INFO-VAX Thu, 15 Mar 2007 Volume 2007 : Issue 147 Contents: Re: AMD's well may be running dry Re: AMD's well may be running dry Re: AMD's well may be running dry Re: AMD's well may be running dry Re: AMD's well may be running dry Re: AMD's well may be running dry Re: AMD's well may be running dry Re: AMD's well may be running dry Re: AMD's well may be running dry Re: AMD's well may be running dry Re: AMD's well may be running dry Anyone recall Pathworks for Netware HP 300GB 15k rpm vs 36GB 15k rpm performance Re: HP 300GB 15k rpm vs 36GB 15k rpm performance Re: HP 300GB 15k rpm vs 36GB 15k rpm performance Re: HP 300GB 15k rpm vs 36GB 15k rpm performance Re: HP 300GB 15k rpm vs 36GB 15k rpm performance Re: HP OpenVMS I64 Support Plans? Re: Oracle Standard Edition for VMS Re: Oracle Standard Edition for VMS OT: charges dropped against Patrica Dunn Re: OT: charges dropped against Patrica Dunn Re: output from cron ssh to VMS? Re: Power Consumption Re: Power Consumption Re: Power Consumption (was: Re: AMD's well may be running dry) Re: TELNET - session timeout parameter(s) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 10:35:56 -0400 From: "William Webb" Subject: Re: AMD's well may be running dry Message-ID: <8660a3a10703140735pc010fecm6b77aa3d8bd8fd86@mail.gmail.com> ------=_Part_29537_28078055.1173882956554 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Ratification of foreign treaties is a function of the United States Senate, not of the President. He can't sign what they haven't ratified. (Well, I guess he could, but it would be a meaningless gesture, and would not have the force of law.) The Senate did debate ratification of Kyoto, and they rejected it 95-0. That's Democrats and Republicans there, folks. And this didn't happen under Bush, it was under Clinton. WWWebb On 14 Mar 2007 04:41:02 -0700, Andrew wrote: > > On 13 Mar, 15:46, koeh...@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob > Koehler) wrote: > > In article <55mc3uF25oge...@mid.individual.net>, b...@cs.uofs.edu (Bill > Gunshannon) writes: > > > > > Damn. And nature did all that without man's help. Go figure. > > > > I don't care who did it. I don't care what's happening on Mars > > with respect to global warming. I just want to do what we can to > > aleviate it so all my great grandchildren don't starve. > > I agree. There is almost unanimous scientific agreement that A the > world is getting hotter and B that mans activities through the release > of greenhouse gases and the destruction of CO2 regulators like the > tropical rainforest's is making the situation worse. > > Idiots can argue about Sun cycles etc as much as they like but the sad > reality is that their arguments fall into the same category as early > theological arguments about the number of angels you could get on a > pinhead. > > The sad irony is that there is also a very good economic argument for > ignoring the people who are in Global Warming Denial and pushing ahead > with CO2 reduction programs. > > Oil and Coal are the two most significant sources of man produced CO2. > World Oil production has peaked while demand has not, this inevitably > will lead to long term price rises which will impact the economies > most dependent on Oil and Coal the worst while impacting low carbon > economies least. The Bush administration's inability to grasp this is > probably the biggest single long term threat to the US economy. > > Even at current energy prices installing energy efficient light bulbs > and super insulating my house have paid for themselves in roughly 12 > months in terms of reducing my utility bills while composting and > recycling costs me nothing while having a positive effect on our > carbon footprint. Our rain water recycling system will take longer to > pay for itself but I expect that to break even in 4 years. As business > cases I can sell this kind of return to almost anyone except it would > seem the Bush administration. > > Nor is the US well placed to reap the benefits which will come from > the new industries spawned by the demand for renewables. Without > access to a large internal market and without government support the > US should expect to become a net importer of renewable technologies > and associated technologies such as nuclear power. The worlds largest > suppliers of Wind generators and Biomass heating systems are European > as are the most likely technologies for future Nuclear generation > facilities. > > The state of California has recognized this. > > To pile irony on irony, when the Bush administration ruled out > implementing Kyoto they did so ostensibly because of a claimed cost to > the US economy of 400 billion dollars. Not long after this Bush > invaded Iraq ostensibly to depose Saddam but in reality to get access > to a secure source of Oil in the middle east. The invasion of Iraq has > cost at least 400 billion dollars so far and has not resulted in a > secure Oil supply. At least ratifying Kyoto would have forced US > consumers and industry to address the issue which made a secure Oil > source an imperative if the economy is to survive. > > Contemplate the situation the US may find itself in in the next 3 > decades where they lose the top spot for CO2 emissions not because the > US has cleaned its act up but because the source of those emissions > has become too expensive for the US economy. > > regards > Andrew Harrison > > > > ------=_Part_29537_28078055.1173882956554 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline
Ratification of foreign treaties is a function of the United States Senate, not of the President.
He can't sign what they haven't ratified.  (Well, I guess he could, but it would be a meaningless gesture, and would not have the force of law.)
 
The Senate did debate ratification of Kyoto, and they rejected it 95-0. 
That's Democrats and Republicans there, folks.
 
And this didn't happen under Bush, it was under Clinton.
 
WWWebb

 
On 14 Mar 2007 04:41:02 -0700, Andrew <andrew_harrison@symantec.com> wrote:
On 13 Mar, 15:46, koeh...@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob
Koehler) wrote:
> In article <55mc3uF25oge...@mid.individual.net>, b...@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) writes:
>
> > Damn.  And nature did all that without man's help.  Go figure.
>
>    I don't care who did it.  I don't care what's happening on Mars
>    with respect to global warming.  I just want to do what we can to
>    aleviate it so all my great grandchildren don't starve.

I agree. There is almost unanimous scientific agreement that A the
world is getting hotter and B that mans activities through the release
of greenhouse gases and the destruction of CO2 regulators like the
tropical rainforest's is making the situation worse.

Idiots can argue about Sun cycles etc as much as they like but the sad
reality is that their arguments fall into the same category as early
theological arguments about the number of angels you could get on a
pinhead.

The sad irony is that there is also a very good economic argument for
ignoring the people who are in Global Warming Denial and pushing ahead
with CO2 reduction programs.

Oil and Coal are the two most significant sources of man produced CO2.
World Oil production has peaked while demand has not, this inevitably
will lead to long term price rises which will impact the economies
most dependent on Oil and Coal the worst while impacting low carbon
economies least. The Bush administration's inability to grasp this is
probably  the biggest single long term threat to the US economy.

Even at current energy prices installing energy efficient light bulbs
and super insulating my house have paid for themselves in roughly 12
months in terms of reducing my utility bills while composting and
recycling costs me nothing while having a positive effect on our
carbon footprint. Our rain water recycling system will take longer to
pay for itself but I expect that to break even in 4 years. As business
cases I can sell this kind of return to almost anyone except it would
seem the Bush administration.

Nor is the US well placed to reap the benefits which will come from
the new industries spawned by the demand for renewables. Without
access to a large internal market and without government support the
US should expect to become a net importer of renewable technologies
and associated technologies such as nuclear power. The worlds largest
suppliers of Wind generators and Biomass heating systems are European
as are the most likely technologies for future Nuclear generation
facilities.

The state of California has recognized this.

To pile irony on irony, when the Bush administration ruled out
implementing Kyoto they did so ostensibly because of a claimed cost to
the US economy of 400 billion dollars. Not long after this Bush
invaded Iraq ostensibly to depose Saddam but in reality to get access
to a secure source of Oil in the middle east. The invasion of Iraq has
cost at least 400 billion dollars so far and has not resulted in a
secure Oil supply. At least ratifying Kyoto would have forced US
consumers and industry to address the issue which made a secure Oil
source an imperative if the economy is to survive.

Contemplate the situation the US may find itself in in the next 3
decades where they lose the top spot for CO2 emissions not because the
US has cleaned its act up but because the source of those emissions
has become too expensive for the US economy.

regards
Andrew Harrison




------=_Part_29537_28078055.1173882956554-- ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 14:14:42 -0400 From: JF Mezei Subject: Re: AMD's well may be running dry Message-ID: <6cc5f$45f83bb7$cef8887a$717@TEKSAVVY.COM> Andrew wrote: > My prediction is that in the not so distant future climate change > denial will be as unfashionable as holocaust denial is today. Canada is currently administered by a minority government whose party (formerly known as "Reform") is from the oil province of Alberta. Upon getting the governing party status, Harper set out to kill Kyoto to imitate what his uncle Bush had done. He quickly widthdrew funding for programs to help implement it but didn't have the guts to formally widthdraw from the treaty. He quickly realised that his anti-environment pro-oil policies would cost him his job because as soon as the old party would find a new leader, he would get a vote of non confidence over his handling of the environment. As a result, he "saw the light" and presented some environment bill. It was the only way he could remain in power. This bill is laughable but he at least publically admits it is a problem. (even tough everyone knows he only admits it to stay in power and will make sure Alberta (which generates 40% of canada's CO2 emissions) will not be limited by any environment treaties. The point ? The environment/global warming has become an important enough issue to topple a government in parlementary democracies. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 16:42:25 -0400 From: Bill Todd Subject: Re: AMD's well may be running dry Message-ID: Andrew wrote: ... > My prediction is that in the not so distant future climate change > denial will be as unfashionable as holocaust denial is today. Indeed - though comparison to the denials of the dangers of smoking by the tobacco industry might be a closer analogy. Thank you for your substantive contributions on this (off-topic, but very generally important) subject. Some people here might prefer to dismiss them simply because of their source, but I would remind those who would equate messenger with credibility to consider the fact that boob is weighing in on their side of the argument. - bill ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 21:58:08 +0100 From: "Dr. Dweeb" Subject: Re: AMD's well may be running dry Message-ID: <45f861df$0$178$157c6196@dreader1.cybercity.dk> Andrew wrote: > On 14 Mar, 16:27, s...@antinode.org (Steven M. Schweda) wrote: >> From: b...@instantwhip.com >> >> >> >>> On Mar 13, 7:06 pm, s...@antinode.org (Steven M. Schweda) wrote: >>>> From: b...@instantwhip.com >> >>>>> so you were around when this asteroid hit? >>>>> what happened to the dinosaurs is a world flood hit ... >>>>> ever hear of Noah and the ark? >> >>>> Ever hear of Santa Claus and the tooth fairy? >> >>>> For the love of God, or as a personal favor to me, please take >>>> this entire inappropriate, pointless, vacuous discussion to a more >>>> appropriate forum. (Perhaps comp.os.vms.nla0.) >>> ever hear of the real Mt Siani being discovered in Saudi Arabia? >>> all the events of the Bible are real. not just stories ... >>> archaeology is proving it every day ... >>> try these links and if you want to find out ... >>> [...] >> >> Unlike the people who have been wasting much time and disk space >> in attempts to persuade you of anything, I learned long ago that >> rational arguments are almost always powerless against someone's >> faith. Faced with someone who believes that a Biblical flood killed >> off the dinosaurs, I simply decline to add more inappropriate, >> pointless clutter to what was supposed to be (and should be) a VMS >> technical forum, in a futile attempt to persuade him of anything at >> all. My time and disk space are too valuable to me for that. >> >> I will, however, renew my appeal that you and your opponents take >> this "discussion" to a more appropriate forum, as simple courtesy >> would demand, but, sadly, I must admit that experience deters me >> from holding out much hope. >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> Steven M. Schweda sms@antinode-org >> 382 South Warwick Street (+1) 651-699-9818 >> Saint Paul MN 55105-2547 > > Before you dismiss the relevance of this discussion out of hand > consider the following. > > SUN and the EPA are working on a server performance/power efficiency > metric as part of the Green Grid program. The idea is to provide an > energy efficiency rating for servers that takes into account the > capacity of a server something like the A-G white goods efficiency > ratings in the EU. > > Once these have been agreed servers will get an efficiency rating and > you can bet your bottom dollar that some customer RFP's will start > appearing mandating A grade or whatever the scheme comes up with > servers. Vendors with hotter slower platforms will be excluded from > bidding. > > Now you can understand Sun's motivation in this. The T1000/T2000 are > very very very likely to score whatever the highest efficiency grade > is and if the information that has leaked about Rock is true then this > will also apply to systems based on Rock as well. Other vendors with > less efficient less integrated technologies may struggle excluding > them from large parts of the market. > > I would not like to hazard a guess as to where Itanium would be in the > future but based in Sun's current SWAP metric the current situation is > not great. > > IBM, HP, Sun. Intel, Dell and AMD are all members of the Green Grid. > > regards > Andrew Harrison Indeed, I am currently involved in moving our server environment from one hosting location to another. The main reason, is the inability of the current location to provide enough power to the racks, and keep everything cool. The current facility, which while not new is certainly not ancient, is maxed out and was simply underdimensioned because no-one foresaw how power hungry the INTEL architecture (and the associated bits and pieces) for large blade farms would become. Keeping it all cool is an even bigger problem. Server efficiency is high on my list - I have seen our electrical bill !!! Dweeb ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 15:16:47 -0600 From: Jeff Campbell Subject: Re: AMD's well may be running dry Message-ID: <1173907091_35481@sp6iad.superfeed.net> Bill Todd wrote: > Tom Linden wrote: > > ... > > Here is a starter. >> >> http://www.kednos.com/physics/climatology/iceage.html > > This appears to be your own posting of the personal views (footnoted > though they may be) of an oil/gas company geologist - hardly the most > objective source. A refereed paper in a respected scientific journal > would be far more credible: you can find superficially-authoritative > support on the Internet for virtually any viewpoint as long as you're > not picky. > > - bill "Science" and "Nature" are not refereed? ----== 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 =---- ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 18:37:28 -0400 From: "Neil Rieck" Subject: Re: AMD's well may be running dry Message-ID: <45f86c99$0$16271$88260bb3@free.teranews.com> wrote in message news:1173878833.128049.135800@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com... > On Mar 13, 7:06 pm, s...@antinode.org (Steven M. Schweda) wrote: >> From: b...@instantwhip.com >> > > ever hear of the real Mt Siani being discovered in Saudi Arabia? > all the events of the Bible are real. not just stories ... > archaeology is proving it every day ... > try these links and if you want to find out ... > I'm a practicing Christian (Lutheran) and I do not believe that 100% of the Bible is literally true. It does appear that the current cannon was modified by the Roman emperor Constantine to produce a state religion which would be good for controlling the masses. It does contain historical events (like a flood in Mesopotamia which was not a world wide flood), but contains other things that just did not happen (like God stopping the Sun in the sky: Joshua 8:10, 10:12-13, Kings II, 20:1-11) What I do believe is a phrase by Galileo: The Bible tells you how to go to heaven; not how the heavens go. I also like a phrase attributed to Werner von Braun: Science and Religion are not antagonists but sisters. Science teaches us more about the Creator by studying the creation. But when religion and science clash, I usually believe science. Many religions misquote their religious books (Bible or Koran) to control people rather than educate them. When people in your religion tell you to martyr yourself, everyone should say "you go first". Also, some people are fond of passages saying it's OK to kill queers. These same people ignore the next line saying you should kill your undisciplined children. I don't believe in the death penalty and so ignore all passages telling me to kill people. Neil Rieck Kitchener/Waterloo/Cambridge, Ontario, Canada. http://www3.sympatico.ca/n.rieck/ -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com ------------------------------ Date: 14 Mar 2007 17:16:44 -0700 From: bob@instantwhip.com Subject: Re: AMD's well may be running dry Message-ID: <1173917804.273795.156230@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com> On Mar 14, 6:37 pm, "Neil Rieck" wrote: > > But when religion and science clash, I usually believe science. and your scientists are slowly discrediting evolution and proving creation ... they have found that if even one star was out of order, the whole universe would be in chaos, and in genetics they have reversed the gene pool and proven we all came from the same man and woman initially ... science is proving the Bible, not disproving it ... ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 18:05:48 -0600 From: David J Dachtera Subject: Re: AMD's well may be running dry Message-ID: <45F88DDC.8CEC5D6D@spam.comcast.net> david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk wrote: > > In article <45F74C0E.82DC5477@spam.comcast.net>, David J Dachtera writes: > >Bob Koehler wrote: > >> > >> In article <55mc3uF25ogesU1@mid.individual.net>, bill@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) writes: > >> > > >> > Damn. And nature did all that without man's help. Go figure. > >> > > >> > >> I don't care who did it. I don't care what's happening on Mars > >> with respect to global warming. I just want to do what we can to > >> aleviate it so all my great grandchildren don't starve. > > > >The probability of that is close to nil. Climate change on that scale takes > >hundreds of generations, many centuries even, without cosmic intervention. > > > If the methane hydrates were destabalised the effect would be pretty rapid. > Methane is about 60 times more powerful as a greenhouse gas than CO2 but would > only remain in the atmosphere for about 10 years whereas CO2 remains in the > atmosphere for about 100 years. > Methane hydrates occur extensively all over the world and frozen methane > hydrates can contain 170 times their own volume of methane. > > see > > http://www.hydrogen.co.uk/h2_now/journal/articles/3_Methane.htm Nothing new. Neither is climatic change. It's going to happen. Would have happened even if humans had not evolved or developed mechanized industry. It will run its course. This is inevitable and inescapable. Let's all just get over it and get back to business providing for our families. -- 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: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 20:17:47 -0400 From: Bill Todd Subject: Re: AMD's well may be running dry Message-ID: Arne Vajhøj wrote: > Bill Todd wrote: >> Larry Kilgallen wrote: >>> From: >>> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070311/ap_on_bi_ge/amd_intel_shifting_fortunes;_ylt=Aq92wST7yGqKfikqJHJ7jCNj24cA >>> >>> SAN JOSE, Calif. - The high-flying Advanced Micro Devices Inc. of 2006 >>> has given way to a company in financial peril, saddled with debt and >>> bleeding from a brutal price battle with its larger and suddenly >>> resurgent >>> Silicon Valley archrival, Intel Corp. >> >> Yeah, right - especially the part about Intel having passed AMD >> technologically, let alone being likely to stay there. > > Ask any teenager and he can tell you that Core 2 is > the "must have" today. I'm afraid that teenagers aren't at (or even close to) the top of my list of reliable sources. Among other things, even if they have a clue at all they tend to be completely fixated on some aspects of performance to the exclusion of others - and their ability to understand anything but the immediate present (if even that) tends to be extremely limited. While too many adults may suffer from similar deficiencies (and while this may be evident in AMD's stock-price gyrations), more responsible individuals tend to dominate purchasing decisions in the areas most important to AMD's continued health. - bill ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 21:09:59 -0400 From: "Neil Rieck" Subject: Re: AMD's well may be running dry Message-ID: <45f89058$0$16341$88260bb3@free.teranews.com> wrote in message news:1173917804.273795.156230@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com... > On Mar 14, 6:37 pm, "Neil Rieck" wrote: >> >> But when religion and science clash, I usually believe science. > > and your scientists are slowly discrediting evolution and proving > creation ... > > they have found that if even one star was out of order, the whole > universe would be in chaos, and in genetics they have reversed the > gene pool and proven we all came from the same man and woman > initially ... > > science is proving the Bible, not disproving it ... > Another over emotional response from a religious zealot. Did I say that science disproves the bible? Did I say that science disproves God? The Christian bible claims the world is about 6,000 years old. Science says our Earth is closer to 6 Billion. So the bible is off by 6 orders of magnitude. Big deal. Does that mean we throw the bible out of our society? No. Parts of it are a wonderful for training morals. But we will personally ignore the part were God said go into the promised land and kill the Jebucites, Hittites, etc. Those parts of the bible are now illegal and we will only keep them for historical reference. p.s. #1 the bible say God created the world with the phrase "let their be light". Science says the world was created via a "big bang". They sound kind of similar to me. Only the bible doesn't have anything to say about the Standard Model or String theory. That's because those ancient people didn't have the technology to explore this area. p.s. #2 I know a few atheists and they are moral people so the bible must not be the only game in town. But we've all got to learn to get along. Neil Rieck Kitchener/Waterloo/Cambridge, Ontario, Canada. http://www3.sympatico.ca/n.rieck/ -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 03:05:08 GMT From: John Santos Subject: Re: AMD's well may be running dry Message-ID: Andrew wrote: > On 14 Mar, 13:31, b...@instantwhip.com wrote: > >>On Mar 14, 7:41 am, "Andrew" wrote: >> >> >>>On 13 Mar, 15:46, koeh...@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob >> >>>Koehler) wrote: >>> >>>>In article <55mc3uF25oge...@mid.individual.net>, b...@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) writes: >> >>>>>Damn. And nature did all that without man's help. Go figure. >> >>>> I don't care who did it. I don't care what's happening on Mars >>>> with respect to global warming. I just want to do what we can to >>>> aleviate it so all my great grandchildren don't starve. >> >>>I agree. There is almost unanimous scientific agreement that A the >>>world is getting hotter and B that mans activities through the release >>>of greenhouse gases and the destruction of CO2 regulators like the >>>tropical rainforest's is making the situation worse. >> >>that is a lie ... more and more scientists everyday are jumping off >>the >>Al Gore global warming train ... >> >>this is a money grab by a lot of the universities and few scientists >>that are using the following equation to promote global warming >> >>CO2 + global warming bs = $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ > > Falling into the trap of arguing with Bob, there is far more $$$$ available to any scientist who could successfully refute anthropogenic global climate change. Not only is upsetting the status quo always profitable for a scientist (grants, professorships, consultancy jobs, publishing deals, Nobel prizes, etc.) but also in this case big bucks from the oil, coal and gas industries. All they need is some facts to back up their case, which are sorely lacking amongst GW deniers. > Rubbish the UN Panel on Climate Change report published on the 1st of > February had a higher degree of unanimity than any previous report and > it was backed by 2500 of the worlds leading Climate Scientists. The > previous report published in 2001 put the likelihood of mankind's > activities influencing climate change at 66%, the 2007 report now > revises that up to over 90%. > > BP who have left the Global Climate Coalition a petroleum industry > lobbying organization said this about climate change in 1997. > > "The time to consider the policy dimensions of climate change is not > when the link between greenhouse gases and climate change is > conclusively proven, but when the possibility cannot be discounted ... > We in BP have reached that point" -- John Browne, Chief Executive of > BP > > http://www.bp.com/subsection.do?categoryId=4529&contentId=7014604 > > Shell have also left the GCC for similar reasons. Namely that there is > no point funding a lobbying organization to refute a point which you > believe to be true. AHA! I finally get to dispute something Andrew says in this thread :-) (It was getting depressing agreeing with you so much :-() Many lobbying organizations exist primarily to refute points that their funders *know* to be true, even if the funders attempt to maintain plausible deniability. Case in point: The tobacco lobby denying for so many years the adverse health effects of smoking. > > The Stern report published last year collected all the available > evidence and attempted to cost the impact of climate change to the > global economy, their temperature and sea level rise estimates were > quite conservative but even then the report estimates that climate > change will cost 20% of worldwide GDP if we wait or 1% if we start > now. > > The reality is that there is a far greater degree of consensus in > Climate change science than there has ever been and that is now backed > with the economic costs of not doing anything. To suggest otherwise is > total BS. > > My prediction is that in the not so distant future climate change > denial will be as unfashionable as holocaust denial is today. > It's not really a matter of fashion but of facts. The facts are that the holocaust occurred and climate change is occurring now. > Regards > Andrew Harrison > -- John Santos Evans Griffiths & Hart, Inc. 781-861-0670 ext 539 ------------------------------ Date: 14 Mar 2007 21:33:54 -0700 From: "tomarsin2015@comcast.net" Subject: Anyone recall Pathworks for Netware Message-ID: <1173933234.420816.255710@p15g2000hsd.googlegroups.com> Does anybody out there in VMS land recall working with Pathworks for Netware any version?? We are running Netware 6.5 so I decide to load Pathworks 6.0A and Pathworks V1.0-800H for Netware on a old 4000-100. 2 questions 1. What commands do I execute to get the VMS netware to see the tree/ context of the 6.5 . 2. If anybody has the hard bound copy of the manuals I would like to buy them. I know this is old, but got to have some type of fun. tks ------------------------------ Date: 14 Mar 2007 15:48:43 -0700 From: dorrt@sutterhealth.org Subject: HP 300GB 15k rpm vs 36GB 15k rpm performance Message-ID: <1173912523.501007.258320@p15g2000hsd.googlegroups.com> I'm phasing out our 36GB 15k rpm drives and replacing them with 300GB 15k rpm dirves. According to HP specs the seek time is the same - 3.8ms. Will there be a performance hit with the 300GB drives? How can the 300Gb drives perform the same as a 36Gb drive? Thanks, Tom ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 14:44:56 -0800 From: "Tom Linden" Subject: Re: HP 300GB 15k rpm vs 36GB 15k rpm performance Message-ID: On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 14:48:43 -0800, wrote: > I'm phasing out our 36GB 15k rpm drives and replacing them with 300GB > 15k rpm dirves. According to HP specs the seek time is the same - > 3.8ms. Will there be a performance hit with the 300GB drives? How can > the 300Gb drives perform the same as a 36Gb drive? > Thanks, > Tom > Yoe need to compare seek, latency and transfer rate and understand your real requirments based on what you are trying to accomplish. -- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 18:06:56 -0500 (CDT) From: sms@antinode.org (Steven M. Schweda) Subject: Re: HP 300GB 15k rpm vs 36GB 15k rpm performance Message-ID: <07031418065605_2020028F@antinode.org> From: dorrt@sutterhealth.org > I'm phasing out our 36GB 15k rpm drives and replacing them with 300GB > 15k rpm dirves. According to HP specs the seek time is the same - > 3.8ms. Will there be a performance hit with the 300GB drives? How can > the 300Gb drives perform the same as a 36Gb drive? Why should they be different? Why should they be the same? Size and speed are different things. Performance and seek time are different things. Seek time tells you how long it take the drive to move its little arm(s) across the disk(s). A disk with higher density (hence larger capacity) would put more data within the reach of an average seek movement, and each rotation would present more data to a head in the same time, so a denser disk might be faster on those accounts. The argument changes if the larger disk drive simply has more disks. Also, any drive still needs to move those data to or from its host adaptor, and on-disk data density doesn't affect anything outside the drive's package. Not knowing where your bottleneck is now, it's hard to predict what will happen to "performance" (note: ill-defined) when you change to a different disk drive. Or from multiple smaller drives to one larger drive. Everything's complicated. Actual testing will tell you much more reliably what to expect than any apriori analysis. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Steven M. Schweda sms@antinode-org 382 South Warwick Street (+1) 651-699-9818 Saint Paul MN 55105-2547 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 23:34:02 GMT From: "John Vottero" Subject: Re: HP 300GB 15k rpm vs 36GB 15k rpm performance Message-ID: wrote in message news:1173912523.501007.258320@p15g2000hsd.googlegroups.com... > I'm phasing out our 36GB 15k rpm drives and replacing them with 300GB > 15k rpm dirves. According to HP specs the seek time is the same - > 3.8ms. Will there be a performance hit with the 300GB drives? How can > the 300Gb drives perform the same as a 36Gb drive? It's not surprising that the specs are the same, they're basically the same physical size and construction so I would expect similar seek times, it's just that the 300GB disk packs the bits tighter. If the specs for the 300GB disks are the same as the 36GB disks then you have to start thinking about the number of disks that you have. Eight 36GB disks will perform better than one 300GB disk. ------------------------------ Date: 14 Mar 2007 18:20:31 -0700 From: "Hein RMS van den Heuvel" Subject: Re: HP 300GB 15k rpm vs 36GB 15k rpm performance Message-ID: <1173921631.180234.249870@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com> On Mar 14, 6:48 pm, d...@sutterhealth.org wrote: > I'm phasing out our 36GB 15k rpm drives and replacing them with 300GB > 15k rpm dirves. According to HP specs the seek time is the same - > 3.8ms. Will there be a performance hit with the 300GB drives? How can > the 300Gb drives perform the same as a 36Gb drive? > Thanks, > Tom YOU can make the 300GB perform much faster than the 36GB by 'partitioning' The seek time is specifed as 4ms avg, 8ms fulll stroke, 0.4 ms track to track. If you where to have 30GB of data, then on a 36 GB disk it would be scattered over the whole disk, and the avg seek will be close to that 4ms. On the 300GB drive that same 30GB place on the outer = low lbn block will take less than 5% of the physical seek range can be expect to have an avg seek time of less than 2ms. What to do with the other 270GB though!? Perfect for 'slow storage' for like, mostly sequential read/write files like online backups. http://h18000.www1.hp.com/products/quickspecs/11531_div/11531_div.pdf Also note the the specifed seek times closely match the Rotational Delay. 15Krpm = 250rps = 4.0 ms/rotation. 10Krpm = 167rps = 6.0 ms/rotation. Making the seek time much faster would have quickly diminishing returns (and increasing power) as the IO will have to wait for the right blocks to come under the head anyway. fwiw, Hein van den Heuvel HvdH Performance Consulting ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 18:00:19 -0600 From: David J Dachtera Subject: Re: HP OpenVMS I64 Support Plans? Message-ID: <45F88C93.9C9CF39D@spam.comcast.net> "Main, Kerry" wrote: > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: JF Mezei [mailto:jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca] > > Sent: March 13, 2007 3:58 PM > > To: Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Com > > Subject: Re: HP OpenVMS I64 Support Plans? > > > > Stephen Hoffman wrote: > > > The public statements around HP product plans are in the OpenVMS > > > roadmap. > > > > The roadmap is a nice document, but it is subject to change > > anytime, hence it is > > not a binding legal document. > > > > Not indended to be legal document. It's a guide to assist in planning > for future features. "Subject to change" is all over the document. > > Try getting a 5 year futures commitment from any vendor on any platform > about any product. > > Good luck. With HP ... 1. Refusing to market OpenVMS 2. Visiting Customers and ISVs alike pushing UX (instead of VMS) ...good luck selling VMS *ANY*where! -- 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: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 06:44:54 +0800 From: "Richard Maher" Subject: Re: Oracle Standard Edition for VMS Message-ID: Hi Kerry, > And to sweeten the pot a little more ... Only a complete misery guts could find *any* fault with these developments but a slight sour point here *could* be the chasm-like void developing between Rdb and Orrible Oracle pricing on VMS :-( Even if list prices are only a guide, does someone have a brief comparison of the new 10g -vs- Rdb prices on VMS? 1) Rdb puts all its eggs into single-node functionality and ignores VMS's clustering strengths for years 2) Oracle embraces clustering and bets the company on distributed computing 3) Rdb has no *new* plans to look at platforms other than VMS even though Itanium now has a *suuported* Bliss et al that would presumably allow it to move HP UX and (again) to Windows 4) Orrible is the most popular and portable database in the world (Don't get me wrong I think the money is better spent on new Rdb functionality rather than new platforms, but I'm just saying. . .) 5) One could be forgiven for thinking that Rdb is being run as the personal play thing for a handful of engineering personalities that refuse to move on from the gravy train and share their particular talents with the world at large, resulting in a festering inward-looking mind-set. Surely it could only be some Lord of the Flies Conch-hogging leadership strategy that has denied the Rdb user community the much needed SQL> SET SESSION AUTHORIZATION 'PERSONA :ws_integer'; functionaluty *all* these years? 6) Rdb is the best DBMS in the world *by far*! Hasn't mattered much so far :-( Anyway, as I said this new VMS Orrible pricing structure is *all* gravy and absolutely fabulous news for VMS; it's up to Rdb to fight their own corner. Maybe the thumb-screws did need tightening a little? Cheers Richard Maher "Main, Kerry" wrote in message news:FA60F2C4B72A584DBFC6091F6A2B868402198C54@tayexc19.americas.cpqcorp.net... > -----Original Message----- > From: JF Mezei [mailto:jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca] > Sent: March 13, 2007 1:50 PM > To: Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Com > Subject: Re: Oracle Standard Edition for VMS > > Sue wrote: > > Oracle is currently working on 10gR2 version of Oracle Standard > > Edition. Oracle is planning to support Standard Edition for the VMS > > 10.2 releases via a patch, > > Sue, did you have anything to do with this ? Such as > conveying to VMS management > user demand for the standard edition ? Or did Oracle do this > totally on its own? > > Either way, you deserve a virtual, politically correct big HUG ! > And to sweeten the pot a little more ... Oracle has improved its server multi-core licensing strategy which will further improve Integrity platform licensing: (March 02, 2007) http://news.com.com/2102-1006_3-6163674.html?tag=st.util.print "In a move designed to counter Microsoft's growing database influence, Oracle has quietly cut software prices on some lower-end servers using multicore processors, CNET News.com has learned. With the new pricing for Oracle's lower-end Standard Edition and Standard Edition One products, the software company now is effectively matching Microsoft's practice of pegging price to a server's processor socket count and rather than processor core count. The move could cut the costs of purchasing Oracle database software by as much as 87 percent in some cases." Regards Kerry Main Senior Consultant HP Services Canada Voice: 613-592-4660 Fax: 613-591-4477 kerryDOTmainAThpDOTcom (remove the DOT's and AT) OpenVMS - the secure, multi-site OS that just works. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 15:46:52 -0700 From: "Malcolm Dunnett" Subject: Re: Oracle Standard Edition for VMS Message-ID: <45f87b20$1@flight> "Richard Maher" wrote in message news:et9q2b$8du$1@news-01.bur.connect.com.au... > Only a complete misery guts could find *any* fault with these developments > but a slight sour point here *could* be the chasm-like void developing > between Rdb and Orrible Oracle pricing on VMS :-( Even if list prices are > only a guide, does someone have a brief comparison of the new 10g -vs- Rdb > prices on VMS? I thought the principle was that Oracle EE and Rdb were priced identically, that was the case when I had both (but that was some years ago). Are you saying that has changed or is it just the announcement of "per chip" vs "per core" licensing for Oracle that concerns you. Is Oracle not offering the same deal for Rdb on Itanium. If not I would expect their Rdb customers to lean on them to do so. fwiw Oracle EE costs $40,000/processor (read "chip" here I guess ) or $800/named user (prices from the oraclestore website). What are Rdb prices these days? otoh Oracle SE retails for $15,000/processor and offers about 90% of the functionality of EE ( YMMV depending on which features you consider important ). Oracle prices are the same for all architectures/operating systems. Does that help or have I completely missed the point? ------------------------------ Date: 14 Mar 2007 14:21:25 -0700 From: "Ian Miller" Subject: OT: charges dropped against Patrica Dunn Message-ID: <1173907285.604700.37570@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com> "Criminal charges have been dropped against former Hewlett Packard (HP) chairwoman Patricia Dunn in connection with a corporate spying scandal." Read more on BBC news http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6451843.stm ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 20:05:40 -0400 From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Arne_Vajh=F8j?= Subject: Re: OT: charges dropped against Patrica Dunn Message-ID: <45f88dce$0$90262$14726298@news.sunsite.dk> Ian Miller wrote: > "Criminal charges have been dropped against former Hewlett Packard > (HP) chairwoman Patricia Dunn in connection with a corporate spying > scandal." > > Read more on BBC news > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6451843.stm Not knowing what what was going on may be good enough to walk free in a trial. But not exactly a good recommendation for a leader. Arne ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 13:49:07 -0400 From: Stephen Hoffman Subject: Re: output from cron ssh to VMS? Message-ID: - wrote: > FWIW, it seems you're pushing the cart instead of pulling it. Consider > running your Make scripts on the target system, then monitoring the > output via a web interface or email. It's not clear from your final > description (software build) why you want/need ssh capability. It certainly does look like a roll-your-own multi-platform job scheduler, yes. As for alternatives, CGI is another approach that can be widely available, using http or https. cURL or wget or otherwise. Given I'm fond of xml, I'd likely work that into any design. :-) Or a periodic batch job. Running on OpenVMS, rather than triggered from a remote cron. CVS or SVN or FTP from the source pool, and off it goes. -- www.HoffmanLabs.com Services for OpenVMS ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 14:38:18 -0400 From: JF Mezei Subject: Re: Power Consumption Message-ID: <89e91$45f8413f$cef8887a$22487@TEKSAVVY.COM> Stephen Hoffman wrote: > It's as much about competition and marketing as anything else. If public and corporations have become sensitive to power consumption and reducing their energy footprint, then computer vendors will fight to portray their products as the most environmentally friendly units. And they will then innovate to get their systems to consume less power than their competitors. So in the end, what starts off as just marketing to please the "fad du jour" ends up as real innovation due to competition. the "fad du jour" is especially strong in Europe where the EU government recently passed a binding requirement for all member nation to reduce emissions by 20% before 2020. You will find that people, governments and corporation will demand more energy efficient products. Consider the advent of LCD displays and how quickly they have permeated just about every computer display (and now consumer TV sets). Those consume about 1/10s the power of their older CRT brothers, and even less when iddle. If you have 100 employees, that is a HUGE savings on not only electricity to drive the displays, but also airconditioning load on the office space. The next step is to make computers more energy efficient. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 22:07:12 +0100 From: "Dr. Dweeb" Subject: Re: Power Consumption Message-ID: <45f863fe$0$175$157c6196@dreader1.cybercity.dk> JF Mezei wrote: > Stephen Hoffman wrote: >> It's as much about competition and marketing as anything else. > > > If public and corporations have become sensitive to power consumption > and reducing their energy footprint, then computer vendors will fight > to portray their products as the most environmentally friendly units. > And they will then innovate to get their systems to consume less > power than their competitors. > So in the end, what starts off as just marketing to please the "fad > du jour" ends up as real innovation due to competition. > > the "fad du jour" is especially strong in Europe where the EU > government recently passed a binding requirement for all member > nation to reduce emissions by 20% before 2020. You will find that > people, governments and corporation will demand more energy efficient > products. > > Consider the advent of LCD displays and how quickly they have > permeated just about every computer display (and now consumer TV > sets). Those consume about 1/10s the power of their older CRT > brothers, and even less when iddle. If you have 100 employees, that > is a HUGE savings on not only electricity to drive the displays, but > also airconditioning load on the office space. "The power required to run an LCD is about one-third of that required for a CRT with the same screen area. In addition, the amount of heat generated by an LCD monitor is considerably less than a CRT monitor, resulting in a lower load on air conditioning." http://www.viewsonic.com/monitoruniversity/lcd.htm > The next step is to make computers more energy efficient. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 14:16:55 -0400 From: Stephen Hoffman Subject: Re: Power Consumption (was: Re: AMD's well may be running dry) Message-ID: Andrew wrote: > Now you can understand Sun's motivation in this. The T1000/T2000 are > very very very likely to score whatever the highest efficiency grade > is... It's as much about competition and marketing as anything else. Yes, efficiency factors in just like having a portable operating system platform definition has its benefits, but making money and marketeering factor in, too. If a vendor lock-out or a vendor lock-in exists or can be created, it will almost certainly be used in a competitive situation. And these may or may not be green -- there have been examples of so-called green initiatives that have been inefficient, wasteful, energy-intensive or polluting. Eco-friendly has turned into the antiseptic hand soap or the latest in the colored-ribbon-for-something marketeering. Usually with just enough of a fig leaf involved to avoid charges of crass commercialism. "Oh, how can so-and-so be against [insert strawman]?" So what percentage of power would be reduced by, say, solid state disks replacing mechanical disks, or by better-integrated water cooling or other technologies into new systems. The vendor marketeering of late often focuses on the processors, but where's all the power really going inside a typical computer? Spinning down disks, or moving to more efficient technologies, or approaches such as the efficiencies gained from shared infrastructures -- bigger fans or power supplies at efficient loads, for instance. And then there are the occasional design "surprises." Halting a processor can require more power than running it an idle loop, for instance. If there's a straw-man argument that you can raise in marketing, you can bet it will be used -- something that allows you to characterize another organization, entity or product as inferior, wasteful, evil or any other currently-derogatory term. This is all basic marketing. Pardon my cynicism. -- www.HoffmanLabs.com Services for OpenVMS ------------------------------ Date: 14 Mar 2007 14:33:47 -0700 From: "Ian Miller" Subject: Re: TELNET - session timeout parameter(s) Message-ID: <1173908027.201038.75850@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com> Newer versions of UCX had longer keepalive times so sometimes this has lead to certain firewalls terminating TCP links due to insufficent activity. Change the parameters so keepalive probes are sent more often. ------------------------------ End of INFO-VAX 2007.147 ************************