats.  >  > --  ? > Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com    ------------------------------   Date: 6 Jun 2006 06:10:42 -0700 , From: "Francesco Donini" <fdonini@gmail.com>+ Subject: Re: Compiling Problem with LibCurl C Message-ID: <1149599442.369748.106310@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com>    Bob Koehler ha scritto:   t > In article <1149164042.421764.177420@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, "Francesco Donini" <fdonini@gmail.com> writes:( > > david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk ha scritto:T > >> Creating an executable on VMS is a two stage process. Compiling the source intoS > >> object files (.obj files) and then linking these files together with libraries  > >> to create executables.  > >>J > >> The CC command only does the first step. .olb files are library filesL > >> containing object files and hence shouldn't be included on the CC line.J > >> The LINK command is then used to link the object files and libraries. > >> > >>- > >> What you probably need is something like  > >> > >> cc simple.c > >  > > Yes u are right E > > I tried before what u are telling me but i get only error message  > > compiling the source. C > > The compiler can't resolve the include files and all the others 2 > > function because doesn't know where find them. > H >    The C compiler has a process for finding include files.  By defaultJ >    it finds those which ship with the compiler, curl isn't one of those. > L >    curl.h should be located with the libcurl.olb you have.  In a nutshell,A >    the compiler will find <curl/curl.h> if you define curl as a > >    logical pointing to the directory which contains curl.h . > G >    If you checkout "help cc /include", you'll find other ways to tell   >    the compiler where to look.     Ok, every things works now. D The problem was that I had to copy (from a linux soruce) the includeC files (curl *.h files) to an OpenVMS directroy and create to this a 
 logical link. G Then then compiler didn't complain anymore and now after that i created E a .obj and linked the object file with olb library every things works 
 correctly.   Thanks to all for the help.    ------------------------------  $ Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2006 06:34:51 -0400) From: "Neil Rieck" <n.rieck@sympatico.ca> , Subject: Re: HP to cut down on telecommuting6 Message-ID: <7Tchg.776$Wy.66112@news20.bellglobal.com>  ; "JF Mezei" <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> wrote in message  & news:4484978C.674A9F97@teksavvy.com...> > http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/14732974.htm > H > About 1000 employess in the IT division will no longer be able to workC > 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. > B > HP had been a world leader in flexible work rules startting withD > introduction of flextime back in 1967. Last July, they hired an exG > Walmast IT director and it seems he doesn't believe in telecommuting.   H Typical Wal-Mart thinking. You've got to come into the office so we can L "see" you working. (but at first opportunity we'll ship your job Asia where L we can't "see" them work but we'll get workers at a really low hourly rate.)  
 Neil Rieck Kitchener/Waterloo/Cambridge,  Ontario, Canada." http://www3.sympatico.ca/n.rieck/    ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 06 Jun 2006 03:37:07 -0400 - From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> + Subject: Problem with "New mail" broadcasts , Message-ID: <4485306D.7B0646E7@teksavvy.com>  G There are many emails messages which are now written in chinese and the F sender/subjects contain many unprintable characters., including escape, sequences which freeze a terminal (decterm).  B MAIL's interactive interface long ago implemented filtering of the? sender and subject data to exclude escape sequences, preventing ; malicious senders from messing with recipients's terminals.   G However, this was not implemented at a lower level during mail delivery ( which generates broadcasts to terminals.    H So I would  suggest that VMS engineering modify the broadcasting systemsF (reply/terminal and whatever system servuices are used by MAIL to sendD broadcasts to terminals) to filter out unprintable characters and/or escape sequences/chartacters.   F (I suspect that changing MAIL/TCPIP would require some arm twisting byG major customers to convince HP to allow some of the applications on VMS  to be updated).    ------------------------------   Date: 6 Jun 2006 09:06:49 -0700 ' From: "syslost" <wm.reynolds@gmail.com> " Subject: Re: rrd47-aa vs. rrd47-vcC Message-ID: <1149610009.654662.181530@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>   = Thanks for the information, that's what I was hoping to hear!     $ hoffman@xdelta.zko.dec.nospam wrote:D > In article <1149534760.633374.183670@f6g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,+ > "syslost" <wm.reynolds@gmail.com> writes: C > |> Anyone know the differences between the rrd47-aa and rrd47-vc?  > |>7 > |> I need one for an AlphaServer 1000a 5/333, VMS 7.3  > E >   If this drive follows typical practice, the RRD47-VC is packaged, H > documented and configured for installation into the AlphaServer 1000A.D > If you can use a screwdriver, a few common spare parts, and aren'tE > overly oncerned about cosmetics and color schemes, you can probably G > get most any "recent" RRD to fit and to work in this or in most other  > AlphaServer series systems.   > J >   I haven't looked at the bill of materials to see the exact difference,H > and all of the RRD47 series drives I know of all have the same kernel.B > (The usual differences are in cable lengths and bezels and doc.)   ------------------------------   Date: 5 Jun 2006 23:04:32 -0700 ; From: "johnhreinhardt@yahoo.com" <johnhreinhardt@yahoo.com>  Subject: Re: SimH 3.6-0 A Message-ID: <1149573872.007786.5290@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>    David B Sneddon wrote: > Dan Foster wrote:  > >  > > How did you build them?  > >  > > -Dan > 1 > I first installed libpcap 0.9.4 then I followed 1 > the instructions for building simh, remembering . > to specify the option to include networking.0 > I don't recall the exact commands but whatever! > was in the instructions worked.  >  > Dave  @ What verison of OS X are you using?  There is a thread from last@ summer/fall in the SimH-11 mailing list that indicates that userC networking is broken in 10.3.6 and after, but it was supposed to be B fixed "Real Soon Now".  Nothing more was said after that if it was! fixed or not and in what version.      John H. Reinhardt    ------------------------------   Date: 5 Jun 2006 23:13:31 -0700 / From: "David B Sneddon" <dbsneddon@bigpond.com>  Subject: Re: SimH 3.6-0 C Message-ID: <1149574411.907735.301200@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com>    johnhreinhardt@yahoo.com wrote:  > David B Sneddon wrote: > > Dan Foster wrote:  > > >  > > > How did you build them?  > > > 
 > > > -Dan > > 3 > > I first installed libpcap 0.9.4 then I followed 3 > > the instructions for building simh, remembering 0 > > to specify the option to include networking.2 > > I don't recall the exact commands but whatever# > > was in the instructions worked.  > >  > > Dave > B > What verison of OS X are you using?  There is a thread from lastB > summer/fall in the SimH-11 mailing list that indicates that userE > networking is broken in 10.3.6 and after, but it was supposed to be D > fixed "Real Soon Now".  Nothing more was said after that if it was# > fixed or not and in what version.  >  >   John H. Reinhardt   3 I am using 10.4.  I think the real problem with the - broken networking was the earlier versions of . libpcap.  I also have an iBook with 10.3.9 but) haven't got around to trying it on there.    Dave   ------------------------------   Date: 5 Jun 2006 23:29:29 -0700 / From: "David B Sneddon" <dbsneddon@bigpond.com>  Subject: Re: SimH 3.6-0 B Message-ID: <1149575369.782287.288330@f6g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>   David B Sneddon wrote:! > johnhreinhardt@yahoo.com wrote:  > > David B Sneddon wrote: > > > Dan Foster wrote:  > > > >  > > > > How did you build them?  > > > >  > > > > -Dan > > > 5 > > > I first installed libpcap 0.9.4 then I followed 5 > > > the instructions for building simh, remembering 2 > > > to specify the option to include networking.4 > > > I don't recall the exact commands but whatever% > > > was in the instructions worked.  > > > 
 > > > Dave > > D > > What verison of OS X are you using?  There is a thread from lastD > > summer/fall in the SimH-11 mailing list that indicates that userG > > networking is broken in 10.3.6 and after, but it was supposed to be F > > fixed "Real Soon Now".  Nothing more was said after that if it was% > > fixed or not and in what version.  > >  > >   John H. Reinhardt  > 5 > I am using 10.4.  I think the real problem with the / > broken networking was the earlier versions of 0 > libpcap.  I also have an iBook with 10.3.9 but+ > haven't got around to trying it on there.  >  > Dave  1 I have just downloaded and successfully built the 1 latest version.  I can access the system via LAT, / DECnet and TCPIP, and can get out via the three  protocols as well.   Dave   ------------------------------   Date: 6 Jun 2006 00:38:00 -0700 ; From: "johnhreinhardt@yahoo.com" <johnhreinhardt@yahoo.com>  Subject: Re: SimH 3.6-0 B Message-ID: <1149579480.585316.76810@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com>   David B Sneddon wrote:  3 > I have just downloaded and successfully built the 3 > latest version.  I can access the system via LAT, 1 > DECnet and TCPIP, and can get out via the three  > protocols as well. >  > Dave   Great!  Thanks for the update.   ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 06 Jun 2006 01:35:43 -0400 ( From: Bill Todd <billtodd@metrocast.net>M Subject: Re: Unix runs faster, maybe (was: Re: Educating potential VMS users) G Message-ID: <PYOdnb-1UKx-jhjZnZ2dnUVZ_vednZ2d@metrocastcablevision.com>    Main, Kerry wrote: >> -----Original Message----- 3 >> From: Bill Todd [mailto:billtodd@metrocast.net]   >> Sent: June 5, 2006 8:09 PM  >> To: Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Com< >> Subject: Re: Unix runs faster, maybe (was: Re: Educating  >> potential VMS users)  >> >> Main, Kerry wrote:  >>>> -----Original Message----- 5 >>>> From: Bill Todd [mailto:billtodd@metrocast.net]   >>>> Sent: June 4, 2006 5:42 PM  >>>> To: Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Com> >>>> Subject: Re: Unix runs faster, maybe (was: Re: Educating  >>>> potential VMS users)  >>>> >>>> Main, Kerry wrote:  >>>> >>>> ... >>>>? >>>>> Point is that when both UNIX and VMS are setup and tuned   >>>> appropriatelyB >>>>> on the same HW, there is not much difference in performance.9 >>>> The point, of course, is that while virtually *any*  - >>>> half-competently-implemented OS will be  & >>>> performance-competitive with any < >>>> other *when set up and tuned*, *most* use of OSs is in  >> installations  B >>>> which are *not* 'set up and tuned appropriately', but rather  >>>> either just  < >>>> booted up and run or, at most, given some very general  >> tweaking that  ; >>>> won't compromise any of the many applications they're   >> likely to run. @ >>>> And under those circumstances, VMS comes out rather poorly = >>>> performance-wise when compared to Unix, while providing   >>>> rather limited > >>>> increased reliability of a statistical sort - e.g., that  >> it's *less ? >>>> likely* by X% that the data you naively thought you wrote   >> won't be on  G >>>> the disk after, say, a power failure, rather than of the far more  B >>>> significant variety that if the data you naively thought you  >>>> wrote isn't  E >>>> on the disk after a power failure, you should file a bug report.  >>>>> >>>> 'A bit better reliability with a lot slower performance'  >>>> really isn't a ? >>>> *default* trade-off one can legitimately boast about, I'm   >>>> afraid:  one @ >>>> should instead pick something closer to one extreme or the  >>>> other as the ? >>>> default so that not *all* customers need tweak the system   >>>> significantly  A >>>> to get something reasonable - especially since applications   >>>> with special ? >>>> needs have the ability to attain them *regardless* of how   >> the system H >>>> defaults are set up, so really don't derive much aid from half-way  >>>> default measures anyway.  >>>>@ >>>> The bottom line is that Unix provides significantly better  >>>> file-system  G >>>> performance out of the box than VMS does, and this is an entirely  A >>>> legitimate knock on VMS - not so much on VMS's capabilities   >>>> per se as in ; >>>> its choices of defaults, but the effect on real-world   >>>> perceptions is not  >>>> markedly different. >>>> >>>> - bill  >>>>@ >>> Well, my experience is that, regardless of what platform is 
 >> used, most ? >>> production shops in med-large shops will always tune their   >> environment >>> to some basic level.  > >> 1)  It's not clear exactly how that statement differs from  >> what I said  A >> just above ("some very general tweaking that won't compromise   >> any of the @ >> many applications they're likely to run").  Tuning an entire  >> server for A >> one specific application may occur more frequently in Windows  G >> environments (where admins are frequently scared to run more than a  = >> single application on the server), but far less so in the   >> Unix and VMS & >> environments under discussion here. >>G >> 2)  One might also ask just how much of that experience was focused  F >> solely on VMS, which *definitely* requires performance tuning when = >> performance is required to a significantly greater degree   >> than Unix (or   >> even Windows, God forbid).  >>5 >>> Even UNIX and Windows servers performance can be   >> significantly enhanced G >>> with some basic tuning as compared to "out-of-the-box" parameters.  H >> I'll ask you to provide specific examples, especially in the case of : >> Unix:  my impression is that their defaults are rather : >> performance-oriented (to the degree that 'significant'  >> enhancement might  ? >> be somewhat difficult to attain with only 'basic tweaking').  >>> >>> I am sure most UNIX admins would not simply install their  >> UNIX OS and> >>> then start loading app's for testing without adjusting OS  >> and/or kernel3 >>> parameters to make the target apps work better. H >> I'm not so sure (especially by comparison with what may typically be G >> required on VMS, given that some of its defaults - e.g., RMS buffer  I >> sizes - aren't particular desirable for *any* situations, having been  H >> established back when RAM was added in units of KB rather than MB or ? >> GB), but let's let people with more experience in that area   >> than either   >> of us has chime in here.  >>8 >>> Having stated this, the performance numbers for the  >> majority (70-80%) of ? >>> Windows servers today are 10% to 15% busy in peak time and   >> majority ofH >>> UNIX servers are only slightly better at 20-30% busy in peak times. H >> Well, duh:  what part of the fact that even with well-optimized file E >> access waiting for disks *still* dominates a lot of workloads has  C >> managed to escape you?  For quite a few years now it has become  9 >> difficult to purchase a processor *weak* enough to be   >> challenged by such 5 >> workloads (save in situations where they scale up   >> sufficiently to allow  B >> that single processor or small MP system to service many, many # >> actively-working disks at once).  >>; >> Note that in such environments having an efficient file   >> system *still* I >> makes a significant difference to system throughput, though - even if  I >> the processor is still loafing a lot of the time.  And that advantage  G >> remains even under the virtual consolidation scenarios which you're  @ >> touting (though diverging from the topic under discussion by 
 >> doing so).  >>	 >> - bill  >> > E > The environments I am talking about in the majority of Windows/UNIX F > servers today are not CPU lite, but disk IO heavy. They are just not5 > utilized that much at all in peak periods - period.   G That's what I just suggested, Kerry:  they're limited by disk I/O, not  D CPU, and hence CPU utilization *will* be low, even if the disks are  working their little tails off.   I And any file system optimizations that will reduce the load on the disks  D (as Unix's do far better by default than VMS does) *will* be useful.   > H > Part of this might be attributed to the one-app, one server philosophyJ > as repeated refreshes makes for a much faster server at lower costs, but? > if the workload does not increase that much, then the overall I > utilization goes down. Multiply this by hundreds of x86 servers in many E > environments and you have one of the basic reasons why CIO's are so - > concerned about their Windows environments.   H Yadda, yadda, yadda:  so what?  This has nothing to do with the subject  at hand, as I already observed.    ...   F > And btw, a server with low cpu utilization, but heavy IO makes for a$ > poor candidate for virtualization.  G But since you seem to insist on this digression:  horseshit.  A server  H with very low CPU utilization is a *good* candidate for virtualization, A since it's got lots of horsepower left over for other tasks that  I (especially in Windows environments) admins might be reluctant to run on  I the same OS instance:  just hook up some more disks to service the added   application(s) and let 'er rip.   #   Remember that virtualization adds 6 > another level of overhead for both IO and CPU loads.  G As far as disk I/O goes, horseshit again:  the CPU overhead, even with  H virtualization added, is a relatively small component of the latency in H a disk access, and since you've already posited that the CPU has cycles C to burn, the added CPU overhead of virtualization is not a problem.    - bill   ------------------------------   Date: 6 Jun 2006 05:58:25 -0700  From: bob@instantwhip.com M Subject: Re: Unix runs faster, maybe (was: Re: Educating potential VMS users) C Message-ID: <1149598705.343670.119010@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>   D so if these so called cios are so concerned about having 88000 boxes; running single apps and sitting idle, why did they buy that 
 configuration  in the first place?    ------------------------------   Date: 6 Jun 2006 09:35:59 -0700 - From: "Doug Phillips" <dphill46@netscape.net> M Subject: Re: Unix runs faster, maybe (was: Re: Educating potential VMS users) B Message-ID: <1149611759.836641.201210@f6g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>   Bill Todd wrote: > Main, Kerry wrote: > > H > > And btw, a server with low cpu utilization, but heavy IO makes for a& > > poor candidate for virtualization. > % >   Remember that virtualization adds 8 > > another level of overhead for both IO and CPU loads. > H > As far as disk I/O goes, horseshit again:  the CPU overhead, even withI > virtualization added, is a relatively small component of the latency in I > a disk access, and since you've already posited that the CPU has cycles E > to burn, the added CPU overhead of virtualization is not a problem.  >    Buzzword alert! Buzzword alert!   C >From Wikipedia: Virtualization "is a broad term that refers to the ; abstraction of resources across many aspects of computing."   D It looks to me like there are as many flavors of "virtualization" as8 there are marketing companies abusing the word. The wordF "virtualization", used without further definition, is not deserving ofD a "horseshit" rebuttal; it is deserving of a buzzword alert, though.  A So you gotta adjectivicate(1) the word to remove it from buzzword E status, or you can argue the rest of your lives and both be right and  wrong.  / (1) a "verbification", which is another form of  buzzwordification(1).(2)  ? (2) An example of recursive verbification, or: reverbification.    ;-)    ------------------------------  % Date: Sun, 04 Jun 2006 11:30:36 +0000 . From: vesko <member816@nomx.sysadminforum.com>H Subject: What wide SCSI constrollers will be recognized by SRM of PWS600> Message-ID: <139$1425012$5153388$1149420636@sysadminforum.com>  C I have a PWS600a (Miata MX5 with SRM 7.2-1) and now I use it with a E 50pin NCR 53C810 (ASUS PCI-SC200). But I want to use 68pin HDDs and I H need a wide SCSI controller. Which controllers will be recognized by theF SRM (and of course OpenVMS)? Maybe KZPAC/KZPSC (Mylex DAC960) , QlogicG 1020/1040? I need to find something generic (not DEC/Compaq/HP branded) E from some old x86 server, because I'm from Bulgaria and can not order 
 any DEC part. : What controllers do you use on your Personal Workstations?   Vesselin Kenashkov   --     ------------------------------  * Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2006 09:07:40 -0500 (CDT)* From: sms@antinode.org (Steven M. Schweda)L Subject: Re: What wide SCSI constrollers will be recognized by SRM of PWS6002 Message-ID: <06060609074018_2022872F@antinode.org>  . From: vesko <member816@nomx.sysadminforum.com>  E > I have a PWS600a (Miata MX5 with SRM 7.2-1) and now I use it with a G > 50pin NCR 53C810 (ASUS PCI-SC200). But I want to use 68pin HDDs and I J > need a wide SCSI controller. Which controllers will be recognized by theH > SRM (and of course OpenVMS)? Maybe KZPAC/KZPSC (Mylex DAC960) , QlogicI > 1020/1040? I need to find something generic (not DEC/Compaq/HP branded) G > from some old x86 server, because I'm from Bulgaria and can not order  > any DEC part. < > What controllers do you use on your Personal Workstations?  C    I have used a non-DEC Qlogic ISP1040B card (looks like a genuine E KZPBA-CX, except for the labels) in my (old-style) PWS 500a[u].  (The F box says "a", but the firmware says "au" when it sees a SCSI card.)  IF believe that I also used a similar card with an SGI part-number label,. but that may have been in an AlpSta 200 4/233.  B    The nice Intraserver cards (one or two SCSI ports, perhaps alsoE Ethernet) with an NCR 875 chip (or two) will probably not work unless H they have the "-V" in the model number (and the extra memory chip on theF card), as the VMS driver will complain about a ROM checksum, and leaveH the device offline.  I assume that that would be true for any other card with the same SCSI chip.  !    I've never tried a Mylex card.   H ------------------------------------------------------------------------  3    Steven M. Schweda               sms@antinode-org 4    382 South Warwick Street        (+1) 651-699-9818    Saint Paul  MN  55105-2547    ------------------------------   End of INFO-VAX 2006.313 ************************