INFO-VAX Fri, 07 Nov 2008 Volume 2008 : Issue 603 Contents: /SYSTEM and /FOREIGN on a disk on the same MOUNT command Re: /SYSTEM and /FOREIGN on a disk on the same MOUNT command Re: /SYSTEM and /FOREIGN on a disk on the same MOUNT command Re: /SYSTEM and /FOREIGN on a disk on the same MOUNT command Re: ActiveMQ working but want out of java... Basic/FMS consulting opportunity (New York) Re: Basic/FMS consulting opportunity (New York) Re: Basic/FMS consulting opportunity (New York) Re: Most impressive VAX installations Re: Most impressive VAX installations Re: Most impressive VAX installations Re: OVMS Integrity BASIC LTU Getting only 1 user at cost of $2400.00??? Re: OVMS Integrity BASIC LTU Getting only 1 user at cost of $2400.00??? Re: Synchronizing SYSUAF between independent machines Re: Variable record format but used with fixed lenght data ? Re: Variable record format but used with fixed lenght data ? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2008 06:39:52 -0800 (PST) From: etmsreec@yahoo.co.uk Subject: /SYSTEM and /FOREIGN on a disk on the same MOUNT command Message-ID: <86a77859-2091-41a4-b536-a16d28955c06@n33g2000pri.googlegroups.com> Just had an interesting one... I'd always taken that /SYSTEM and /FOREIGN were mutually exclusive - you wouldn't be allowed to mount a volume system wide if you were mounting it foreign as you'd only want one thread/process to be able to squirt data at the disk. A colleague just tried doing the two qualifiers on the same command and it worked. Odd in my view! Is this a bug or have I got it the wrong way round in my head? Steve ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 07 Nov 2008 14:56:33 +0000 From: "R.A.Omond" Subject: Re: /SYSTEM and /FOREIGN on a disk on the same MOUNT command Message-ID: <49145723$0$90268$14726298@news.sunsite.dk> etmsreec@yahoo.co.uk wrote: > Just had an interesting one... > > I'd always taken that /SYSTEM and /FOREIGN were mutually exclusive - > you wouldn't be allowed to mount a volume system wide if you were > mounting it foreign as you'd only want one thread/process to be able > to squirt data at the disk. > > A colleague just tried doing the two qualifiers on the same command > and it worked. Odd in my view! > > Is this a bug or have I got it the wrong way round in my head? I see no reason whatsoever to even begin to consider this a bug. Why should you not be able to do that ? ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2008 15:51:30 +0000 (UTC) From: moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) Subject: Re: /SYSTEM and /FOREIGN on a disk on the same MOUNT command Message-ID: etmsreec@yahoo.co.uk writes: >I'd always taken that /SYSTEM and /FOREIGN were mutually exclusive - >you wouldn't be allowed to mount a volume system wide if you were >mounting it foreign as you'd only want one thread/process to be able >to squirt data at the disk. >A colleague just tried doing the two qualifiers on the same command >and it worked. Odd in my view! >Is this a bug or have I got it the wrong way round in my head? Interesting. I just tried that and it worked. V8.3. It definitely did not allow both /SYSTEM and /FOREIGN before. So the question is whether this was a deliberate change or an unintended consequence of something else (a bug). ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2008 08:36:11 -0800 (PST) From: Volker Halle Subject: Re: /SYSTEM and /FOREIGN on a disk on the same MOUNT command Message-ID: $ HELP MOUNT/FOREIGN even discusses using /SYSTEM, so it can't be a bug... Volker. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2008 22:53:48 -0800 (PST) From: christery@gmail.com Subject: Re: ActiveMQ working but want out of java... Message-ID: > > Thanks, tried the open wire solution and got stuck in not being able > to download ant 1.7 from HP. > > Site seems to be down =A0,and apache.org are mor *nix;Win Found ant at http://www.filewatcher.com/m/HP-VMS-ANT-T0107--1-I64.EXE.97127= 93.0.0.html //CY ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2008 05:06:33 -0800 (PST) From: FrankS Subject: Basic/FMS consulting opportunity (New York) Message-ID: <19cc4333-95b8-424c-a443-cec78ed26db3@d42g2000prb.googlegroups.com> One of my clients (the one with the four VAX 7640s) is looking for additional consultants for some medium-term assignments (6 - 12 months). It is unlikely there will be any renewals after this period. I have asked them to post on OpenVMS.org and I'm taking the liberty of posting here as well. Anyone interested must have a strong background in Basic using RMS files, FMS screens, and DCL procedures. The more current the experience the better. The projects being staffed primarily involve modifications to existing applications which run on VAX and Alpha systems. They will entertain remote engagements, but would really prefer people on the east coast. You may be asked to visit the headquarters facility during the initial week (or two) to become familiar with the staff and applications. You will contract with my client directly -- I am not an agency and despite how lucrative it might be I really don't need the paperwork. I will be interviewing the candidates, and as both a consulting systems administrator and developer you'll be working with me as well. Please send resume, availability, and rate requirements to me directly. If you have any questions you can ask me by private e- mail. I will not discuss this opportunity any further here on c.o.v. The e-mail in my profile is correct. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 07 Nov 2008 16:42:08 GMT From: VAXman- @SendSpamHere.ORG Subject: Re: Basic/FMS consulting opportunity (New York) Message-ID: <00A82456.544C91BD@SendSpamHere.ORG> In article <19cc4333-95b8-424c-a443-cec78ed26db3@d42g2000prb.googlegroups.com>, FrankS writes: >{...snip...} > >The e-mail in my profile is correct. What does this mean? -- VAXman- A Bored Certified VMS Kernel Mode Hacker VAXman(at)TMESIS(dot)COM ... pejorative statements of opinion are entitled to constitutional protection no matter how extreme, vituperous, or vigorously expressed they may be. (NJSC) Copr. 2008 Brian Schenkenberger. Publication of _this_ usenet article outside of usenet _must_ include its contents in its entirety including this copyright notice, disclaimer and quotations. ------------------------------ Date: 7 Nov 2008 17:45:47 GMT From: "Bob Eager" Subject: Re: Basic/FMS consulting opportunity (New York) Message-ID: <176uZD2KcidF-pn2-2STb1i4f1Ddb@rikki.tavi.co.uk> On Fri, 7 Nov 2008 16:42:08 UTC, VAXman- @SendSpamHere.ORG wrote: > In article <19cc4333-95b8-424c-a443-cec78ed26db3@d42g2000prb.googlegroups.com>, FrankS writes: > >{...snip...} > > > >The e-mail in my profile is correct. > > What does this mean? It means he's posting from Google, and hasn't munged his email address. Probably doesn't know what newsgroups are. But at least he has an RFC1855 compliant signature! :-) -- Bob Eager Use the BIG mirror service in the UK: http://www.mirrorservice.org ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 07 Nov 2008 09:00:34 -0700 From: Keith Parris Subject: Re: Most impressive VAX installations Message-ID: Michael Moroney wrote: > Not a single system, but I came across comments in the disk shadowing code > for a bugfix where a byte field was being treated as a negative number > if it exceeded 127. That byte field was the number of nodes in a cluster, > and it was found by a customer (I think I know who), not internal testing. > > Also the test followed a decrement of that field, meaning a node left the > cluster, so the bug wouldn't have been seen unless there were 129 or > more nodes in the cluster at some point. (Supported limit was/is 96) SYSMAN once had a hard-coded limit of 128 nodes, but that limit was fixed in 5.5-1. $MOUNT/CLUSTER once had a hard-coded limit of 96 nodes, but that was fixed in 5.5-2. I worked with a customer who built a cluster which peaked at 151 nodes (150 VAXes plus 1 Alpha). See http://www.geocities.com/keithparris/decus_presentations/biglavc_article.ps I've heard rumors of even larger clusters than that. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2008 08:33:09 -0800 (PST) From: Volker Halle Subject: Re: Most impressive VAX installations Message-ID: There also was a problem in V6.2-1H3 when the mount count field (UCB $B_ONLCNT) exceeded 127. This caused a MSCPSERV crash. You had to have more than 127. nodes in the cluster all mount the same disk. Been there, seen that ;-) Volker. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 07 Nov 2008 09:40:37 -0700 From: Keith Parris Subject: Re: Most impressive VAX installations Message-ID: Bob Koehler wrote: > Just before we bought our first 11/780 running VMS 1.x, I spent > time on a Xerox Sigma 7 with a 3 foot diameter vertically mounted > disk. Ah yes, the RAD (Rapid Access Disk). Had fixed heads, with one head per track (we don't need no stinkin' seek time), and up to 512 tracks, thus 512 heads. Made for fast swaps, which you needed to do a lot of in those days. Pictures at http://asuwlink.uwyo.edu/~jimkirk/rad.html ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 07 Nov 2008 12:22:10 GMT From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jan-Erik_S=F6derholm?= Subject: Re: OVMS Integrity BASIC LTU Getting only 1 user at cost of $2400.00??? Message-ID: etmsreec@yahoo.co.uk wrote: > Having just checked SmartPortal in the UK, I don't see a price for an > unlimited Basic license for Integrity. There's only the Concurrent > user license. Which is exactly what the SPD for HP BASIC says. Jan-Erik. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2008 08:20:42 -0500 From: "John Reagan" Subject: Re: OVMS Integrity BASIC LTU Getting only 1 user at cost of $2400.00??? Message-ID: As for the compilers being linked with /TRACEBACK: Most of our compilers are linked /TRACEBACK so when real internal compiler errors occur, the traceback from the customer site can help us diagnose the problem before trying to cut down the program to something smaller (which sometimes isn't possible). For the missing license, linking with /TRACEBACK is a little unfortunate. We could try to catch that error in a handler but we've always had more important stuff to work on. As for the licenses: I've been staying out of the discussion since I don't even understand them. That part of the productizing of the compilers is above my pay grade as they say. John ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 07 Nov 2008 09:53:19 -0700 From: Keith Parris Subject: Re: Synchronizing SYSUAF between independent machines Message-ID: John Santos wrote: > Main, Kerry wrote: >> Why not cluster the two systems, shadow the appropriate disks and >> simply disable logons on the backup system until such time as it >> is required? > > Cost! Have you priced cluster licenses (or worse yet, MCOE licenses) > recently? After discount, it was well over $30K each for a pair of > rx3600's. > > Plus they needed extra fibrechannel HBAs and 800 miles of dark 1GB > or faster fiber. Unless they had many terabytes of disks shadowed which they needed to be able to full-copy in just a few hours, it would be rare to need 1-gigabit inter-site links. Many multi-site OpenVMS disaster-tolerant clusters run happily on 45-megabit DS-3 or 155-megabit OC-3 links. Remote access to Fibre Channel disks can be provided using either MSCP Serving or SAN Extension (e.g. FC-IP). ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 07 Nov 2008 11:16:16 GMT From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jan-Erik_S=F6derholm?= Subject: Re: Variable record format but used with fixed lenght data ? Message-ID: <4sVQk.3901$U5.25129@newsb.telia.net> Richard Maher wrote: > Cheers Richard Maher > > PS. Is DBI and Transparent Gateway still supported or sold? It's unsupported. I had to make a change in one of the command files in one of the backupsets (DBI070A.A) to make it install with Rdb 7.2.x. The version check included 4.1 - 7.1. I have an updated .A saveset that can be used together with the rest of the kit from Oracle, if someone is interested. Oh, and the "nonreletional gateways" (NREL) was commented out in another command file, so I had to re-enable that also to be able to install the NREL parts... So, yes, it's definitely unsupported... :-) Note also that the "Transparent Gateway for Oracle" from the same kit has been in production use on this box for years accessing an Oracle7 database on a AIX system. Works like a charm, all accesses are from Rdb code in COBOL. Jan-Erik. > > "Jan-Erik Söderholm" wrote in message > news:JWKQk.3898$U5.25028@newsb.telia.net... >> Hi. >> While analyzing some old indexed RMS datafiles >> that I *know* always are used with fixed size >> records (from COBOL apps), I've noticed that >> they are created with : >> >> RECORD >> CARRIAGE_CONTROL carriage_return >> FORMAT variable >> SIZE 280 >> >> Question is, why not use "fixed" when all records >> are fixed size anyway ? My best guess is that it is >> like this just becuse "variable" is the default, and >> noone has ever thought about changing it to "fixed"... >> >> Is there any drawback having the files beeing set to >> variable record format when one is always using fixed >> sized records anyway ? >> >> (Apart from the one I do know about. "Rdb Transparent >> Gateway to RMS" has some restrictions on variable >> records formated indexed RMS files, but as I read it, >> it is no issue if the records are all the same size >> anyway...) >> >> B.t.w, this is part of a project to setup DBI and >> the "Rdb Transparent Gateway to RMS" to be able to >> run SQL queries against the RMS files and also run >> joins between the RMS files and between the RMS files >> and the Rdb database. It all looks just fine right now. >> I'm currently entering field, record and database >> definitions into CDD to get some metadata for the >> RMS files (about 20 files). >> >> >> Jan-Erik. > > ------------------------------ Date: 7 Nov 2008 07:02:57 -0600 From: koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) Subject: Re: Variable record format but used with fixed lenght data ? Message-ID: In article , =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jan-Erik_S=F6derholm?= writes: > Hi. > While analyzing some old indexed RMS datafiles > that I *know* always are used with fixed size > records (from COBOL apps), I've noticed that > they are created with : > > RECORD > CARRIAGE_CONTROL carriage_return > FORMAT variable > SIZE 280 > > Question is, why not use "fixed" when all records > are fixed size anyway ? My best guess is that it is > like this just becuse "variable" is the default, and > noone has ever thought about changing it to "fixed"... > > Is there any drawback having the files beeing set to > variable record format when one is always using fixed > sized records anyway ? There's a tiny overhead for entering the record length at the begining of each record. I suspect no one ever bothered to "fix" it. You might actually see a performance improvement if you change it, but you might also find that you need a way to maintain upward compatability with at least reading archived data. ------------------------------ End of INFO-VAX 2008.603 ************************