INFO-VAX Wed, 07 Nov 2007 Volume 2007 : Issue 609 Contents: Re: @SYS$MANAGER:UTC$TIME_SETUP SHOW : no output using sysman Re: CHECKSUM oddity? Re: Happy Anniversary VMS - 30 years young Re: Happy Anniversary VMS - 30 years young Re: Happy Anniversary VMS - 30 years young Re: Happy Anniversary VMS - 30 years young Re: Happy Anniversary VMS - 30 years young Re: Happy Anniversary VMS - 30 years young Re: Happy Anniversary VMS - 30 years young Re: Happy Anniversary VMS - 30 years young Re: Happy Anniversary VMS - 30 years young Re: Happy Anniversary VMS - 30 years young Important information about Oracle Certifications Re: OpenVMS Group at XING Unknown BACKUP qualifier in VMS 8.2 Re: Unknown BACKUP qualifier in VMS 8.2 Re: Unknown BACKUP qualifier in VMS 8.2 Re: Unknown BACKUP qualifier in VMS 8.2 Re: Why does DECnet Phase IV have more capabilities on VAX than on Alpha? Alph Re: Why does DECnet Phase IV have more capabilities on VAX than on Alpha? Re: Why does DECnet Phase IV have more capabilities on VAX than on Alpha? Re: Why does DECnet Phase IV have more capabilities on VAX than on Alpha? Re: Why does DECnet Phase IV have more capabilities on VAX than on Alpha? Re: Why does DECnet Phase IV have more capabilities on VAX than on Alpha? Re: Why does DECnet Phase IV have more capabilities on VAX than on Alpha? Alpha? Re: Why does DECnet Phase IV have more capabilities on VAX than on Alpha? Alpha? Re: Why does DECnet Phase IV have more capabilities on VAX than on Alpha? Alpha? Re: Why does DECnet Phase IV have more capabilities on VAX than on Alpha? Alpha? Re: Why does DECnet Phase IV have more capabilities on VAX than on Alpha? Alpha? Re: Why does DECnet Phase IV have more capabilities on VAX than on Alpha? Alpha? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2007 19:49:53 -0600 From: David J Dachtera Subject: Re: @SYS$MANAGER:UTC$TIME_SETUP SHOW : no output using sysman Message-ID: <473119C1.6DF093AE@spam.comcast.net> Peter 'EPLAN' LANGSTOeGER wrote: > > In article , Dale Dellutri writes: > >If I do the command locally, it works on each of my > >non-clustered systems: > >[UTC$TIME_SETUP.COM] > >But if I do it using sysman to the systems, > >there's no output: > > > >Why doesn't it produce output? > > Because the UTC$TIME_SETUP.COM does a DEASSIGN SYS$OUTPUT and kills > the logical the SMISERVER sets to get the output of the called procedure. > > Not the only bug of the SMISERVER... Dale, Try this: SYSMAN> do spawn @sys$manager:utc$time_setup show That produces output for me, with the usual SYSMAN distortion (blank lines are supressed, leading/trailing spaces may be trimmed). -- 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: Tue, 06 Nov 2007 23:14:34 -0800 From: glen herrmannsfeldt Subject: Re: CHECKSUM oddity? Message-ID: George Cornelius wrote: (snip) >>Another interesting case is the ability to read tapes backwards. >>While many newer drives can't do that, most of the older ones did. > IBM certainly did it. I used the 2400 series drives, which had that > capability, at least on mainframe channels. Yes, I think all the IBM 9 track drives, as well as 18 track and more (3480, 3490) could. Helical scan drives, such as DDS and Exabyte, can't easily read backwards. DLT might be able to do it. I don't remember that QIC drives offered the ability, but it might have been physically possible to do it. -- glen ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2007 15:24:05 -0500 From: "FredK" Subject: Re: Happy Anniversary VMS - 30 years young Message-ID: "JF Mezei" wrote in message news:c77d6$472f946b$cef8887a$15212@TEKSAVVY.COM... > FredK wrote: >> To be honest I seldom reply or pay attention to COV anymore because of a >> couple posters (JF being high among them) who have made it their mission >> to turn every positive into a negative, > > Well thank you. I think I'll stop reading right about there. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2007 15:37:25 -0500 From: "Richard B. Gilbert" Subject: Re: Happy Anniversary VMS - 30 years young Message-ID: <4730D085.1040701@comcast.net> FredK wrote: > "JF Mezei" wrote in message > news:c77d6$472f946b$cef8887a$15212@TEKSAVVY.COM... > >>FredK wrote: >> >>>To be honest I seldom reply or pay attention to COV anymore because of a >>>couple posters (JF being high among them) who have made it their mission >>>to turn every positive into a negative, >> >>Well thank you. > > > > I think I'll stop reading right about there. > Please don't go away! JF is something we all have to live with. ;-) ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2007 15:43:25 -0500 From: "FredK" Subject: Re: Happy Anniversary VMS - 30 years young Message-ID: "Richard B. Gilbert" wrote in message news:4730D085.1040701@comcast.net... > FredK wrote: >> "JF Mezei" wrote in message >> news:c77d6$472f946b$cef8887a$15212@TEKSAVVY.COM... >> >>>FredK wrote: >>> >>>>To be honest I seldom reply or pay attention to COV anymore because of a >>>>couple posters (JF being high among them) who have made it their mission >>>>to turn every positive into a negative, >>> >>>Well thank you. >> >> >> >> I think I'll stop reading right about there. >> > > Please don't go away! JF is something we all have to live with. ;-) > Is there a Valtrex like drug for JF? ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2007 15:59:54 -0500 From: "Richard B. Gilbert" Subject: Re: Happy Anniversary VMS - 30 years young Message-ID: <4730D5CA.1050904@comcast.net> FredK wrote: > "Richard B. Gilbert" wrote in message > news:4730D085.1040701@comcast.net... > >>FredK wrote: >> >>>"JF Mezei" wrote in message >>>news:c77d6$472f946b$cef8887a$15212@TEKSAVVY.COM... >>> >>> >>>>FredK wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>>To be honest I seldom reply or pay attention to COV anymore because of a >>>>>couple posters (JF being high among them) who have made it their mission >>>>>to turn every positive into a negative, >>>> >>>>Well thank you. >>> >>> >>> >>>I think I'll stop reading right about there. >>> >> >>Please don't go away! JF is something we all have to live with. ;-) >> > > > Is there a Valtrex like drug for JF? > > > I just researched Valtrex on Google and it does not appear to be an anti psychotic. . . . ;-) Isn't JF on enough drugs already? ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2007 21:42:42 -0000 From: Ed Wilts Subject: Re: Happy Anniversary VMS - 30 years young Message-ID: <1194385362.489508.155260@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com> On Oct 31, 4:13 am, Ron Johnson wrote: > The genesis of RISC was the observations that most compiler writers > didn't use every exotic opcode, but just strung together sets of the > simple, fast ones. RISC = Relegate the Important Stuff to Compilers. .../Ed ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2007 15:58:53 -0600 From: Ron Johnson Subject: Re: Happy Anniversary VMS - 30 years young Message-ID: On 11/06/07 15:42, Ed Wilts wrote: > On Oct 31, 4:13 am, Ron Johnson wrote: >> The genesis of RISC was the observations that most compiler writers >> didn't use every exotic opcode, but just strung together sets of the >> simple, fast ones. > > RISC = Relegate the Important Stuff to Compilers. EPIC tried that too. Didn't work as well. Besides, a regularized opcode format let the chips be simplified and the MHz cranked. And that overcame compiler deficiencies until compiler writers figured out how to write better compilers. -- 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: 6 Nov 2007 16:15:23 -0600 From: Kilgallen@SpamCop.net (Larry Kilgallen) Subject: Re: Happy Anniversary VMS - 30 years young Message-ID: In article <4730D085.1040701@comcast.net>, "Richard B. Gilbert" writes: > FredK wrote: >> "JF Mezei" wrote in message >> news:c77d6$472f946b$cef8887a$15212@TEKSAVVY.COM... >> >>>FredK wrote: >>> >>>>To be honest I seldom reply or pay attention to COV anymore because of a >>>>couple posters (JF being high among them) who have made it their mission >>>>to turn every positive into a negative, >>> >>>Well thank you. >> >> >> >> I think I'll stop reading right about there. >> > > Please don't go away! JF is something we all have to live with. ;-) Not those of us with killfiles. We just have to deal with those who respond to JF. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2007 17:25:31 -0500 From: JF Mezei Subject: Re: Happy Anniversary VMS - 30 years young Message-ID: <780e4$4730e9dc$cef8887a$7969@TEKSAVVY.COM> Ed Wilts wrote: > RISC = Relegate the Important Stuff to Compilers. With almost 20 years of RISC experience out there, are there debates on whether RISC is really that much better than CISC ? When you look at the 8086 that implements CISC instructions that translate to multiple RISC instructions behind the scenes, isn't that faster in the end than having those multiple instructions in the executable image resulting in a larger executable image and thus more fetches from main memory to get the code to the CPU ? And if a CISC architecture had instructions that were all the same length, wouldn't that give it basically all the advantages of a RISC platform in terms of prefetching, branch prediction etc ? And one question: ## Alpha Architecture Handbook, Special Announcement Edition, February 1992. Page 1-1 The instructions are very simple. All instructions are 32 bits in length. ## If the actual instruction is only 32 bits, how can a 64 bit value for an address ever be specified ? At some point in time, even when you work with base address register and a displacement register, you will need to load actual values into those registers. How is that done ? Or does every process have a reserved spot in the first 4 gigs of ram to allow it to specify a 32 bit address in a load operation, which would allow it to load a 64 bit value to be used as base address for the rest of the program ? ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2007 19:23:43 -0600 From: David J Dachtera Subject: Re: Happy Anniversary VMS - 30 years young Message-ID: <4731139F.6614EAE2@spam.comcast.net> FredK wrote: > > "Richard B. Gilbert" wrote in message > news:4730D085.1040701@comcast.net... > > FredK wrote: > >> "JF Mezei" wrote in message > >> news:c77d6$472f946b$cef8887a$15212@TEKSAVVY.COM... > >> > >>>FredK wrote: > >>> > >>>>To be honest I seldom reply or pay attention to COV anymore because of a > >>>>couple posters (JF being high among them) who have made it their mission > >>>>to turn every positive into a negative, > >>> > >>>Well thank you. > >> > >> > >> > >> I think I'll stop reading right about there. > >> > > > > Please don't go away! JF is something we all have to live with. ;-) > > > > Is there a Valtrex like drug for JF? Yes! It's called, "OpenVMS Marketing"! -- 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: Tue, 06 Nov 2007 19:24:45 -0600 From: David J Dachtera Subject: Re: Happy Anniversary VMS - 30 years young Message-ID: <473113DD.F0FC1D71@spam.comcast.net> "Richard B. Gilbert" wrote: > > FredK wrote: > > "Richard B. Gilbert" wrote in message > > news:4730D085.1040701@comcast.net... > > > >>FredK wrote: > >> > >>>"JF Mezei" wrote in message > >>>news:c77d6$472f946b$cef8887a$15212@TEKSAVVY.COM... > >>> > >>> > >>>>FredK wrote: > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>>To be honest I seldom reply or pay attention to COV anymore because of a > >>>>>couple posters (JF being high among them) who have made it their mission > >>>>>to turn every positive into a negative, > >>>> > >>>>Well thank you. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>I think I'll stop reading right about there. > >>> > >> > >>Please don't go away! JF is something we all have to live with. ;-) > >> > > > > > > Is there a Valtrex like drug for JF? > > > > > > > > I just researched Valtrex on Google and it does not appear to be an anti > psychotic. . . . ;-) Isn't JF on enough drugs already? I think you're confusing JF with Boob. -- 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: Tue, 06 Nov 2007 18:36:53 -0800 From: Information Subject: Important information about Oracle Certifications Message-ID: <1194403013.590109.218230@y27g2000pre.googlegroups.com> Oracle Certifications http://educational-world.blogspot.com/2007/07/oracle-certification-programs.html ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2007 19:28:42 -0600 From: David J Dachtera Subject: Re: OpenVMS Group at XING Message-ID: <473114CA.2238D778@spam.comcast.net> "Lukas Th. Hey" wrote: > > Hi there, > > there finally is an OpenVMS group newly added to the community. I wonder > there wasn't any other VMS-related group before: > > https://www.xing.org/net/openvms/ That site requires registration, then you have to to do more gymnastics to find the OpenVMS forum. Further navigational assistance would be helpful. -- 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: Tue, 06 Nov 2007 15:52:01 -0600 From: Ron Johnson Subject: Unknown BACKUP qualifier in VMS 8.2 Message-ID: <6m5Yi.4130$Gy4.1280@newsfe24.lga> Hi, Looking thru a save-set today, I noticed the /STOR qualifier on the internal "Command: " line. Anyone know what this does? $ BACKUP/LIST DRIVE_1:DBBKUP01.BAK/LABEL=(NJ1689)/MEDI=COMP/REWIND Listing of save set(s) Save set: DBBKUP01.BAK Written by: SLS UIC: [000001,000020] Date: 2-SEP-2007 19:45:34.01 Command: BACK/STOR=V2SLS/RELEASE_TAPE/LIST=_MBA25078:/FULL Thanks, Ron -- 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: 6 Nov 2007 23:07:06 +0100 From: peter@langstoeger.at (Peter 'EPLAN' LANGSTOeGER) Subject: Re: Unknown BACKUP qualifier in VMS 8.2 Message-ID: <4730f39a@news.langstoeger.at> In article <6m5Yi.4130$Gy4.1280@newsfe24.lga>, Ron Johnson writes: >Looking thru a save-set today, I noticed the /STOR qualifier on the >internal "Command: " line. > >Anyone know what this does? No. But I know it is old (surely on V7 and maybe before), is really named /STORAGE_MANAGEMENT and is used by SLS (and probably it successor)... -- Peter "EPLAN" LANGSTOEGER Network and OpenVMS system specialist E-mail peter@langstoeger.at A-1030 VIENNA AUSTRIA I'm not a pessimist, I'm a realist ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2007 16:24:36 -0600 From: Ron Johnson Subject: Re: Unknown BACKUP qualifier in VMS 8.2 Message-ID: On 11/06/07 16:07, Peter 'EPLAN' LANGSTOeGER wrote: > In article <6m5Yi.4130$Gy4.1280@newsfe24.lga>, Ron Johnson writes: >> Looking thru a save-set today, I noticed the /STOR qualifier on the >> internal "Command: " line. >> >> Anyone know what this does? > > No. But I know it is old (surely on V7 and maybe before), is really named > /STORAGE_MANAGEMENT and is used by SLS (and probably it successor)... Hmmm. According to Wizard 3428, it seems to go back to 5.5-2H4 or before. But still, why isn't it documented? (Yes, I looked at www.parsec.com.) -- 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: Tue, 06 Nov 2007 19:09:59 -0500 From: Robert Deininger Subject: Re: Unknown BACKUP qualifier in VMS 8.2 Message-ID: In article , Ron Johnson wrote: > On 11/06/07 16:07, Peter 'EPLAN' LANGSTOeGER wrote: > > In article <6m5Yi.4130$Gy4.1280@newsfe24.lga>, Ron Johnson > > writes: > >> Looking thru a save-set today, I noticed the /STOR qualifier on the > >> internal "Command: " line. > >> > >> Anyone know what this does? > > > > No. But I know it is old (surely on V7 and maybe before), is really named > > /STORAGE_MANAGEMENT and is used by SLS (and probably it successor)... > > Hmmm. According to Wizard 3428, it seems to go back to 5.5-2H4 or > before. > > But still, why isn't it documented? (Yes, I looked at www.parsec.com.) Offhand, I'd guess that it is a private interface, and not supported for general use. VMS is full of such undocumented features. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2007 15:20:24 -0500 From: JF Mezei Subject: Re: Why does DECnet Phase IV have more capabilities on VAX than on Alpha? Alph Message-ID: <2ab7d$4730cc89$cef8887a$3152@TEKSAVVY.COM> Richard B. Gilbert wrote: > Well, I spent about 20 years in the VAX/Alpha VMS world and NEVER > encountered DDCMP! I used DDMCP twice. Once with a friend to test its functionality over what was then new technology: MNP-5 modems (which were supposedly not supported for DDMCP) Second time was to establish a link between 2 vaxes before I received the AUI-Coax transceivers to allow me to connect a partially installed 3100 with the all mighty microvax 2. (this allowed me to copy files over to the 3100). (For those who don't know, DDMCP is decnet over a serial line). ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2007 14:47:16 -0600 (CST) From: sms@antinode.org (Steven M. Schweda) Subject: Re: Why does DECnet Phase IV have more capabilities on VAX than on Alpha? Message-ID: <07110614471608_202002A8@antinode.org> From: "Richard B. Gilbert" > Well, I spent about 20 years in the VAX/Alpha VMS world and NEVER > encountered DDCMP! Perhaps the fact that DDCMP is almost unknown might > have something to do with it. Even if DEC supported DDCMP, did anyone > else???? It seems to me that there were a lot of LAN/WAN protocols that > never really achieved general acceptance! I used it to get my VAXstation 2000 connected to the Internet by way of one of the modem-equipped VAXes at work (and the Wollongong/Attachmate PathWay DECnet-IP bridging software, as I recall). DSL at home obviated the whole arrangement (quite a while ago). ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Steven M. Schweda sms@antinode-org 382 South Warwick Street (+1) 651-699-9818 Saint Paul MN 55105-2547 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2007 13:27:48 -0800 From: AEF Subject: Re: Why does DECnet Phase IV have more capabilities on VAX than on Alpha? Message-ID: <1194384468.491046.38510@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com> On Nov 6, 2:50 pm, "Richard B. Gilbert" wrote: > AEF wrote: > > [ON TOPIC!!!] > > > VAX can do DDCMP circuits. Alpha can't. > > >>From the DECnet for OpenVMS Networking Manual: > > > "On AXP systems, Digital supports level 1 routing only for nodes > > acting as routers for a cluster alias. Digital does not support level > > 2 routing or routing between multiple circuits." > > > It looks like routing control is also limited on Alpha. > > > Also DECdns namespace appears to be missing for Alpha. > > > And CI appears absent for Alpha. > > > Why are all these things missing from the Alpha version? Are people > > just expected to use Phase V and if so, does it have all these things > > missing from Phase IV for Alpha? > > > Thanks! > > > AEF > > Well, I spent about 20 years in the VAX/Alpha VMS world and NEVER > encountered DDCMP! Perhaps the fact that DDCMP is almost unknown might > have something to do with it. Even if DEC supported DDCMP, did anyone > else???? It seems to me that there were a lot of LAN/WAN protocols that > never really achieved general acceptance! > > There was a big fuss about DECnet Phase V and ISO protocols a back in > the 90's but who uses them now? TCP/IP has, for practical purposes, > conquered the world! [My apologies if this shows up twice -- Google Groups wasn't responding and I "timed it out". This is my third(!) attempt to post this.] Hey, at least this is on topic!!! |:-D) Anyway, So what about the routing? Wouldn't it be easier for someone moving from VAX to Alpha if at least the same level of routing functionality were kept? Was it a big deal to to multiple circuits on an Alpha? AEF ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2007 23:10:10 GMT From: no.spam@no.uce.bellatlantic.net Subject: Re: Why does DECnet Phase IV have more capabilities on VAX than on Alpha? Message-ID: On Tue, 06 Nov 2007 14:50:48 -0500, "Richard B. Gilbert" wrote: >AEF wrote: >> [ON TOPIC!!!] >> >> VAX can do DDCMP circuits. Alpha can't. DDCMP was legacy that wasn't needed anymore. >>>From the DECnet for OpenVMS Networking Manual: >> >> "On AXP systems, Digital supports level 1 routing only for nodes >> acting as routers for a cluster alias. Digital does not support level >> 2 routing or routing between multiple circuits." >> >> It looks like routing control is also limited on Alpha. >> >> Also DECdns namespace appears to be missing for Alpha. >> >> And CI appears absent for Alpha. >> >> Why are all these things missing from the Alpha version? Are people >> just expected to use Phase V and if so, does it have all these things >> missing from Phase IV for Alpha? >> >> Thanks! >> >> AEF >> > >Well, I spent about 20 years in the VAX/Alpha VMS world and NEVER >encountered DDCMP! Perhaps the fact that DDCMP is almost unknown might >have something to do with it. Even if DEC supported DDCMP, did anyone >else???? It seems to me that there were a lot of LAN/WAN protocols that >never really achieved general acceptance! It was widely used between PDP-11s and VAXen in lab settings. The DDCMP is good point to point but the media was range limited even with SYNC modems which often only ran at 9600 baud. The latter is the big issue as it was rare thing to see it used with a serial line faster than 64kbaud. Even Ethernet 10mb beats that hands down but then Ethernet was far more costly than a serial line. >There was a big fuss about DECnet Phase V and ISO protocols a back in >the 90's but who uses them now? TCP/IP has, for practical purposes, >conquered the world! Back then networking was new and robust routing protocals were few. Of those Banyan Vines, TCP/IP and DECnet were leaders. And also back then it was common to see IP tunneled on DECnet! Allison ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2007 23:15:54 GMT From: Antonio Carlini Subject: Re: Why does DECnet Phase IV have more capabilities on VAX than on Alpha? Message-ID: "Richard B. Gilbert" wrote in news:4730C598.2030902@comcast.net: > Well, I spent about 20 years in the VAX/Alpha VMS world and NEVER > encountered DDCMP! Perhaps the fact that DDCMP is almost unknown might > have something to do with it. Even if DEC supported DDCMP, did anyone > else???? It seems to me that there were a lot of LAN/WAN protocols that > never really achieved general acceptance! DDCMP == Digital Data Communications Message Protocol :-) Actually there were various Motorola CPUs that implemented parts of DDCMP (or maybe even all of it) but they may have been general purpose masked parts produced at DEC's request. Of your 20 years in the VAX/Alpha world, the Alpha part wouldn't have helped: DDCMP never made it over there (and I can confidently predict that it never will :-)). Antonio arcarlini@iee.org ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2007 06:09:33 +0000 (UTC) From: moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) Subject: Re: Why does DECnet Phase IV have more capabilities on VAX than on Alpha? Message-ID: AEF writes: >[ON TOPIC!!!] >VAX can do DDCMP circuits. Alpha can't. At the time Alphas were new, certain DECserver boxes could do DDCMP for the few places still using it. >From the DECnet for OpenVMS Networking Manual: >"On AXP systems, Digital supports level 1 routing only for nodes >acting as routers for a cluster alias. Digital does not support level >2 routing or routing between multiple circuits." >It looks like routing control is also limited on Alpha. They had DECserver type boxes that did that as well. I guess the logic was that type of overhead wasn't for main computers but for peripheral type devices. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2007 12:12:46 -0700 From: Keith Parris Subject: Re: Why does DECnet Phase IV have more capabilities on VAX than on Alpha? Alpha? Message-ID: AEF wrote: > And CI appears absent for Alpha. DECnet performance over CI was never great, but DECnet was supported on CI on VAX. The interface between VMS and the CI adapter changed dramatically for Alpha, with the introduction of the NPORT architecture, so that change may have been a factor. In any case, today, Fast Ethernet or Gigabit Ethernet would be much better than CI for DECnet. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2007 14:50:48 -0500 From: "Richard B. Gilbert" Subject: Re: Why does DECnet Phase IV have more capabilities on VAX than on Alpha? Alpha? Message-ID: <4730C598.2030902@comcast.net> AEF wrote: > [ON TOPIC!!!] > > VAX can do DDCMP circuits. Alpha can't. > >>From the DECnet for OpenVMS Networking Manual: > > "On AXP systems, Digital supports level 1 routing only for nodes > acting as routers for a cluster alias. Digital does not support level > 2 routing or routing between multiple circuits." > > It looks like routing control is also limited on Alpha. > > Also DECdns namespace appears to be missing for Alpha. > > And CI appears absent for Alpha. > > Why are all these things missing from the Alpha version? Are people > just expected to use Phase V and if so, does it have all these things > missing from Phase IV for Alpha? > > Thanks! > > AEF > Well, I spent about 20 years in the VAX/Alpha VMS world and NEVER encountered DDCMP! Perhaps the fact that DDCMP is almost unknown might have something to do with it. Even if DEC supported DDCMP, did anyone else???? It seems to me that there were a lot of LAN/WAN protocols that never really achieved general acceptance! There was a big fuss about DECnet Phase V and ISO protocols a back in the 90's but who uses them now? TCP/IP has, for practical purposes, conquered the world! ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2007 22:36:25 +0100 From: rejoc Subject: Re: Why does DECnet Phase IV have more capabilities on VAX than on Alpha? Alpha? Message-ID: <4730de5a$0$14489$426a74cc@news.free.fr> le 06.11.2007 21:20 JF Mezei a écrit: > Richard B. Gilbert wrote: >> Well, I spent about 20 years in the VAX/Alpha VMS world and NEVER >> encountered DDCMP! > > > I used DDMCP twice. Once with a friend to test its functionality over > what was then new technology: MNP-5 modems (which were supposedly not > supported for DDMCP) > > Second time was to establish a link between 2 vaxes before I received > the AUI-Coax transceivers to allow me to connect a partially installed > 3100 with the all mighty microvax 2. (this allowed me to copy files over > to the 3100). > > (For those who don't know, DDMCP is decnet over a serial line). Pfff... isn't it DDCMP ??? ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2007 17:56:50 -0600 From: Chris Scheers Subject: Re: Why does DECnet Phase IV have more capabilities on VAX than on Alpha? Alpha? Message-ID: <5pcda4Fqboo5U1@mid.individual.net> no.spam@no.uce.bellatlantic.net wrote: > On Tue, 06 Nov 2007 14:50:48 -0500, "Richard B. Gilbert" > wrote: > >> AEF wrote: >>> [ON TOPIC!!!] >>> >>> VAX can do DDCMP circuits. Alpha can't. >>> >> Well, I spent about 20 years in the VAX/Alpha VMS world and NEVER >> encountered DDCMP! Perhaps the fact that DDCMP is almost unknown might >> have something to do with it. Even if DEC supported DDCMP, did anyone >> else???? It seems to me that there were a lot of LAN/WAN protocols that >> never really achieved general acceptance! > > It was widely used between PDP-11s and VAXen in lab settings. The > DDCMP is good point to point but the media was range limited even with > SYNC modems which often only ran at 9600 baud. The latter is the big > issue as it was rare thing to see it used with a serial line faster > than 64kbaud. Even Ethernet 10mb beats that hands down but > then Ethernet was far more costly than a serial line. I have used DDCMP on dialup modems at 19.2Kb with several clients. I even used it to connect from Texas to a client in London, UK. (I was rather surprised at how well that worked.) At the time, overseas calls were about $1/min, but it was still much less expensive than a plane ticket. For clients with VAXen that are not connected to the internet, it is a very handy capability. If it existed on Alphas, it would be useful for accessing systems that are not accessible from the internet. -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Chris Scheers, Applied Synergy, Inc. Voice: 817-237-3360 Internet: chris@applied-synergy.com Fax: 817-237-3074 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2007 19:03:30 -0500 From: "Richard B. Gilbert" Subject: Re: Why does DECnet Phase IV have more capabilities on VAX than on Alpha? Alpha? Message-ID: <473100D2.60906@comcast.net> AEF wrote: > On Nov 6, 2:50 pm, "Richard B. Gilbert" > wrote: > >>AEF wrote: >> >>>[ON TOPIC!!!] >> >>>VAX can do DDCMP circuits. Alpha can't. >> >>>>From the DECnet for OpenVMS Networking Manual: >> >>>"On AXP systems, Digital supports level 1 routing only for nodes >>>acting as routers for a cluster alias. Digital does not support level >>>2 routing or routing between multiple circuits." >> >>>It looks like routing control is also limited on Alpha. >> >>>Also DECdns namespace appears to be missing for Alpha. >> >>>And CI appears absent for Alpha. >> >>>Why are all these things missing from the Alpha version? Are people >>>just expected to use Phase V and if so, does it have all these things >>>missing from Phase IV for Alpha? >> >>>Thanks! >> >>>AEF >> >>Well, I spent about 20 years in the VAX/Alpha VMS world and NEVER >>encountered DDCMP! Perhaps the fact that DDCMP is almost unknown might >>have something to do with it. Even if DEC supported DDCMP, did anyone >>else???? It seems to me that there were a lot of LAN/WAN protocols that >>never really achieved general acceptance! >> >>There was a big fuss about DECnet Phase V and ISO protocols a back in >>the 90's but who uses them now? TCP/IP has, for practical purposes, >>conquered the world! > > > [My apologies if this shows up twice -- Google Groups wasn't > responding and I "timed it out". This is my third(!) attempt to post > this.] > > Hey, at least this is on topic!!! |:-D) > > Anyway, > > So what about the routing? Wouldn't it be easier for someone moving > from VAX to Alpha if at least the same level of routing functionality > were kept? Was it a big deal to to multiple circuits on an Alpha? > > AEF > > My Alphas spoke DECNet Phase 4 to each other and TCP/IP to the rest of the world. A Cisco router handled the routing. In the days when I still managed VAXen, they too spoke DECNet Phase 4 to each other and TCP/IP to the rest of the world. I never had a VMS system that did any routing whatever! ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2007 17:33:04 -0700 From: Jeff Campbell Subject: Re: Why does DECnet Phase IV have more capabilities on VAX than on Alpha? Alpha? Message-ID: <1194395168_4045@sp12lax.superfeed.net> AEF wrote: > [ON TOPIC!!!] > > VAX can do DDCMP circuits. Alpha can't. > >>From the DECnet for OpenVMS Networking Manual: > > "On AXP systems, Digital supports level 1 routing only for nodes > acting as routers for a cluster alias. Digital does not support level > 2 routing or routing between multiple circuits." > > It looks like routing control is also limited on Alpha. > > Also DECdns namespace appears to be missing for Alpha. > > And CI appears absent for Alpha. > > Why are all these things missing from the Alpha version? Are people > just expected to use Phase V and if so, does it have all these things > missing from Phase IV for Alpha? > > Thanks! > > AEF > I think the reason has to do with DEC's push of the OSI protocol stack. Routers were(are) stand alone boxes and Alphas were always considered end systems. Jeff ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- ------------------------------ End of INFO-VAX 2007.609 ************************