1 INFO-VAX	Sun, 11 May 2003	Volume 2003 : Issue 260       Contents: Re: Backup question  Re: Backup question A Re: DECnet-Plus (DECnet PhaseV) (DECnet/OSI) migration necessary? A Re: DECnet-Plus (DECnet PhaseV) (DECnet/OSI) migration necessary? < Re: How Alpha will save Itanium - must reading for Bill ToddP Re: Not fixed yet but still trying: Problems changing from serial port to DecSer1 Re: Pinout of power connector on DECserver 90TL ?  Re: Spamfilter for OpenVMS?  Re: Spamfilter for OpenVMS?  Re: Splitting cluster 7 Re: What is the schedule for the DII COE certification?  Re: Where is VMSBACKUP?   F ----------------------------------------------------------------------   Date: 11 May 03 17:15:57 +0200) From: p_sture@elias.decus.ch (Paul Sture)  Subject: Re: Backup question) Message-ID: <7JFe3XPvpwa2@elias.decus.ch>   S In article <b9h2sm$ddq$1@news2.tilbu1.nb.home.nl>, Dirk Munk <munk@home.nl> writes: 1 > I made two image backups to one tape like this:  > $ > backup/image dka0: mka500:dka0.bck( > backup/image dka200: mka500:dka200.bck > # > Both backup sets are on the tape. 3 > I was able to verify that with dir MKA400: /size.  > ? > Now I want to extract some files from the dka200.bck saveset. , > But somehow I can't get backup to do that. > 
 > I tried: > 5 > backup mka500:dka200.bck /select= etc. but no luck.  > * > I get the response dka200.bck not found. > ! > Can somone tell me what to do ?  >   7 Changing that to a backup/rewind _should_ do the trick. " Or a $ SET MAGTAPE mka500: /REWIND   --  
 Paul Sture   ------------------------------   Date: 11 May 03 17:30:02 +0200) From: p_sture@elias.decus.ch (Paul Sture)  Subject: Re: Backup question) Message-ID: <fVryiRKPgPvj@elias.decus.ch>   S In article <b9h65s$2sd$1@news2.tilbu1.nb.home.nl>, Dirk Munk <munk@home.nl> writes:  > JF Mezei wrote:  >> Dirk Munk wrote:  >>  2 >>>I made two image backups to one tape like this: >>> % >>>backup/image dka0: mka500:dka0.bck ) >>>backup/image dka200: mka500:dka200.bck  >>   >>  . >> second one should have had /NOREWIND to it.L >> (also, I assume you also had /SAVE_SET to qualify the output file names.) >>   >>  $ >>>Both backup sets are on the tape.4 >>>I was able to verify that with dir MKA400: /size. >>   >>  6 >>>backup mka500:dka200.bck /select= etc. but no luck. >>   >>   >> $mount mka500/override=label / >> $copy mka500:dka200.bck temp_disk:dka200.bck 4 >> $backup temp_disk:dka200.bck/save/select=etc .... > J > Gooed idea, if it wasn't for the fact that I used a block size of 65024.3 > RMS doesn't like anything with record sizes > 32k  > H FWIW, I tend to specify a blocksize of 32256, precisely for that reason.D I have had a few occasions when I haven't been able to get files offE tape with backup, but have been able to do so by copying the savesets G off tape first. It also a _lot_ faster when doing several passes of the ; saveset to restore files with different selection criteria.   5 Not to mention the time saved when you make typos :-)   E Here's a tip I find useful if I am suffering from brain fade - if you B specify a blocksize of 32000, backup will correctly round it up to 32256. --  
 Paul Sture   ------------------------------  % Date: Sun, 11 May 2003 01:29:35 -0400 * From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@istop.com>J Subject: Re: DECnet-Plus (DECnet PhaseV) (DECnet/OSI) migration necessary?) Message-ID: <3EBDDF9C.15D17132@istop.com>    Paul Sture wrote: C > Whilst I am at it, your company's website won't let me in without * > Javascript enabled - just a blank page,   N view the source. usually, they have redundant javascript to do a redirect whenM they could have used official, existing methods with the <meta refresh tag or ! via the web server configuration.    ------------------------------    Date: 11 May 2003 05:49:17 -0700( From: bob@instantwhip.com (Bob Ceculski)J Subject: Re: DECnet-Plus (DECnet PhaseV) (DECnet/OSI) migration necessary?= Message-ID: <d7791aa1.0305110449.7b68739a@posting.google.com>   Z p_sture@elias.decus.ch (Paul Sture) wrote in message news:<hZW2+sck7vS6@elias.decus.ch>...j > In article <d7791aa1.0305100429.7c139309@posting.google.com>, bob@instantwhip.com (Bob Ceculski) writes: >>  ' > >> The cost of prior version support?  > > < > > about $300 to $400 per year ... very inexpensive ... and8 > > well worth the money instead of spending 5x the time > > on phase V ... > ? > The only way I can believe that is if it's  a per-cpu figure. ? > Or your sales droid has hidden the figures elsewhere perhaps.  >   C sorry, but bronze support is roughly $700/year, and decnet phase IV ? prior version support is approx. $350/year ... this is software ; support we are talking about here, not hardware support ...    > & > That 5x figure is total garbage too. >   C no it's not ... it takes 5 phase V commands to equal 1 phase IV ... @ you type alot more on phase V ... this is not the case for every= situation, but it is a good generalization ... I checked into C switching before, I could give you some examples the decnet support & team gave me to support this claim ...   C > Whilst I am at it, your company's website won't let me in without K > Javascript enabled - just a blank page, and when I go in with JS enabled, F > 2 out of the 3 history links come up with "Page under construction".  B Javascript is used by our web/graphics design people ... what elseC do you suggest they use?  I use some javascripts for my cgi's also, A why do you hate javascript?  It is an industry standard ... isn't E that what everyone out there wants?  The history pages will be filled D when the company wants them to be ... our customers have praised ourB partners program, a few history pages still under development doesD not help them manage their business efficiently ... before you buy a2 car, I certainly hope you check under the hood ...   > Not exactly awe inspiring.  A what's awe inspiring is that our site has ran now 4 years without @ ever being down, except for a few reboots for hardware/eco's ...? and that I have developed a bulletproof online ordering/account B review system thanks to the stability of OpenVMS ... we are alwaysA there for our customers, and that is surely inspiring to them ... ? what good is a bunch of flashy html code/graphics when the site B is down or can't get the services you need?  We only answer to our? customers ... that is what matters the most ... but we actually C have another web site we run I am developing now, and it is flashy, = and when it is ready, you will see the flashy side of vms ...    ------------------------------  % Date: Sun, 11 May 2003 03:38:43 -0400 * From: "Bill Todd" <billtodd@metrocast.net>E Subject: Re: How Alpha will save Itanium - must reading for Bill Todd 2 Message-ID: <I4WdnRo-U46VYyCjXTWcqA@metrocast.net>  8 "Rob Young" <young_r@encompasserve.org> wrote in message- news:Jj+dR7teY0eX@eisner.encompasserve.org... @ > In article <ovqcndxS1b2GNCGjXTWcog@metrocast.net>, "Bill Todd"  <billtodd@metrocast.net> writes: >  > < > > "Rob Young" <young_r@encompasserve.org> wrote in message >  > >  > >>; > >> Additionally, HP has the highest 4-CPU result on tpmC:  > > F > > Quite likely only because IBM doesn't bother submitting scores for systems L > > that small.  If their 32-processor system scaled perfectly linearly then a H > > 4-processor version would yield a score of over 85,000 tpmC, so take your > > choice:  >  > E > http://www.tpc.org/tpcc/results/tpcc_result_detail.asp?id=103042401  > ' > 85000 tpmC is a lot less than 121000.   I But it's more than twice the 41,142 that you'd get if you scaled down the K SuperDome configuration linearly to 4 processors, which, of course, was the ; point (not that I'm surprised you failed to understand it).      So even if IBM: > were to submit a 4 CPU result (not sure - the IBM configA > describes 8-way MCM.  Not sure if the p690 goes down to 4-way).   D Nope - 8-way is the smallest configuration IBM bothers selling:  the comparison was hypothetical.   >  > @ > >  either close to linear scaling to large processor counts isK > > possible in this benchmark, which means that SuperDome's scalability is  justK > > as lousy as a cursory glance makes it appear to be, or the new POWER4+s  are A > > likely faster in a 4-processor configuration than Madison is.  > >  > 
 > Not at all.   L Yes, Rob - clueless though you obviously are, the above are the only logicalI conclusions one can draw from the existing data:  either the new POWER4+s I would be faster in a 4-processor configuration than the new Madisons (but @ scale somewhat less than linearly to the score they reach in theD 32-processor configuration, or, if they were slower in a 4-processorL configuration than the new Madisons, they would be scaling close to linearlyH up to 32 processors while SuperDome's scaling was so shitty that despiteJ HP's performance lead at 4 processors it fell behind by more than a factorK of 2 per processor at 64 processors.  Take a few days if you need to figure  it out.    ...   H > >> http://www.tpc.org/tpcc/results/tpcc_result_detail.asp?id=103042401 > >>& > >> 121000 tpmC.   At $4.97 per tpmC. > >>B > >> So all you have left is "$ per metric" and of course cheering< > >> on IBM and Opteron - never acknowledging your circle is > >> getting tighter.  > >>? > >> Oh... at $4.97 per tpmC for that 4 processor Madison, your ; > >> "$ per metric" argument is looking a bit weak at that.  > > @ > > Not really, Rob:  if you're looking at small systems and are cost-conscious, > > > then the 4-processor Opteron at $2.76 per tpmC is for you. > >  > = > Well that's a nice whitebox number with decent performance.  > ? > So you do still have "$ per metric" argument - Opteron versus 
 > Madison.  J Price/performance is certainly *one* legitimate knock on Itanic, Rob:  theH problem is that you keep bleating that it's the *only* legitimate knock, which is simply false.     Reviewing: > - > Madison is considerably more powerful than:  > " > Opteron in TPC-C, SAP SD, SpecFp  G Probably true for SPECfp.  Haven't seen any Opteron numbers for SAP SD: J have you (if so, please provide a reference), or are you just spewing more vapor?  L TPC-C, however, depends heavily on system configuration and tweaking, as IBMA has just demonstrated by improving its 32-processor configuration E performance by 59% with less than a 31% rise in clock rate.  So while D Madison's current TPC-C score certainly is substantially higher thanG Opteron's, to determine whether Madison is *in fact* 'considerably more H powerful' than Opteron in a 4-processor configuration we'd have to applyK similar amounts of expertise to the configuration and equivalent amounts of G hardware (for example, the Opteron configuration used only 294 disks to < Madison's 468, and only 32 GB of memory to Madison's 64 GB).  L Opteron is just getting started, Rob.  Itanic2 has been out in the field forJ a year, and its TPC-C figures (on the same hardware) have risen noticeablyE over that period.  I expect the same of Opteron's as its vendors gain  expertise in benchmarketing.  > > Power4 same but add SpecInt - for low CPU count comparisons.  L POWER4+ (not POWER4) is the competition now, Rob.  And it blew the doors offH Madison in TPC-C (more than twice the performance per processor - and atK only about half the power consumption per processor as well) by so large an L amount that it is very probable that it would exceed Madison's per-processorI performance at the smallest POWER4+ system size IBM ships (8 processors).    > ; > Who is to say a Madison box isn't lurking in the wings to   > make 32-64 CPU results higher?  K Well, 'higher' won't quite cut it, at least for SuperDomes (NEC boxes don't I seem to scale quite as poorly):  the SuperDome results will have to *more @ than double* their per-processor performance to match POWER4+'s.     Hein basically hints at that:  >  > L http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3E63CCD2.9A6E9124%40eps.zko.dec.com&oe= UTF-8&output=gplain  > K > "What the Itanium and it's follow ups needs is a good large SMP SYSTEM to I > be put in and flourish and a good OS and DB to get everything out of it I > that is potentially in there. Obviously HP is working on such solutions - > but I can not say when/where/how-many-CPUs.   J Pity that HP already owns a world-beating large MP system architecture but has declared it superfluous.   > A > The NEC benchmark is just a stake in the ground. A first step."   E By that reasoning, the new SuperDome result (with per-processor TPC-C : performance only 64% of NEC's) is a major step *backward*.   >  > 9 > The inference of course is there is higher numbers than ) > what NEC demonstrated coming out of HP.   H While it's not surprising that that is *your* inference, Rob, the actualF *implication* of Hein's words is that HP is indeed aware of how poorlyE SuperDome scales (it would, after all, be difficult not to be) and is L *trying* to do something about it.  However, since they've had SGI's systemsK to copy for the better part of the past decade and failed to do so with any J apparent success, why anyone would expect them to have any better luck nowK is not quite clear:  my guess is that they're waiting for the Alpha team to K bail them out (again) 3 or 4 years from now with a server-on-a-chip product L that eliminates the problem, but feel free to divulge any interesting serverI development in the pipe (that you can substantiate:  your own glowing but L vague expectations aren't particularly interesting to anyone but you) that I might not be aware of.     Wonder how soon - > the IBM folks will have to eat these words:   I My guess would be never.  Don't forget that next year the already-leading K POWER boxes get POWER5 processors with SMT and on-chip offload hardware for I another major performance boost, while Itanic2s get - more on-chip cache.    > * > http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=9416 > K > It took a further dig at HP and Intel. Adalio Sanchez, general manager of  the H > Eserver division, said: "We don't just assemble boxes with third party > components". > * > I'm sure that fired up the troops at HP.  J I don't think that using the word 'fired' in conjunction with HP employees is very tactful, Rob.   
   Surely they ; > are pushing hard to hit 681000 tpmC with 32 Madisons ;-). < > Looking at some examples, I'm seeing 75-80 percent scaling > factor across architectures.  K Why not provide the numbers that lead you to this conclusion, Rob?  Then we K can figure out whether you understood the data you're drawing it from.  For L example, some NUMA architectures (such as EV7, POWER4/4+, SPARC in its largeE boxes, SGI's boxes, and, within its glueless MP range, Opteron) scale F considerably better than that, while other server architectures (e.g.,0 bus-structured ones) tend to have more problems.  E The only examples we have of Madison's scaling are the 4-processor HP I result, the 32-processor NEC result that yields only a 4.25x higher score L using 8x as many processors, and the pitiful 64-processor HP result that yieK lds only a 5.44x higher score using 16x as many processors.  That works out L to a performance improvement of 62% for each doubling of processor count forH the NEC case and only a 53% performance improvement for each doubling of' processor count for the SuperDome case.   '   Ideally, an HP 32 next-gen box should  > be able to@ > get 720K to 760K tpmC *if* their 4-way result is any indicator  C But of course it has already proven *not* to be any indicator, Rob: I expecting anything that close to linear scaling out of HP servers is pure K wishful thinking until there's at least *some* kind of evidence to point to : that they've found a way to get their server act together.  : > (the CPU is certainly capable of it - let's see how they; > did on their next gen box.  Bet it has higher bandwidth).   L Any time you have anything more substantial than your own hopes to offer up," Rob, I'll be happy to evaluate it.   > ? > Madison is dominating the 4-CPU space for performance.  Sure, D > Opteron is in a nice niche there.  Value 4-CPU space.  But Opteron? > will get its competition from 3.0 GHz Xeons coming as Madison ? > is the high performer in that space (running real benchmarks, D > i.e. SAP, TPC - non-clustered, SpecFp - neck and neck with Opteron > on SpecInt). > = > Interesting to see IBM being squeezed terribly in the 4-CPU , > space by Xeon and now Opteron and Madison.  I Er, *you* were the one who pointed out above that IBM doesn't even bother H selling a POWER system that small, so how they could be getting squeezedJ there is an interesting question.  But Itanic will indeed be squeezed:  byL POWER on the high side and Opteron (and Xeon, where 32 bits are adequate) onL the low side.  And IBM appears happy to give Opteron the support it needs toJ stake out a major presence there - offering similar performance to Itanics! at a small fraction of the price.    - bill   ------------------------------  % Date: Sun, 11 May 2003 04:10:23 -0400   From: John Santos <JOHN@egh.com>Y Subject: Re: Not fixed yet but still trying: Problems changing from serial port to DecSer 6 Message-ID: <1030511035937.20076C-100000@Ives.egh.com>  . On Sat, 10 May 2003, Albrecht Schlosser wrote:   > Roscoe wrote:  > > E > > I'm actually using a test application that just displays the text H > > characters that are supposed to be received from the VT340 - not theF > > entire real application.  So, control characters and such aren't aH > > factor.  The test app also also displays the IO status and number ofJ > > charaters returned from the SYS$QIOW.  The IO status is 1.  The number$ > > of characters is of course zero. > H > This could be caused by a timeout of zero. Does your test program work- > with a real terminal device (TTAn:, TXAn:)?   @ Another thing to check... Is the IO status you mention above the@ result (value) of the QIOW call, or the value in the IOSB?  QIOWF queues an I/O and then waits for completion.  Errors that occur in theB queuing process (privileges, resources, quotas, invalid arguments,? etc.) are reported as the result of the call (i.e. value of the B function.)  Errors that occur when attempting to do the actual I/OA (e.g. timeouts, parity errors, end-of-file, etc.) are reported in > the IOSB.  You need to check both to be sure no error occured.> (Maybe you already do this...  I don't remember if both checks; were done in the various examples that have been posted...)    HTH!   > A > > My "cooperate" statement just meant that my test program (the G > > SYS$QIOW) doesn't appear to be working properly because it looks as C > > though I'm not receiving any data.  However, maybe it's still a  > > terminal setup problem.  > * > Or a terminal server port setup problem. > - > > I'll take a look at the terminal settings * > > that you included and give that a try. >  > Good luck  > 
 > Albrecht >  >    --   John Santos  Evans Griffiths & Hart, Inc. 781-861-0670 ext 539   ------------------------------  % Date: Sun, 11 May 2003 17:56:20 +0800 , From: Paul Repacholi <prep@prep.synonet.com>: Subject: Re: Pinout of power connector on DECserver 90TL ?- Message-ID: <87el35dcxn.fsf@prep.synonet.com>   0 Dale Dellutri <ddelQQQlutr@panQQQix.com> writes:  M > On Sat, 03 May 2003 16:39:39 +0200, Jan-Erik S?derholm <aaa@aaa.com> wrote:   E >> I'v got a DECserver 90TL (DSRVE-M), but no power supply.  The unit E >> needs +5v and +12v, but I don't have the pinout of the round power 0 >> connector on the back .  Anyone having this ?  C > I have a (no longer used) DEcserver 90TL, and the power supply is = > marked H7082-AA.  It also says the output is DC 5.1V, 1.8A.   F Mine is a H7625-AA, 5V/2.5A and 12V/1.4A. I'd expect you would have to3 have 12V for the line drivers or a Terminal Server.    --  < Paul Repacholi                               1 Crescent Rd.,7 +61 (08) 9257-1001                           Kalamunda. @                                              West Australia 6076* comp.os.vms,- The Older, Grumpier Slashdot. Raw, Cooked or Well-done, it's all half baked.F EPIC, The Architecture of the future, always has been, always will be.   ------------------------------  % Date: Sun, 11 May 2003 02:31:28 -0500 - From: Hunter Goatley <goathunter@goatley.com> $ Subject: Re: Spamfilter for OpenVMS?: Message-ID: <CRmva.54822$0W.25481@fe09.atl2.webusenet.com>   Bob Ceculski wrote:  > / > I thought pmdf already had spam filtering ...   = PMDF has support for Sieve filters and mapping rules that can B be used to filter out some spam, but nothing like what the product we're developing will do.    Hunter ------9 Hunter Goatley, Process Software, http://www.process.com/ 9 goathunter@goatley.com     http://www.goatley.com/hunter/    ------------------------------    Date: 11 May 2003 11:39:52 -0500- From: Kilgallen@SpamCop.net (Larry Kilgallen) $ Subject: Re: Spamfilter for OpenVMS?3 Message-ID: <IQxIdMlZC+SK@eisner.encompasserve.org>   j In article <CRmva.54822$0W.25481@fe09.atl2.webusenet.com>, Hunter Goatley <goathunter@goatley.com> writes: > Bob Ceculski wrote:  >>  0 >> I thought pmdf already had spam filtering ... > ? > PMDF has support for Sieve filters and mapping rules that can D > be used to filter out some spam, but nothing like what the product > we're developing will do.   G Will what you are developing allow a Reject in cases where the username J does not exist ?  I understand the RFCs allow for Bounces to be generated,D but those are counterproductive in this age of generally forged spam origins.  ? Will what you are developing provide for a Teergrubing defense, @ or provide callouts for customers to mount their own Teergrubing	 defense ?    ------------------------------  % Date: Sun, 11 May 2003 03:05:28 -0400   From: John Santos <JOHN@egh.com> Subject: Re: Splitting cluster6 Message-ID: <1030511023119.20076A-100000@Ives.egh.com>  - On Sat, 10 May 2003, David J. Dachtera wrote:    > Paddy O'Brien wrote: > > C > > I'm afraid that I currently have no access to any fine manuals.  > > I > > I have the remains of a heterogeneous cluster: one VAX (was four) and  > > one Alpha. > > K > > In order to get them to boot separately and not as a cluster, do I only P > > need to change VAXCLUSTER to 0 in each of the MODPARAMS.DAT and run Autogen? > > I > > Do I need to worry about other system parameters, e.g. quorum values?  > G > I should think that with clustering turned off, things like votes and  > quorum would be meaningless.  A I'm pretty sure you are correct.  After all, the way to upgrade a B VAX system disk in a cluster with multiple system disks is to shutC down all but one node that boots from that disk, dismount it on any ? other cluster nodes that have it mounted as a data disk, change A VAXCLUSTER to 0 on the VAX performing the upgrade, and reboot it.   < This brings the node up, but not as a member of the cluster.? Since they don't tell you to change votes, quorum disk, etc., I > don't think any of those parameters matter if VAXCLUSTER is 0.  C They do warn you not to mount the target system disk undergoing the = upgrade on any other cluster nodes, nor to try to boot any of B the nodes that boot from the target disk, nor to attempt to access= any of the disks that are still mounted on the cluster, until @ the upgrade completes and VAXCLUSTER gets set back to its normal; value.  (I forget if you have to do this manually, or if it B is a result of the upgrade AUTOGEN grabbing it from MODPARAMS.DAT,? or if something else in the upgrade remembers it is supposed to 6 be a cluster member and resets VAXCLUSTER at the end.)   > ? > Caveat re: shared interconnects, as another poster mentioned.   ; Setting P1 to "MIN" takes care of this during upgrades, but = for a permanent change, P1 will be "" and so you will have to < be careful about this.  If there are no shared interconnects4 (e.g. in an NI cluster), this shouldn't be an issue.  = BTW, I've never tried to do this, but if you have two or more = HSC/J's and want to split them between the systems, it may be < possible to wire the jumpers in a star coupler so that it in> effect becomes two star couplers each with half as many ports.> Shared SCSI shouldn't be an issue (since you said you have one; VAX and one Alpha and VAXes don't do SCSI clusters), but if ; it were the case, you'd have to disconnect one or the other : system from the SCSI bus.  VAXes do do shared DSSI, so the9 same applies.  However, since you don't have to muck with 7 cables during an upgrade, I think you can run on shared ; interconnects provided you are extremely careful *NEVER* to < try to mount any disk (or tape) on more than one system at a time.   : Are the two systems going to be physically separated?  (In: which case most of the shared interconnect issues go away,: unless you have a wide-area cluster...)  If they are going7 to continue to be physically close and used by the same 8 people, I would keep them clustered.  There are a lot of conveniences that result.    --   John Santos  Evans Griffiths & Hart, Inc. 781-861-0670 ext 539   ------------------------------  % Date: Sun, 11 May 2003 03:34:39 -0400   From: John Santos <JOHN@egh.com>@ Subject: Re: What is the schedule for the DII COE certification?6 Message-ID: <1030511030633.20076B-100000@Ives.egh.com>  & On 10 May 2003, Larry Kilgallen wrote:  W > In article <m1$m61PpHU1C@elias.decus.ch>, p_sture@elias.decus.ch (Paul Sture) writes: p > > In article <E9uua.528$Ct2.295@news.cpqcorp.net>, "Fred Kleinsorge" <my-last-name@stardotzko.dec.com> writes: > M > >> The Kernel sits on top of a standard VMS release.  But changes that were P > >> needed to support the Kernel were done in a seperate release stream for theM > >> first release to manage schedule and risk.  Those changes will be in the , > >> next general V7.3-* release of OpenVMS. > > L > > So... I was looking forward to the idea that we non US govt. folks would: > > get to see the benefits of the work put into VMS here. > > I > > Can you please tell us what advantages we, the normal users will see?  > L > For C programmers, there will be better compatibility with the environment9 > on Unix operating systems, which is useful for porting.  > H > For those using higher level languages like Ada, it should not matter.  G Well, even if you use a higher level language (I'm partial to Macro-32, H VAX/DEC Basic and TECO), you will benefit if other people (HP and nonHP)C find it easier to port and maintain various programs.  For example, ? there is a recent thread about 4GB file size limits in ZIP.  If H this has been or is soon fixed in the generic/Linux/GNU/Solaris/whateverC version of ZIP and that version can be compiled with minimal hassle , on VMS, then we'll get the fix much quicker.  6 So it doesn't just apply to low-level C programmers...  C [I spent most of this beautiful spring day trying to get the latest D version of Samba to work on my home VAX.  NMBD kept dying on startup? trying to write its process Id to a file (so other programs can F signal it, a new feature.)  It would open/create the file and then dieG on the write with a "bad file number" error, which I can't find in the  F docs, but which I guess would mean there's junk in the file descriptor6 number (basically, C's version of a channel number...)> So I tried printing it out before the write; it was "4", whichC seems reasonable.  After many other experiments I tried printing it B out immediately after the open, and this time it worked!?!?  Since= it is still running, I can't look at its log file (ugh!), but K dump/alloc/block=start=xxx says it was "4" both immediately after the open, E and immediately before the write (about 4 statements later), and the  C correct process id is in the file...  So adding a "print" statement E (actually, call to Samba's internal debug logging code) seems to have H made it work.  Something must be stepping on memory somewhere?!?  I love C...]    --   John Santos  Evans Griffiths & Hart, Inc. 781-861-0670 ext 539   ------------------------------  % Date: Sun, 11 May 2003 02:39:43 -0500 - From: Hunter Goatley <goathunter@goatley.com>   Subject: Re: Where is VMSBACKUP?: Message-ID: <H%mva.58102$3e3.2508@fe05.atl2.webusenet.com>   Steve Spires wrote: I > I've tried to get this from ftp.process.com but get the following error 
 > message; >  > 200 TYPE command okay. > 200 PORT command okay." > 550 %%RMS-E-FNF, file not found,@ > ANONYMOUS_ROOT:[VMS-FREEWARE.FREE-VMS.TESTING]VMSBACKUP4-1.ZIP >   > I'm a little late with my reply, but the VMSBACKUP sources are? on ftp.process.com in [.VMS-FREEWARE.FREE-VMS], not the TESTING 
 directory:   VMSBACKUP4-1-1.ZIP  $ is the most recent one I know about.   Hunter ------& Hunter Goatley, goathunter@goatley.com   ------------------------------   End of INFO-VAX 2003.260 ************************                                                                                                                                                  0 Type I ok. <<< ALLO 104154t >>> 200 ALLO command OK. <<< STOR 511.32c+ >>> 550 User not permitted to store files  <<< CWD /vax84cp/ >>> 250 Connected to /disk$misc/decus/vax84c.<
 <<< PASV@ >>> 227 Entering passive mode; use PORT (198,151,12,104,17,86) <<< TYPE I >>> 200 Type I ok. <<< ALLO 104154t >>> 200 ALLO command OK. <<< STOR 511.32c+ >>> 550 User not permitted to store files  <<< CWD /vax84dp/ >>> 250 Connected to /disk$misc/decus/vax84d.<
 <<< PASV@ >>> 227 Entering passive mode; use PORT (198,151,12,104,17,87) <<< TYPE I >>> 200 Type I ok. <<< ALLO 104154t >>> 200 ALLO command OK. <<< STOR 511.32c+ >>> 550 User not permitted to store files  <<< CWD /vax85ap/ >>> 250 Connected to /disk$misc/decus/vax85a.<
 <<< PASV@ >>> 227 Entering passive mode; use PORT (198,151,12,104,17,88) <<< TYPE I >>> 200 Type I ok. <<< ALLO 104154t >>> 200 ALLO command OK. <<< STOR 511.32c+ >>> 550 User not permitted to store files  <<< CWD /vax85bp/ >>> 250 Connected to /disk$misc/decus/vax85b.<
 <<< PASV@ >>> 227 Entering passive mode; use PORT (198,151,12,104,17,89) <<< TYPE I >>> 200 Type I ok. <<< ALLO 104154t >>> 200 ALLO command OK. <<< STOR 511.32c+ >>> 550 User not permitted to store files  <<< CWD /vax85cp/ >>> 250 Connected to /disk$misc/decus/vax85c.<
 <<< PASV@ >>> 227 Entering passive mode; use PORT (198,151,12,104,17,90) <<< TYPE I >>> 200 Type I ok. <<< ALLO 104154t >>> 200 ALLO command OK. <<< STOR 511.32c+ >>> 550 User not permitted to store files  <<< CWD /vax85dp/ >>> 250 Connected to /disk$misc/decus/vax85d.<
 <<< PASV@ >>> 227 Entering passive mode; use PORT (198,151,12,104,17,91) <<< TYPE I >>> 200 Type I ok. <<< ALLO 104154t >>> 200 ALLO command OK. <<< STOR 511.32c+ >>> 550 User not permitted to store files  <<< CWD /vax86ap/ >>> 250 Connected to /disk$misc/decus/vax86a.<
 <<< PASV@ >>> 227 Entering passive mode; use PORT (198,151,12,104,17,92) <<< TYPE I >>> 200 Type I ok. <<< ALLO 104154t >>> 200 ALLO command OK. <<< STOR 511.32c+ >>> 550 User not permitted to store files  <<< CWD /vax86bp/ >>> 250 Connected to /disk$misc/decus/vax86b.<
 <<< PASV@ >>> 227 Entering passive mode; use PORT (198,151,12,104,17,93) <<< TYPE I >>> 200 Type I ok. <<< ALLO 104154t >>> 200 ALLO command OK. <<< STOR 511.32c+ >>> 550 User not permitted to store files  <<< CWD /vax86cp/ >>> 250 Connected to /disk$misc/decus/vax86c.<
 <<< PASV@ >>> 227 Entering passive mode; use PORT (198,151,12,104,17,94) <<< TYPE I >>> 200 Type I ok. <<< ALLO 104154t >>> 200 ALLO command OK. <<< STOR 511.32c+ >>> 550 User not permitted to store files  <<< CWD /vax86dp/ >>> 250 Connected to /disk$misc/decus/vax86d.<
 <<< PASV@ >>> 227 Entering passive mode; use PORT (198,151,12,104,17,95) <<< TYPE I >>> 200 Type I ok. <<< ALLO 104154t >>> 200 ALLO command OK. <<< STOR 511.32c+ >>> 550 User not permitted to store files  <<< CWD /vax87ap/ >>> 250 Connected to /disk$misc/decus/vax87a.<
 <<< PASV@ >>> 227 Entering passive mode; use PORT (198,151,12,104,17,96) <<< TYPE I >>> 200 Type I ok. <<< ALLO 104154t >>> 200 ALLO command OK. <<< STOR 511.32c+ >>> 550 User not permitted to store files  <<< CWD /vax87bp/ >>> 250 Connected to /disk$misc/decus/vax87b.<
 <<< PASV@ >>> 227 Entering passive mode; use PORT (198,151,12,104,17,97) <<< TYPE I >>> 200 Type I