INFO-VAX Thu, 22 Nov 2007 Volume 2007 : Issue 639 Contents: %RPCGEN-E-PREPRFAIL, preprocessor error; subprocess or compilation error(s) erro Re: Looking for a TPU section that does automatic word wrap Re: NASA gets SGI 2048-core Itanium 2 supercomputer Re: OpenVMS Blades Webcast Re: Putting a throttle on Apache (CSWS), or all of TCP Re: Putting a throttle on Apache (CSWS), or all of TCP Re: Putting a throttle on Apache (CSWS), or all of TCP ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2007 15:59:09 -0800 (PST) From: S3 Subject: %RPCGEN-E-PREPRFAIL, preprocessor error; subprocess or compilation error(s) erro Message-ID: I'm receiving the error message... %RPCGEN-E-PREPRFAIL, preprocessor error; subprocess or compilation error(s) when I run the following command on my Integrity server with VMS 8.3... rpcgen/head/output=kingp2:[sys]cadi.h kingp2:[sys]cadi.x I suspect it is a file/directory security problem because I can eliminate the error if I give my process BYPASS privilege, but I would like to determine which file and/or directory is preventing the successful completion of the command. Thanks, Doug ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2007 16:49:44 -0500 From: JF Mezei Subject: Re: Looking for a TPU section that does automatic word wrap Message-ID: <7878f$4744a7fc$cef8887a$22869@TEKSAVVY.COM> Syltrem wrote: > Still unsure that FILL is the answer though. > Not even sure I want to go the EVE/TPU route with this. I'm still in the > thinking process. DECwrite could be an answer. But it needs decwindows. It will do dynamic text flowing and won't allow text to exceed the margins you have set. Not sure how scriptable/callable decwrite is though. WPSPLUS will reflow the rest of the paragraph as you add/remove from it. But it will not reflow the text when you change the ruler until you scroll past it. (doing so wastes a LOT of time on a character cell terminals, especially for very long documents). > What I need if for people to enter thex and not have lines over 60 > characters in length. > But they may indent stuff or not leave a blank line between paragraphs, and > I don't want to break their "nice" alignment if they do. If you go with X/Motif, you have a text widget that does a hard margin at whatever you want it. But when you select an automatic text flow, what the application gets back is a single buffer with a line end at the end of paragraphs, so you have to use your program to add line breaks at strategic locations within the buffer. (this is what Microsoft failed to do it is email software which resulted in people getting one line emails with the line being extremely long). With X, you can really come close to what was on screen since the logic to flow words is pretty standard and you can essentially recreate how the text looked by inserting real line ends where the X widgets inserted phantom ones. You can probably do some real TPU coding to achieve what you want though. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2007 01:36:26 +0000 (UTC) From: Cydrome Leader Subject: Re: NASA gets SGI 2048-core Itanium 2 supercomputer Message-ID: Neil Rieck wrote: > NASA gets SGI 2048-core Itanium 2 supercomputer > > http://blogs.zdnet.com/Ou/?p=864 > > I had a chance to speak with NASA and SGI at the SC07 supercomputing > convention in Reno this week where I saw one of the biggest super > computers in the world. Pictured left is a 1024-core version of the > Altix 4700 and NASA just bought one with twice as many processors > (1024 dual-core Itanium 2 processors) based on the Montecito variant > of Intel's Itanium 2 processor and 4 Terabytes of RAM. This just more proof nasa need to have all its funding cut off. They haven't done anything interesting or worth mentioning in decades, aside from crash nearly 30 year old shuttles or play RC car on mars. What possible use for a computer (of any sort) does NASA even have at this point? Sort of like what the white house spokesperson said bout jimmy carter, they're becoming increasingly less relevant. Third world countries have more ambitious and interesting space programs at this point. It's sad, but true. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2007 19:22:30 -0800 (PST) From: AEF Subject: Re: OpenVMS Blades Webcast Message-ID: On Nov 20, 8:27 am, billg...@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) wrote: > In article <9VA0j.626$R_4....@newsb.telia.net>, > Jan-Erik S=F6derholm writes: > > > > a gallon or two of gasoline at close to $3/gal. > > > Should be at least $8-$10/gal, I'd say. > > Gasoline is *way* to cheap in the US. > > Gasoline is the same price here as it is over there. You just have more > taxes on it. Our's should not be more expensive, your government should > just get its hand out of your wallet. Of course, so should our's but > at least our's isn't as deep into it in the first place. > > bill > > -- > Bill Gunshannon | de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n. Three wolves= > b...@cs.scranton.edu | and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. > University of Scranton | > Scranton, Pennsylvania | #include Assuming Thomas Friedman's gas tax idea would actually work: If the oil-consuming nations all taxed gasoline sufficiently, it would keep the price of oil down. This way, the money stays within the consuming countries instead of going to Iran, and Hugo Chavez, and the like. So it comes down to this choice: expensive gas with too much money going to Iran and Hugo Chavez and the like or expensive gas with the same money going ending up as OUR tax revenues which could be used to fund research in alternative energy sources and/or to reduce other taxes. AEF ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2007 11:52:51 -0800 (PST) From: Bob Gezelter Subject: Re: Putting a throttle on Apache (CSWS), or all of TCP Message-ID: <881da61b-cf3e-484d-8426-91e47f38532c@f3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com> On Nov 21, 10:14 am, Keith Lewis wrote: > I have one of my VMS boxes set up to record and save a certain radio > show. As a service to my fellow fans out of the area, I make it > available for download on the web, over my relatively slow DSL > connection. > > The problem is I got a new ethernet switch, which seems to have a big > buffer. It is killing the latency from my other machines. > > The ideal solution to this (short of IPv6 packet prioritization) would > be to limit the Apache web server to a certain fixed bandwidth lower > than my total available on DSL, so then the buffer would not fill up. > > A less desireable solution would be to put the bandwidth limit on > TCPIP Services for OpenVMS as a whole. > > How? > > Pointers to docs on how to do either of these would be greatly > appreciated. Keith, For form, please identify the versions of OpenVMS, TCP/IP, and CSWS that are being used. Also, what is the make and model of your switch? Is it a managed switch? - Bob Gezelter, http://www.rlgsc.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2007 19:14:52 -0500 From: JF Mezei Subject: Re: Putting a throttle on Apache (CSWS), or all of TCP Message-ID: <8f099$4744ca00$cef8887a$24640@TEKSAVVY.COM> I think hrottling is done more at the switch level than at the host. For instance, on my old 2924EN Cisco switch, there is a "fair-queue" interface parameter as well as max-reserved-bandwidth. fair-queue Enable Fair Queuing on an Interface max-reserved-bandwidth Maximum Reservable Bandwidth on an Interface Does your alpha have 2 ethernet interfaces ? Perhaps you could have yor radio traffic go though a different IP/interface and then use the switch to restrict throughput on that interface. (while the primary interface on your alpha would work at full speed). If your switch doesn't not offer any management, have you considered setting up the apache server to have the supprocesses that are related to the radio stuff run at a very low priority ? Another possibility would be to change sysconfig parameters such as window-size to an inefficient setting which would slow down the trhoughput. IN: sys$startup:tcpip$systartup.com $SYSCONFIG = "$SYS$SYSTEM:TCPIP$SYSCONFIG.EXE" $SYSCONFIG -r inet tcp_recvspace=129904 $SYSCONFIG -r inet tcp_sendspace=129904 Obviously, you would want to reduce those numbers. But this would "ruin" all TCPIP communications. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2007 01:22:02 -0000 From: "John Wallace" Subject: Re: Putting a throttle on Apache (CSWS), or all of TCP Message-ID: <13k9mduhghg4t25@corp.supernews.com> "Keith Lewis" wrote in message news:d5e40952-c9f6-44e1-9037-158f90fbefc8@b15g2000hsa.googlegroups.com... > I have one of my VMS boxes set up to record and save a certain radio > show. As a service to my fellow fans out of the area, I make it > available for download on the web, over my relatively slow DSL > connection. Is there a particular reason you do it this way rather than uploading it to some web/ftp space hosted somewhere where bandwidth is less of an issue? Cost may be one reason. Time is money. You can fix this one of two ways; spend time, or spend money (option 3, spend both, also applies). > > The problem is I got a new ethernet switch. Understood. Does it replace a previous one, or is the network config now different? If config unchanged, can you put the old switch back, what behaviour is observed? > which seems to have a big > buffer. That's a bit of a surprise. Need to see some hard evidence if possible that this really is the cause, unsure how VMS users get that (tcpdump equivalent? Ethereal/wireshark?) >It is killing the latency from my other machines. Not 100% sure which machines are seeing excessive latency, and/or to where? Intra-LAN latencies from anything on the LAN to anything on the LAN are high? VMS to outside world latencies are high while LAN latencies are OK? Does the latency depend on whether anybody's actively copying the files/streams from you? Different situations, fix may depend on which one it is. > > The ideal solution to this (short of IPv6 packet prioritization) would > be to limit the Apache web server to a certain fixed bandwidth lower > than my total available on DSL, so then the buffer would not fill up. > IPv6. It's the next big thing. ISTR it was the next big thing in the 1980s (shortly after OSI networks solved the same classes of problem but went nowhere despite DEC's efforts) and IPv6 is still the next big thing :) Do any ISPs in the US actually support IPv6? The UK didn't have many last time I looked (a year or three ago). Anyway, IPv6 or not, upstream bandwidth management is a popular approach to managing a DSL connection so that upstream traffic (from you to the outside world) does not slow down (or seriously increase latency for) your downstream traffic, but this is more usually related to "ack starvation", which wouldn't necessarily be related to a new switch with big buffers. > A less desireable solution would be to put the bandwidth limit on > TCPIP Services for OpenVMS as a whole. > Indeed. Sledgehammer to crack nut, probably even if this has to be a "pure VMS" solution. What other resources are available to you on the LAN? What DSL router are you using? Does it have a built-in switch? Y'know, given the picture as described, the first thing I'd do would be to *closely* observe any LEDs on NICs and switch ports, and maybe keep an eye on any VMS "line up"/"line down" (or is it circuit up/circuit down) events, to make sure that the traditional silliness associated with auto-negotiate and incompatible physical layer implementations isn't occuring here. If it is occuring, the typical symptom is a short burst of traffic, a slightly longer pause while (re)negotiation takes place, a burst of traffic, a pause, etc. This isn't *quite* the same as steady traffic with daft latency, but may occasionally appear that way, so please accept my apologies if it's not what you're seeing. If it is occuring, you can try to fix it by forcing the VMS NICs to a fixed speed of your choice. I'm not 100% sure that's a guaranteed fix though, especially as your unmanaged switch won't have a fixed speed option. You also might want to temporarily connect your VMS web box direct to your DSL router, *without* going via the new Trendnet switch, if this is an option. Similarly, if the DSL router has a built in switch (as many do), you might want to try moving stuff between the DSLrouter switch and the Trendnet switch, see if anything improves. I've seen cases where cascaded switches don't behave as you'd hope (a D-Link and something else), and cases where they do (a pair of Netgear FS10x), and this reconfiguration may also help eliminate any issues with incompatible autonegotiate setups. Assuming it's not autonegotiate silliness, if there was scope for a Linux-based router (either an actual SoHo router reflashed, or a PC/oldlaptop, or similar) I'd probably look at Linux and some of the "DSL bandwidth management howtos" scattered around the Internerd (based on IPtables and QoS and stuff). Or at least seek advice from someone who understands these things properly (I don't). Another option could be to look at DSL routers supplied with "Turbo TCP" (Westell's name) or something equivalent, which is allegedly a ready-made solution to the problem of "ack starvation". If it has to be a VMS-based solution, JF has some interesting thoughts around using 2 separate NICs, and reducing what the rest of the world calls RWIN. Another possible option might to be to force a low MTU for traffic going via your DSL router, while retaining default MTU for on-LAN traffic, which *might* give you the necessary control. Not sure of the exact TCP services incantation for that, but if TCP services can't do it, a decent DSL router (with configurable MTU) should be able to do it instead, so long as Path MTU Discovery is working correctly between you and the folks you connect to. In fact if your router can easily change its MTU, this might be something to try earlier rather than later. Best of luck John Wallace ------------------------------ End of INFO-VAX 2007.639 ************************