INFO-VAX Wed, 24 Oct 2007 Volume 2007 : Issue 582 Contents: Re: DE500-XA on XP1000 Re: DE500-XA on XP1000 Re: Dialup then pass port to application OT: MAC OS-X or Linux ? Re: OT: MAC OS-X or Linux ? Re: OT: MAC OS-X or Linux ? Re: OT: MAC OS-X or Linux ? Re: OT: MAC OS-X or Linux ? Re: OT: MAC OS-X or Linux ? Re: OT: MAC OS-X or Linux ? Re: OT: MAC OS-X or Linux ? Pathworks vs CIFS performance Re: Pathworks vs CIFS performance Re: Restarting Mozilla to where I was before SmartArray Shadowsets within a cluster Re: SUBMIT command Re: SUBMIT command Re: SUBMIT command Re: SUBMIT command Re: SUBMIT command Re: SUBMIT command Re: SUBMIT command Re: SUBMIT command Re: SUBMIT command Re: SUBMIT command Re: SUBMIT command Re: SUBMIT command Re: SUBMIT command Re: SUBMIT command Re: SUBMIT command Re: SUBMIT command Re: SUBMIT command Re: SUBMIT command Re: SUBMIT command Re: SUBMIT command Re: SUBMIT command Re: SUBMIT command Re: SUBMIT command Re: sudo Re: sudo Re: sudo Re: sudo Re: sudo Re: sudo Re: sudo Re: sudo Swapping disks to change nodes Re: Swapping disks to change nodes Re: unix "batch processing" Re: unix "batch processing" Re: unix "batch processing" Re: unix "batch processing" Re: ZLXp-E3 and DS10 and VMS 8.3 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 09:44:09 +0200 From: "Rudolf Wingert" Subject: Re: DE500-XA on XP1000 Message-ID: <006f01c81611$a9d2d1c0$994614ac@domina.fom> Hello, in case of a lot of problems with DE500, we have fixed the line characteristics. Under console mode use the command >>>SET EWx0_MODE = FASTFD: Also change the switch port configuration to "Fast Ethernet" and "full duplex". Our experience is, that the switch or controller loose the = duplex settings, if both sides are in the "auto negotiation" state. Best regards Rudolf Wingert ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 09:55:47 +0200 From: "Rudolf Wingert" Subject: Re: DE500-XA on XP1000 Message-ID: <007401c81613$49e39360$994614ac@domina.fom> Hello, Tom Linden wrote: >>> ODIN> SHOW DEVICE/FULL EWB0 Device EWB0:, device type DE500, is online, network device, error = logging =20 Is enabled, device is a template only. Error count 0 Operations completed 0 Owner process "" Owner UIC [SYSTEM] Owner process ID 00000000 Dev Prot S:RWPL,O:RWPL,G,W Reference count 0 Default buffer size 512 Operating characteristics: Link down, Full duplex. Speed (Mbits/sec) 100 Def. MAC addr 08-00-2B-C5-06-D0 Current MAC addr = 08-00-2B-C5-06-D0 <<< Why do you ignore the "Link down" state. This state could be if the = cable is not ok or there are different link speed and/or duplex settings between interface and switch. Use the analyze system command to look for the application devices (e.g. ewb1 for DECnet, EWB4 for TCPIP). Execute also the following command: SHOW NETWORK SHOW ERROR LANCP SHOW DEVICE /CHARACTER LANCP SHOW DEVICE/COUNTER Best regards Rudolf Wingert ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 14:48:56 -0000 From: issinoho Subject: Re: Dialup then pass port to application Message-ID: <1193237336.108161.281080@k35g2000prh.googlegroups.com> On 24 Oct, 01:58, JF Mezei wrote: > issinoho wrote: > > The application in question runs as a detached process and first SYS > > $ALLOC then immediately SYS$ASSIGN the port. I can temporarily modify > > this behaviour if it will help. > > That is a show stopper. > > If you allocate the port from your own process, then a detached process > will not have access to that port (unless you give it phyio privilege, > but even then, the $ALLOC will fail). > > What you will need to do is to automate your connection , perhaps with a > kermit script. So you would have a procedure that runs as a detached > process which first allocates the port, then uses kermit to dial out and > do whatever is needed, and then the actual application. Just to close this thread, chaps, I now have things working. After allocating the device and dialling manually, I closed the session and the call stayed open (Thanks, JF) I then commented out the SYS$ALLOC from the code and gave the account the detached process runs under the SHARE privilege. This allowed the SYS$ASSIGN to succeed and everything from there worked like a charm. Thanks all. FWIW, I also had to invoke a bit of black magic on the external modem to sort out various carrier detect issues, at&c1&d2&s1 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 03:22:55 -0400 From: JF Mezei Subject: OT: MAC OS-X or Linux ? Message-ID: <327ef$471ef2d1$cef8887a$21072@TEKSAVVY.COM> Ok, I ask here because there is more chance of getting informed agnostic opinions from people who know from both owrkstation to data centre machines. From a features and future point of view, would people rate MAC-OS-X roughly the same as Linux, more desirable or less desirable than Linux ? When I look at MAC-OSX, from both the workstation and server sides, I am quite impressed with all the features that come in, and OS-X comes with a better "finish" while Linux appears to still be a bit rough on some edges. But linux has a lot of market mind share right now, but not sure if it is a flash in the pan or whether it will be a truly serious contender in the long term. In terms of documentation, would either have an edge on the other ? OS_X for desktop's documentation has not impressed me, being used to VMS documentation standards. From an 8086 hardware point of view, MACs come with support for their hardware so no need to hunt for drivers. But with Linux, one sometimes need to hunt for drivers. Is that a fair statement ? ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 10:53:26 GMT From: VAXman- @SendSpamHere.ORG Subject: Re: OT: MAC OS-X or Linux ? Message-ID: In article <327ef$471ef2d1$cef8887a$21072@TEKSAVVY.COM>, JF Mezei writes: > > >Ok, I ask here because there is more chance of getting informed agnostic >opinions from people who know from both owrkstation to data centre machines. > > From a features and future point of view, would people rate MAC-OS-X >roughly the same as Linux, more desirable or less desirable than Linux ? > >When I look at MAC-OSX, from both the workstation and server sides, I am >quite impressed with all the features that come in, and OS-X comes with >a better "finish" while Linux appears to still be a bit rough on some edges. > >But linux has a lot of market mind share right now, but not sure if it >is a flash in the pan or whether it will be a truly serious contender in >the long term. > > >In terms of documentation, would either have an edge on the other ? OS_X >for desktop's documentation has not impressed me, being used to VMS >documentation standards. I've not been impressed with any of the on-line "help" documentation that ships with OS X. If there's something that I really cannot get to function, I typically find myself in one of the news groups or on Apple's Support Discussions pages. I find it is far better than the help I've seen on Weendoze. When you go past the GUI, underneath both OS X and Linux smell about the same. I've found very few differences between OS X and Linux in terms of command and switches, and in general management features. > From an 8086 hardware point of view, MACs come with support for their >hardware so no need to hunt for drivers. But with Linux, one sometimes >need to hunt for drivers. Is that a fair statement ? I would tend to agree. I spent weeks looking around trying to find a fix for the ethernet driver on a Linux box. Everything worked and then about 24 hours, give or take a few depending on activity on the box, it would get into a mode where it just started spewing fragment packets on the wire. I've never had an issue with anything like it using OS X. The Pro-apps on OS X are top-notch. Aperture, Final Cut Studio and Logic Studio are pretty much the de facto standards in the creative realm. I have a neighbor who is a videographer and he has been told he must learn and use Final Cut, so he is now looking to buy a Mac. -- 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: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 07:23:56 -0400 From: bradhamilton Subject: Re: OT: MAC OS-X or Linux ? Message-ID: <471F2B4C.6030203@comcast.net> JF Mezei wrote: > Ok, I ask here because there is more chance of getting informed agnostic > opinions from people who know from both owrkstation to data centre > machines. > > From a features and future point of view, would people rate MAC-OS-X > roughly the same as Linux, more desirable or less desirable than Linux ? [...] I use Linux on my HP laptop, because my wife will not give up her iBook. :-) Other than that, I'm pretty pleased with Linux, except for the lack of an iTunes port. :-) I get around that problem by running the VMWare player in Linux, which I have loaded with the version of XP that came pre-loaded with my laptop. I guess for that purpose, Bootcamp (?) or Parallels(??) would suffice. Or just run iTunes "natively". :-) OpenOffice is a reasonable substitute for Office. Going slightly more OT, I attended an Open House at my son's high school this fall. In the "technology center" I was surprised and pleased to find a room full of iMacs - at least until I saw what was running on them. You guessed it - Windows XP. I made my feelings known to the technology teacher, who assured me that at least one iMac in the room was actually running OS X, and that she would be exposing students to it during the year. Still, what a waste! ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 07:42:39 -0500 From: Ron Johnson Subject: Re: OT: MAC OS-X or Linux ? Message-ID: <45HTi.2963$uk.2211@newsfe21.lga> On 10/24/07 05:53, VAXman- @SendSpamHere.ORG wrote: > In article , JF Mezei writes: [snip] >> From an 8086 hardware point of view, MACs come with support for their >> hardware so no need to hunt for drivers. But with Linux, one sometimes >> need to hunt for drivers. Is that a fair statement ? > > I would tend to agree. I spent weeks looking around trying to find > a fix for the ethernet driver on a Linux box. Everything worked and > then about 24 hours, give or take a few depending on activity on the > box, it would get into a mode where it just started spewing fragment Recently? > packets on the wire. I've never had an issue with anything like it > using OS X. -- 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: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 08:07:26 -0500 From: Ron Johnson Subject: Re: OT: MAC OS-X or Linux ? Message-ID: On 10/24/07 02:22, JF Mezei wrote: > Ok, I ask here because there is more chance of getting informed agnostic > opinions from people who know from both owrkstation to data centre > machines. > > From a features and future point of view, would people rate MAC-OS-X > roughly the same as Linux, more desirable or less desirable than Linux ? > > When I look at MAC-OSX, from both the workstation and server sides, I am > quite impressed with all the features that come in, and OS-X comes with > a better "finish" while Linux appears to still be a bit rough on some > edges. What exactly do you want to with this proposed box? That's the most important question. Run Oracle? Use Linux. Edit movies? Use OSX. Run Oracle *and* edit movies? Use Linux. Develop custom applications? Depends on the client base. Surf the web, listen to music and write documents? Both, of course, but a white box running Linux will be cheaper. Are you enamored of point-and-drool? Use OSX. With Linux, you can usually point-and-drool or edit text files. My non-tech cousin and her semi-tech finance have been using OSX for a few years now and "it just works". I've used desktop Linux for 8 years and "it just works". My wife's PC ran Linux for a few years and she never had any problems with it. > But linux has a lot of market mind share right now, but not sure if it > is a flash in the pan or whether it will be a truly serious contender in > the long term. Linux has been around long enough, and is popular enough in the server realm, that it's impossible to even consider it a flash in the pan. > > In terms of documentation, would either have an edge on the other ? OS_X > for desktop's documentation has not impressed me, being used to VMS > documentation standards. > > From an 8086 hardware point of view, MACs come with support for their > hardware so no need to hunt for drivers. But with Linux, one sometimes > need to hunt for drivers. Is that a fair statement ? The only driver I've ever needed to "hunt" for is the NVIDIA binary video driver, but that's about as difficult as hunting for sparrows in the spring time... However, I did a bit of research before buying a printer, instead of just going out and buying some cheap printer that is uber- dependent on Windows drivers. http://www.linuxprinting.org is a good resource for this kind of work. And wifi is a bit problematic under Linux, since most of the chipset manufacturers have kept their programming interfaces secret. -- 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: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 13:46:11 GMT From: VAXman- @SendSpamHere.ORG Subject: Re: OT: MAC OS-X or Linux ? Message-ID: In article <471F2B4C.6030203@comcast.net>, bradhamilton writes: > > >JF Mezei wrote: >> Ok, I ask here because there is more chance of getting informed agnostic >> opinions from people who know from both owrkstation to data centre >> machines. >> >> From a features and future point of view, would people rate MAC-OS-X >> roughly the same as Linux, more desirable or less desirable than Linux ? >[...] > >I use Linux on my HP laptop, because my wife will not give up her iBook. >:-) > >Other than that, I'm pretty pleased with Linux, except for the lack of >an iTunes port. :-) I get around that problem by running the VMWare >player in Linux, which I have loaded with the version of XP that came >pre-loaded with my laptop. I guess for that purpose, Bootcamp (?) or >Parallels(??) would suffice. Or just run iTunes "natively". :-) >OpenOffice is a reasonable substitute for Office. > >Going slightly more OT, I attended an Open House at my son's high school >this fall. In the "technology center" I was surprised and pleased to >find a room full of iMacs - at least until I saw what was running on them. > >You guessed it - Windows XP. I made my feelings known to the technology >teacher, who assured me that at least one iMac in the room was actually >running OS X, and that she would be exposing students to it during the >year. Still, what a waste! My son's school technology center was chock full of Dell PeeCees running Weendoze because the district decreed it. The teacher, with his *OWN* money purchased a Mac and programs like Final Cut (not a cheap package either) so that they could do video editing. He felt it important that he show them using the software primarily used in the video production biz. -- 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: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 14:20:16 +0000 (UTC) From: david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk Subject: Re: OT: MAC OS-X or Linux ? Message-ID: In article , Ron Johnson writes: >On 10/24/07 02:22, JF Mezei wrote: >> Ok, I ask here because there is more chance of getting informed agnostic >> opinions from people who know from both owrkstation to data centre >> machines. >> >> From a features and future point of view, would people rate MAC-OS-X >> roughly the same as Linux, more desirable or less desirable than Linux ? >> >> When I look at MAC-OSX, from both the workstation and server sides, I am >> quite impressed with all the features that come in, and OS-X comes with >> a better "finish" while Linux appears to still be a bit rough on some >> edges. > >What exactly do you want to with this proposed box? That's the most >important question. > >Run Oracle? Use Linux. > >Edit movies? Use OSX. > >Run Oracle *and* edit movies? Use Linux. > >Develop custom applications? Depends on the client base. > >Surf the web, listen to music and write documents? Both, of course, >but a white box running Linux will be cheaper. > >Are you enamored of point-and-drool? Use OSX. With Linux, you can >usually point-and-drool or edit text files. > >My non-tech cousin and her semi-tech finance have been using OSX for >a few years now and "it just works". I've used desktop Linux for 8 >years and "it just works". My wife's PC ran Linux for a few years >and she never had any problems with it. > >> But linux has a lot of market mind share right now, but not sure if it >> is a flash in the pan or whether it will be a truly serious contender in >> the long term. > >Linux has been around long enough, and is popular enough in the >server realm, that it's impossible to even consider it a flash in >the pan. > >> >> In terms of documentation, would either have an edge on the other ? OS_X >> for desktop's documentation has not impressed me, being used to VMS >> documentation standards. >> >> From an 8086 hardware point of view, MACs come with support for their >> hardware so no need to hunt for drivers. But with Linux, one sometimes >> need to hunt for drivers. Is that a fair statement ? > >The only driver I've ever needed to "hunt" for is the NVIDIA binary >video driver, but that's about as difficult as hunting for sparrows >in the spring time... > >However, I did a bit of research before buying a printer, instead of >just going out and buying some cheap printer that is uber- >dependent on Windows drivers. http://www.linuxprinting.org is a >good resource for this kind of work. > >And wifi is a bit problematic under Linux, since most of the chipset >manufacturers have kept their programming interfaces secret. > Can't be too bad since Linux is the platform of choice for wardriving, setting up rogue access points and other wireless hacking. David Webb Security team leader CCSS Middlesex University >-- >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: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 10:43:39 -0500 From: Ron Johnson Subject: Re: OT: MAC OS-X or Linux ? Message-ID: On 10/24/07 09:20, david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk wrote: > In article , Ron Johnson writes: [snip] >> >> And wifi is a bit problematic under Linux, since most of the chipset >> manufacturers have kept their programming interfaces secret. >> > Can't be too bad since Linux is the platform of choice for wardriving, setting > up rogue access points and other wireless hacking. It works great if you do the research to find a compatible wifi card. -- 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: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 12:01:27 GMT From: VMS is Virus Free Subject: Pathworks vs CIFS performance Message-ID: We are considering switching out Pathworks in favor of CIFS. The main reason is for performance: Pathworks being single threaded gets really slow when a Windows user makes heavy use of it (example: accessing a large directory from Windows). This impacts everyone else's performance. We have searched for info on CIFS performance versus that of Pathworks but have come up empty. Any experiences and comments relative to the merits of Pathworks versus CIFS (aka Samba in VMS clothes) would be most appreciated. ------------------------------ Date: 24 Oct 2007 09:47:54 -0700 From: IanMiller Subject: Re: Pathworks vs CIFS performance Message-ID: <1193232062.632300.256420@q5g2000prf.googlegroups.com> I noticed warning's in the release notes that CIFS on Alpha was slow (or really slow if you use a non-current version of VMS) What the performance is like on VMS I64 I know not, ------------------------------ Date: 24 Oct 2007 10:08:19 -0700 From: Rich Jordan Subject: Re: Restarting Mozilla to where I was before Message-ID: <1193237568.017046.167810@q5g2000prf.googlegroups.com> On Oct 23, 7:27 pm, wins...@SSRL.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU (Alan Winston - SSRL Central Computing) wrote: > In article <0ftTi.12064$ZA.7...@newsb.telia.net>, =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jan-Erik_S=F6derholm?= writes: > > >JF Mezei wrote: > > >> Due to Mozilla leaking memory like a rotten row > > > boat full of cracks,... > > >That's funny, I have my Mozilla/Firefox up all day long, > >newer needs any restart until I shut down my Win-XP box > >in the evening... > > Actually, I'm running the most recent Firefox on a fully-patched Win-XP box > (which would be a fine answer to JF's question, since it lets you bookmark > tab groups or snapshots your open windows and tabs every so often and rebuilds > them if restarted) and after a while I get hideous system slowdowns that are > 'cured' by shutting down Firefox and bringing it back. (When the slowdowns > occur, I see 100% CPU for seconds at a time; I presume this is actually > something like pagefile fragmentation which is resolved when Firefox lets go > of everything.) > > -- Alan We need to restart Firefox (latest version) on my wife's Mac (current OS and patches, at least till Leopard comes out) every few days or it starts impacting system performance. I've been using a session saver extension (don't recall the name); it mostly works but occasionally drops an entire window's worth of tabs so I don't count on it and also save entire windows as sets of tabs in the bookmarks folders. XP at work with the last Firefox 1.5.x version will regularly start consuming up to 300MB of memory on the 1GB system, which slows to a crawl. Happens more quickly with Java apps running or if I do a lot of acrobat reader usage within the browser. XP doesn't clear unless I reboot, which I have to do every 2-4 days to maintain performance. I haven't seen a session-saver type extension for Mozilla on VMS. It would be nice. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 09:36:57 -0700 From: etmsreec@yahoo.co.uk Subject: SmartArray Shadowsets within a cluster Message-ID: <1193243817.811948.201850@y27g2000pre.googlegroups.com> I've got two systems clustered together and each has a SmartArray and disks on it. Node 1 - Integrity with 6402A SmartArray Node 2 - DS10 with 5302A SmartArray The SmartArray sets are configured as single disks, presenting eight drives as one logical drive. We're then using the SW-RAID software to partition the physical drive into a number of smaller logical disks that will be addressed through DPAn: disk devices. Using the RAID BIND/SHADOW/USE_SHADOW_UNIT I can mount the first of the two sets of SmartArray controlled disks on one node (node 1). I can then add the second set of disks using: $ MOUNT/SYSTEM DSA6000:/SHADOW=$1$DKC0: