INFO-VAX Mon, 17 Sep 2007 Volume 2007 : Issue 508 Contents: Command fails in batch, seems to work at-ed interactively Re: Here's one for Bob (hope it makes your head spin) Re: TCP/IP Re: TCP/IP Re: TCP/IP Re: tz88 - green-brick for BA350 shelf Re: tz88 - green-brick for BA350 shelf Re: VMS as hypervisor ? Re: VMS as hypervisor ? Re: VMS as hypervisor ? Re: VMS as hypervisor ? Re: VMS as hypervisor ? Re: VMS as hypervisor ? Re: VMS as hypervisor ? Re: volume shadowing question Re: volume shadowing question Re: Will Linux bloat itself out of existance ? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2007 12:45:57 -0400 From: norm.raphael@metso.com Subject: Command fails in batch, seems to work at-ed interactively Message-ID: This is a multipart message in MIME format. --=_alternative 005C193185257359_= Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" This code checks for an empty or blanked PostalZip field. When run inside the batch, is seems to give a different, incorrect result then when the code is extracted to another procedure file and run against the renamed data file. In this case there is a match and Sever is "1". In the nomatch case Sever is "3". Here the "no strings matched" sets Sever to "3" indicating a wrong result as there should have been a match. Why would the same code fail to work and later work on the renamed file. (The diff command is to eliminate the trailing spaces first.) [OpenVMS Alpha V7.3-1] === Actual log excerpt: Sent file JAM317:[CM_PROD.DATA]FRONTIER_ATO.XML.1, 571384 bytes. QUIT <221 $@mfgcom:check_postal.com "JAM317:[CM_PROD.DATA]FRONTIER_ATO.XML;1;" $!$ ffile="jamdata:FRONTIER_SHR.XML_2007090603045085;1" $ ffile=f$search(f$parse("JAMDATA:FRONTIER_SHR.XML_*;",,,,"SYNTAX_ONLY"),3) $ if p1 .nes. "" then ffile="JAM317:[CM_PROD.DATA]FRONTIER_ATO.XML;1;" $ pipe diff/igno=trail JAM317:[CM_PROD.DATA]FRONTIER_ATO.XML;1; nl: /nonumb | - sear sys$pipe ""/window=(0,6)/mat=or/exact/nonumb | - sear sys$pipe "" /exact/nonumb | - sear sys$pipe "> ","><"/exact/out=nl: %SEARCH-I-NOMATCHES, no strings matched $ sever=$severity $ if sever .eq. "1" $ endif $write sys$output "File: JAM317:[CM_PROD.DATA]FRONTIER_ATO.XML;1" File: JAM317:[CM_PROD.DATA]FRONTIER_ATO.XML;1 $rename/log JAM317:[CM_PROD.DATA]FRONTIER_ATO.XML;1 *.xml_2007091522383962;* %RENAME-I-RENAMED, JAM317:[CM_PROD.DATA]FRONTIER_ATO.XML;1 renamed to JAM317:[CM_PROD.DATA]FRONTIER_ATO.XML_2007091522383962;1 === Extracted batch log except: $ pipe diff/igno=trail - JAM317:[CM_PROD.DATA]FRONTIER_ATO.XML_2007091522383962;1 - nl: /nonumb | - sear sys$pipe ""/window=(0,6)/mat=or/exact/nonumb | - sear sys$pipe "" /exact/nonumb | - sear sys$pipe "> ","><"/exact/out=nl: $ sever=$severity $ show sym sever SEVER = "1" === --=_alternative 005C193185257359_= Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
This code checks for an empty or blanked PostalZip field.
When run inside the batch, is seems to give a different, incorrect
result then when the code is extracted to another procedure file
and run against the renamed data file.
In this case there is a match and Sever is "1".
In the nomatch case Sever is "3".
Here the "no strings matched" sets Sever to "3" indicating a wrong
result as there should have been a match.
Why would the same code fail to work and later work on the renamed
file.  (The diff command is to eliminate the trailing spaces first.)
[OpenVMS Alpha V7.3-1]
=== Actual log excerpt:
Sent file JAM317:[CM_PROD.DATA]FRONTIER_ATO.XML.1, 571384 bytes.
QUIT
<221  
$@mfgcom:check_postal.com "JAM317:[CM_PROD.DATA]FRONTIER_ATO.XML;1;"
$!$ ffile="jamdata:FRONTIER_SHR.XML_2007090603045085;1"
$ ffile=f$search(f$parse("JAMDATA:FRONTIER_SHR.XML_*;",,,,"SYNTAX_ONLY"),3)
$ if p1 .nes. "" then ffile="JAM317:[CM_PROD.DATA]FRONTIER_ATO.XML;1;"
$ pipe diff/igno=trail JAM317:[CM_PROD.DATA]FRONTIER_ATO.XML;1;  nl: /nonumb | -
       sear sys$pipe "<Consignee>"/window=(0,6)/mat=or/exact/nonumb | -
        sear sys$pipe "<PostalZip>" /exact/nonumb | -
         sear sys$pipe "> ","><"/exact/out=nl:
%SEARCH-I-NOMATCHES, no strings matched
$ sever=$severity
$ if sever .eq. "1"
$  endif
$write sys$output "File: JAM317:[CM_PROD.DATA]FRONTIER_ATO.XML;1"
File: JAM317:[CM_PROD.DATA]FRONTIER_ATO.XML;1
$rename/log JAM317:[CM_PROD.DATA]FRONTIER_ATO.XML;1 *.xml_2007091522383962;*
%RENAME-I-RENAMED, JAM317:[CM_PROD.DATA]FRONTIER_ATO.XML;1 renamed to
JAM317:[CM_PROD.DATA]FRONTIER_ATO.XML_2007091522383962;1
=== Extracted batch log except:
$ pipe diff/igno=trail -
JAM317:[CM_PROD.DATA]FRONTIER_ATO.XML_2007091522383962;1 -
     nl: /nonumb | -
       sear sys$pipe "<Consignee>"/window=(0,6)/mat=or/exact/nonumb | -
        sear sys$pipe "<PostalZip>" /exact/nonumb | -
         sear sys$pipe "> ","><"/exact/out=nl:
$ sever=$severity
$ show sym sever
  SEVER = "1"
=== --=_alternative 005C193185257359_=-- ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2007 08:29:26 +0200 From: "Rudolf Wingert" Subject: Re: Here's one for Bob (hope it makes your head spin) Message-ID: <014801c7f8f4$18659e50$994614ac@domina.fom> Hello, Neil Rieck wrote: >>> Like everything else in the world, fundamentalism is the = oversimplification of any topic. There are all kinds of Christians and not all = implementations of that concept reflect your narrow view. <<< Why do you think that my opinion is an oversimplification? It is = difficult to live as Christ. Every time you have to reflect, what you do and you = must be aware, that you don't become a self made god. Living with a cookbook = is easy. You look into the book and know what to do. What I would like to = say is, that Jesus life do show, that the Bible is not a cookbook. God did = not change his mind, only humans do interpret Gods mind in a different way. = Also you can use the rules not as pressure for other, only for yourself. Best regards Rudolf Wingert ------------------------------ Date: 17 Sep 2007 07:32:32 -0500 From: Kilgallen@SpamCop.net (Larry Kilgallen) Subject: Re: TCP/IP Message-ID: In article <46EDDF2A.31D97C73@spam.comcast.net>, David J Dachtera writes: > Performance wise, ... > > PSC's products still use Direct I/O for the network. Hence, each network I/O > generates an interrupt. This can result in CPU saturation in extreme cases, > mostly with huge databases and other applications with tens of thousands of > active connections. > > UCX uses Buffered I/O for the network resulting in more CPU time being available > in User Mode; hence, more actual work gets done than when the CPUs are busy > performing interrupt service. But behind Buffered I/O there is Direct I/O and buffered I/O also has the overhead of copying the data from user memory to the device buffer. That should take up _more_ CPU time that the direct I/O case. Was the problem you experienced using very small buffers ? ------------------------------ Date: 17 Sep 2007 07:45:00 -0500 From: koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) Subject: Re: TCP/IP Message-ID: In article <46ebd015.2461449@news.clear.net.nz>, dgsoftnz@gmail.com (David Goodwin) writes: > In a few days I will finally get my hands on a machine to learn > OpenVMS on (an AlphaServer 1200). Before then I must figure out what > TCP/IP stack to use. I know almost nothing about any of them and dont > know very much about how to use OpenVMS in general. > > Multinet and TCPware seem to be made by the same company and their > website pages seem almost identical. I assume there must be some major > difference between them - I dont see any reason why one company would > make two seemingly identical products for the same platform. > > Could anyone tell me which TCP/IP stack I want to use and what are the > major differences between them? While I prefer to use Multinet, that's in part because I've used it for so long. Either product from Process should work fine for you. The biggest difference is that HP's product is, and always has been, behind the times on implementing the latest IP applications on a workable fashion. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2007 09:47:45 -0500 From: Ron Johnson Subject: Re: TCP/IP Message-ID: On 09/16/07 20:58, David J Dachtera wrote: [snip] > > UCX also has a major "gotcha": when multiple interfaces are assigned to the same > subnet the loss of any one interface will render the entire subnet unusable. > This is due to a UCX feature where in it "round robins" the outgoing traffic > among the available interfaces on a subnet. This feature cannot be defeated, and > although most folks recommend "failSAFE-IP" as a remedy, this does not work > because UCX cannot properly detect connectivity failure above the physical > layer. v5 was a port from Digital Unix, was it not? (That's why upper-case commands like GET and CD don't work anymore.) Does that gotcha still happen in v5? -- Ron Johnson, Jr. Jefferson LA USA Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day. Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good! ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2007 08:48:59 -0400 From: "Richard B. Gilbert" Subject: Re: tz88 - green-brick for BA350 shelf Message-ID: <46EE77BB.7020501@comcast.net> Michael Austin wrote: > Does any one have one of these old devices they want to get rid of - > cheaply? I have one that flashes all lights on the front after a power > glitch. I had 2 in this shelf - and luckily only one of them got hit. I > have tried re-seating and following the instructions to clear the error, > but it looks like it is toast. > > Or if you just have the drive - I am sure my former DEC FS skills can > take care of placing it into the canister. > You don't NEED a new drive. All you need to do is replace the "Leader". Note that this is a job normally done by field service. If you don't know what you're doing, pay someone who does! ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2007 18:14:10 +0300 From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Uusim=E4ki?= Subject: Re: tz88 - green-brick for BA350 shelf Message-ID: <46ee9997$0$3230$9b536df3@news.fv.fi> Richard B. Gilbert wrote: > Michael Austin wrote: >> Does any one have one of these old devices they want to get rid of - >> cheaply? I have one that flashes all lights on the front after a >> power glitch. I had 2 in this shelf - and luckily only one of them >> got hit. I have tried re-seating and following the instructions to >> clear the error, but it looks like it is toast. >> >> Or if you just have the drive - I am sure my former DEC FS skills can >> take care of placing it into the canister. >> > > You don't NEED a new drive. All you need to do is replace the "Leader". > Note that this is a job normally done by field service. If you don't > know what you're doing, pay someone who does! > I agree. I have replaced leaders on those drives and when they are installed in the StorageWorks "brick", the procedure is a way more difficult task than with plain drives. Taking the brick apart without breaking it is the most demanding part. For a skilled engineer it takes about 20mins to do it. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2007 06:27:15 +0000 (UTC) From: Cydrome Leader Subject: Re: VMS as hypervisor ? Message-ID: Richard B. Gilbert wrote: > Lee K. Gleason wrote: >> "JF Mezei" wrote in message >> news:dd217$46ec7b84$cef8887a$24782@TEKSAVVY.COM... >> >>>OK, So HP has made HP-UX capable of hosting multiple OS instances. >>>(glorifided VM from IBM). >>> >> >> >> This while virtualization movement is a bit of a puzzle to me. When I >> question it, the PC types at work tell me it's great, since you can run lots >> of different things on the same machine, and can buy fewer servers. Since >> VMS already has a decent scheduler and excellent inter-process memory >> protection and resource allocation, I'm always left wondering, why couldn't >> they just use an operating system that can allow you to "run lots of >> different things on the same machine", each in their own process? That way >> you don't have to drag the overhead of a whole copy of Windows along with >> each separate thing you want to do. As they try to explain, I often feel >> like President Not Sure, listening to his cabinet tell him about the >> electrolytes in Brawndo (if you;'ve seen Idiocracy...). >> -- >> >> > > The whole virtualization movement is about the fact that Windows is not > very good at protecting applications from each other! Virtual servers > compensate for Windows' shortcomings by providing the necessary isolation. It's about windows. It's about consolidation. I have a physical machine running 4 OSes, and about a dozen virtual machines. That server takes up 1U of rack space, vs. a quarter rack. even with VMware licenses, it's cheaper than a bunch of mostly idle machines. ------------------------------ Date: 17 Sep 2007 07:48:47 -0500 From: koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) Subject: Re: VMS as hypervisor ? Message-ID: <5rlaZbkO8d3O@eisner.encompasserve.org> In article , JF Mezei writes: > OK, So HP has made HP-UX capable of hosting multiple OS instances. > (glorifided VM from IBM). > > Out of curiosity, would VMS be well suited for such a task ? What are > the traits of a good OS to become a hypervisor ? > > In the case of IO, is it correct to state that VMS , as a hypervisor, > would not actually be performing IO on bealf of the instances it hosts > and that the later would have direct access to their disk drives ? > > Does HP-UX have advantages over VMS in terms of process switching, > priority and general multi-tasking, or is VMS up to par on that aspect ? I would choose VMS over HP-UX for this because I would want a solid, secure foundation with at least the real-time capabilities of VMS so I wouldn't be limited to hosting timesharing OS. But the target market for this product probably doesn't care. ------------------------------ Date: 17 Sep 2007 07:51:15 -0500 From: koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) Subject: Re: VMS as hypervisor ? Message-ID: In article , "Lee K. Gleason" writes: > > This while virtualization movement is a bit of a puzzle to me. When I > question it, the PC types at work tell me it's great, since you can run lots > of different things on the same machine, and can buy fewer servers. Since > VMS already has a decent scheduler and excellent inter-process memory > protection and resource allocation, I'm always left wondering, why couldn't > they just use an operating system that can allow you to "run lots of > different things on the same machine", each in their own process? That way > you don't have to drag the overhead of a whole copy of Windows along with > each separate thing you want to do. As they try to explain, I often feel > like President Not Sure, listening to his cabinet tell him about the > electrolytes in Brawndo (if you;'ve seen Idiocracy...). You have to view the situation from PC mentality. When frequent reboots are the norm the ability to reboot only part of the "system" looks good. Of course, if the PC folks were used to an OS that stayed up for years and didn't require a reboot every time you installed a text editor they might see differently. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2007 08:52:50 -0400 From: "Richard B. Gilbert" Subject: Re: VMS as hypervisor ? Message-ID: <46EE78A2.2080905@comcast.net> Cydrome Leader wrote: > Richard B. Gilbert wrote: > >>Lee K. Gleason wrote: >> >>>"JF Mezei" wrote in message >>>news:dd217$46ec7b84$cef8887a$24782@TEKSAVVY.COM... >>> >>> >>>>OK, So HP has made HP-UX capable of hosting multiple OS instances. >>>>(glorifided VM from IBM). >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> This while virtualization movement is a bit of a puzzle to me. When I >>>question it, the PC types at work tell me it's great, since you can run lots >>>of different things on the same machine, and can buy fewer servers. Since >>>VMS already has a decent scheduler and excellent inter-process memory >>>protection and resource allocation, I'm always left wondering, why couldn't >>>they just use an operating system that can allow you to "run lots of >>>different things on the same machine", each in their own process? That way >>>you don't have to drag the overhead of a whole copy of Windows along with >>>each separate thing you want to do. As they try to explain, I often feel >>>like President Not Sure, listening to his cabinet tell him about the >>>electrolytes in Brawndo (if you;'ve seen Idiocracy...). >>>-- >>> >>> >> >>The whole virtualization movement is about the fact that Windows is not >>very good at protecting applications from each other! Virtual servers >>compensate for Windows' shortcomings by providing the necessary isolation. > > > It's about windows. It's about consolidation. > > I have a physical machine running 4 OSes, and about a dozen virtual machines. > That server takes up 1U of rack space, vs. a quarter rack. > > even with VMware licenses, it's cheaper than a bunch of mostly idle machines. And if Windows were not a "One Trick Pony" you would simply run the four apps under Windows on a single machine! ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2007 16:22:31 GMT From: "John Vottero" Subject: Re: VMS as hypervisor ? Message-ID: "Richard B. Gilbert" wrote in message news:46ED540F.3040006@comcast.net... >> >> That applies for VMS as well, if you need two different versions of >> VMS and prefer to have only one hardware box. > > When did this happen? It used to be that images linked on a VAX ca. > 1978/79 would run without problems on any later version. > > Now if you have third party software, the vendor might not it support it > on all versions of VMS but it should still WORK on the version it was > built on and all later versions unless someone is doing something very > strange. > Well, if you happen to be a third party software vendor that wants to support many versions of VMS, you need to be running the oldest supported version, the newest supported version and a few versions in between for VAX, Alpha and IA64. It sure would be nice to do that with virtual machines. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2007 16:26:37 GMT From: "John Vottero" Subject: Re: VMS as hypervisor ? Message-ID: <1VxHi.27142$eY.6722@newssvr13.news.prodigy.net> "Richard B. Gilbert" wrote in message news:46ECD24B.7080604@comcast.net... > Lee K. Gleason wrote: >> "JF Mezei" wrote in message >> news:dd217$46ec7b84$cef8887a$24782@TEKSAVVY.COM... >> >>>OK, So HP has made HP-UX capable of hosting multiple OS instances. >>>(glorifided VM from IBM). >>> >> >> >> This while virtualization movement is a bit of a puzzle to me. When I >> question it, the PC types at work tell me it's great, since you can run >> lots >> of different things on the same machine, and can buy fewer servers. Since >> VMS already has a decent scheduler and excellent inter-process memory >> protection and resource allocation, I'm always left wondering, why >> couldn't >> they just use an operating system that can allow you to "run lots of >> different things on the same machine", each in their own process? That >> way >> you don't have to drag the overhead of a whole copy of Windows along with >> each separate thing you want to do. As they try to explain, I often feel >> like President Not Sure, listening to his cabinet tell him about the >> electrolytes in Brawndo (if you;'ve seen Idiocracy...). >> -- >> >> > > The whole virtualization movement is about the fact that Windows is not > very good at protecting applications from each other! Virtual servers > compensate for Windows' shortcomings by providing the necessary isolation. > The really crazy part is that Windows *IS* good at protecting applications from each other but, there's nowhere to set the limits and the default is "use the whole machine". ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2007 17:21:16 GMT From: VAXman- @SendSpamHere.ORG Subject: Re: VMS as hypervisor ? Message-ID: In article , "John Vottero" writes: > > >"Richard B. Gilbert" wrote in message >news:46ED540F.3040006@comcast.net... >>> >>> That applies for VMS as well, if you need two different versions of >>> VMS and prefer to have only one hardware box. >> >> When did this happen? It used to be that images linked on a VAX ca. >> 1978/79 would run without problems on any later version. >> >> Now if you have third party software, the vendor might not it support it >> on all versions of VMS but it should still WORK on the version it was >> built on and all later versions unless someone is doing something very >> strange. >> > >Well, if you happen to be a third party software vendor that wants to >support many versions of VMS, you need to be running the oldest supported >version, the newest supported version and a few versions in between for VAX, >Alpha and IA64. It sure would be nice to do that with virtual machines. What makes you think that John? Contact me off-line if you care to discuss it. -- VAXman- A Bored Certified VMS Kernel Mode Hacker VAXman(at)TMESIS(dot)COM "Well my son, life is like a beanstalk, isn't it?" http://tmesis.com/drat.html ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2007 03:22:06 -0700 From: "Bart.Zorn@gmail.com" Subject: Re: volume shadowing question Message-ID: <1190024526.333488.237310@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com> Hi Bob, Nice presentation! It may be of help to convince some managers over here! I have one question, though: why are you using the /SYMBOL qualifier with the LD commands? Regards, Bart Zorn On Sep 14, 9:45 pm, Bob Gezelter wrote: > On Sep 13, 2:16 pm, "Syltrem" wrote: > > > > > Hello > > > We are installing an EVA4000 in replacement of an MSA1000. > > > I was wondering if I could use HBVS to switch my data onto the new stor= age, > > online. > > > That is: create a new drive on the EVA4000, mount it as a shadow member= of > > the existing one on MSA1000. > > When the merge is complete, dismount the member that's on the MSA1000. > > > A possible technical problem: > > The VMScluster is comprised of 2 Alphaservers and one IA64 server. When= I > > mount /cluster the shadow member, will all nodes see it properly (diffe= rent > > architecture should not be a problem on VMS) ? > > > And is there something obvious that I do not see ? Is this a workable p= lan ? > > I remember 5-6 years ago, HBVS would not mount members of different siz= es so > > that will certainly be a problem if it's still the case. > > > And I hope HP can lend me HBVS licenses for a week or two... I may still > > have some for Alpha but certainly not for IA64. > > > Just thinking, looking for feedback > > > Thanks > > -- > > Syltremhttp://pages.infinit.net/syltrem(OpenVMSinformation and help, en= fran=E7ais) > > Syltrem, > > I gave a presentation on precisely this point at the 2007 HP > Enterprise Symposium in Las Vegas a few months ago. > > The presentation, "Migrating OpenVMS Storage Environments without > Interruption or Disruption", is available athttp://www.rlgsc.com/hptechno= logyforum/2007/1512.html > > This scenario, and several related ones, are actually excellent > arguments for using single member shadow sets routinely. > > - Bob Gezelter,http://www.rlgsc.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2007 10:55:29 -0400 From: "Syltrem" Subject: Re: volume shadowing question Message-ID: <13et5b2ecu94745@corp.supernews.com> > > >I gave a presentation on precisely this point at the 2007 HP >Enterprise Symposium in Las Vegas a few months ago. > >The presentation, "Migrating OpenVMS Storage Environments without >Interruption or Disruption", is available at >http://www.rlgsc.com/hptechnologyforum/2007/1512.html > >This scenario, and several related ones, are actually excellent >arguments for using single member shadow sets routinely. > >- Bob Gezelter, http://www.rlgsc.com Thanks Bob, very interesting ! Syltrem ------------------------------ Date: 17 Sep 2007 07:37:39 -0500 From: koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) Subject: Re: Will Linux bloat itself out of existance ? Message-ID: In article , Ron Johnson writes: > On 09/14/07 15:46, Bob Koehler wrote: >> In article , Ron Johnson writes: >>> Unless CMS was originally a 3rd party product, one would hope that >>> DEC ate it's own dog food. >> >> The presentation I was at made it sound like MMS and CMS originated >> with the ACS required by the original ACS spec, but then worked on > > ACS? > Oops, I meant ACS required by the original Ada spec. The capabilities DEC put into the Ada Compile System were required by the Ada spec, but the name ACS was DEC's invention. ------------------------------ End of INFO-VAX 2007.508 ************************