INFO-VAX Sun, 16 Sep 2007 Volume 2007 : Issue 506 Contents: Re: despair Re: despair Re: despair Re: despair Re: OT: SCO files for chapter 11 bnkrupcy protection Re: OT: SCO files for chapter 11 bnkrupcy protection problem in TCPIP configuration Re: problem in TCPIP configuration Re: problem in TCPIP configuration Re: TCP/IP Re: VMS as hypervisor ? Re: VMS as hypervisor ? Re: VMS as hypervisor ? Re: VMS as hypervisor ? Re: VMS as hypervisor ? Re: VMS as hypervisor ? Re: VMS as hypervisor ? RE: VMS as hypervisor ? Re: VMS as hypervisor ? Re: VMS as hypervisor ? Re: VMS as hypervisor ? Re: VMS as hypervisor ? Re: VMS as hypervisor ? Re: VMS as hypervisor ? Re: VMS as hypervisor ? Re: VMS as hypervisor ? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 16 Sep 2007 02:59:30 -0400 From: "Richard B. Gilbert" Subject: Re: despair Message-ID: <46ECD452.9070305@comcast.net> Ron Johnson wrote: > On 09/15/07 21:47, David P. Murphy wrote: > [snip] > >>Because it's simple decent programming. You allocate a resource, you >>deallocate it when you're done. You open a file, you close the file. >>You reserve an event flag, you free the event flag. You release the >>virtual memory you've grabbed when you're through with it. You don't >>*rely* on the operating system to do it for you via LOGINOUT.EXE. >>Why do I have to explain this to you? > > > I totally agree with you about the badness of slacker programming. > > However... why shouldn't I rely on LOGINOUT.EXE to deallocate my > tape drives or free my VM? (Note that I did not comment on your > other examples.) > Suppose your process hangs somewhere before it gets to LOGINOUT.EXE. Now it's sitting there, tying up resources needed by others. If you're lucky somebody can kill your process. If you are NOT so lucky, your process may require a "big red switch reset" and reboot. I believe that this situation is less common now than it used to be but I doubt if it has vanished completely. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 16 Sep 2007 05:39:20 -0700 From: AEF Subject: Re: despair Message-ID: <1189946360.260466.172930@n39g2000hsh.googlegroups.com> On Sep 15, 10:47 pm, "David P. Murphy" wrote: > On Sep 15, 10:39 am, AEF wrote: > > > Please tell me what error from the ALLOCATE command would screw things > > up and how. > > True, attempting to allocate an already-owned device results in a > warning. Clearly, instead of > $ ON ERROR THEN CONTINUE > the handler should state > $ ON WARNING THEN GOTO ABORT_THIS_JOB So why don't you ask why the ALLOCATE command only gives a W when it fails? > > What error from INIT would screw things up? My experience is that when > > INIT fails, it's an F error. > > Obviously, the message is > %SYSTEM-F-DEVMOUNT, device is already mounted > and, has been pointed out to you already, a severe error (-F-) will be > trapped by an ON ERROR handler. Obviously you've never worked with 4mm DAT drives! I've seen more interesting fatal errors, like "fatal controller error", e.g., due to the drive having gone bad. ON ERROR THEN CONTINUE is a rather odd command. Yes, I realized the code was bad. I even said so. But I could envision circumstances in which it would not cause a problem. If only the system manager loaded tapes, there'd be no problem. Yes, if I were to come across code like this I'd fix it if I had the time. But keep in mind that many IT shops are undermanned and many admins have to work with multiple OSes and are probably reasonably competent in only one or two of them. I was trying to come up with reasons for what looks to me like a quick and dirty fix. Maybe the person didn't have more time to spend on the code. Maybe this _was_ the best he could do. Maybe not. I just don't like it when people like you are so quick to blame someone without knowing all the facts. Maybe the author was a VMS novice. You can't expect someone to be an expert from day 1. > > Relax, dude! The world is not going to end because of this command > > procedure. > > I never said that. It's wrong, and your slacker attitude is exactly > why it's wrong. Who are you to _not_ do your best work? Hey, *I* didn't write that code snippet. I also clearly stated in my previous posts in this thread that I didn't recommend that style of code-writing. I just didn't see it as worth getting so upset over. I do not have a slacker attitude. Stop accusing me of things I am not guilty of. And how do you know it wasn't that person's best work? Maybe he was a VMS novice. Maybe he was a Unix admin who knew very little VMS. You're very quick to make assumptions. And you know the old joke about ASSUME, right? Are you really surprised that some people do shoddy work? There are people who commit crimes! Murder even!!! And you're surprised by an ON ERROR THEN CONTINUE in such a screwy way? :-) Is this the first time in your life that you've come across shoddy workmanship? Millions of people of suffered horribly and/or have been murdered because of evil people and this continues to this day. And to you this is apparently not a problem. But someone writes some crappy code that possibly overwrites a tape and/or fails to make a backup of stuff that may be of little importance and suddenly you lose faith in humanity! Please, have some perspective. > You clearly > have a decent grasp on this subject, yet you're trying to argue that > it makes a difference whether the tapes get changed daily. WHAT THE > HELL DOES THAT MATTER? I already answered this in a previous post. The difference is n-1 tapes, some of which may be offsite. I'd say that's a considerably better situation than if the same tape were in the drive all the time. Also, if the same tape were in the drive all the time, the problem you found in the log file wouldn't have happened!!! :-) No, it doesn't make the code any better, but I was curious, so I asked. Is that so terrible? > It's a command procedure and should be written > as best you can, in anticipation of things going wrong, because things > *will* go wrong. I'm not talking about wild, extremely unlikely acts. Lots of things "should be". Is this the first time you've come across something that wasn't as it "should be"? Have you never worked on a computer running Windows? You do what's appropriate for the job at hand. You don't spend millions of dollars to prevent problems that will cost only thousands. Everything we do is an economic decision. Is it worth an hour's sleep to run out to the store at bedtime and get eggs for breakfast? Is it worth taking the car to go only n blocks? Is it worth it to buy an extended warranty on this product I just bought (usually not!). Is it worth doing more on this code? At some point it won't be, but that depends what the purposes of the system, apps, etc., are. You don't build a nuclear containment dome for your washing machine. > I'm talking about "someone left the wrong tape in" or "someone else is > using the drive and in fact allocated it" or "someone else is the > operator now and is using the tape drive in a different manner than > when this command procedure was coded". I'm upset that someone could > have written this correctly but didn't, because there's no excuse. How do you know the person could have written it correctly? Using the tape drive in what different manner? You have a daily job and you change the tapes once a day. If the job is not unloading the tape at exit, that's a problem in and of itself. > I'm not going to relax. I'm going to educate, if the culprit is > willing to learn, or rant, if he is not. I've seen too much sloth > and ignorance over the years to be complacent about it. I didn't say be complacent. I said not to overreact. > >>> Maybe it was written by a BOFH! > >> Nah, the Bastard always knows exactly what he's doing. > > Sorry, I disagree or missed your point (about BOFH). > > Then you aren't very familiar with him. His competence is very high. Hmmmm. Two jobs ago I worked with an operator and he once screwed things up through incompetence and disobedience. His intent was noble: He thought that if he just did all the steps quickly enough the job we told him not to run that evening would finish by morning before the users needed the system. Of course the job ran a few hours over the following day's start time, and we just had to wait for it to complete before opening the system to the end users (who used the system to take orders for products over the phone). I guess that's not a BOFH, but that's what I was thinking of. (Normally this job would finish on time, but the DBA and I knew that this particular day -- for some reason I don't remember -- would without any doubt not finish anywhere near on time. We explained this to the evening operator that but he didn't listen.) > > I find it interesting that you get all upset over this code snippet > > yet you can't even tell me if the tape is changed daily! You appear to > > know nothing at all about this environment except this code snippet. > > I fail to see how that matters in regard to the quality of this code. > Nothing you can learn about the environment can justify that mistake. Because (in addition to what I've already said) *IN GENERAL* it makes sense not to greatly exceed the effort really needed for the job. Apparently you feel that this code is a catastrophe even if unused. OK. I'll accept that. Example: You don't use an egg carton to ship 12 screws. You don't put a bank-safe-quality combination lock and door on your bathroom -- a simple cheap doorknob lock and plain wooden door will suffice. My point was that you do what's appropriate for the situation. Are you playing stupid video games or running a nuclear power plant? I say that makes a difference. > > How did you come across this code in the first place? What is your > > role at this place that you have access to this code but still don't > > know if the tape is ever changed? > > Because I saw this in the logfile: > > %SYSTEM-W-DEVALLOC, device already allocated to another user Hmmm. Why does this only get a warning? Shouldn't it be fatal, or at least a regular error? Where's your outrage over this?! > followed by the inevitable > > %SYSTEM-F-DEVMOUNT, device is already mounted > > and immediately thereafter > > %BACKUP-F-POSITERR, error positioning $1$MUA400:[000000]DAILY.BCK; > -SYSTEM-F-SERIOUSEXCP, serious exception detected by TMSCP > controller AHA!!!!! Withholding evidence!!! Sloppy, sloppy, sloppy! And you complain about the code author!!! ... HAH! This is like when Tom and Ray on Car Talk are trying to diagnose a caller's car problems and after struggling for 5 minutes, the caller finally mentions, "Oh, by the way, the engine check light came on" or "It only does it when..." > I certainly hope you do not regard this as an acceptable outcome. Nope. > I certainly hope you agree that the INIT and BACKUP commands should > not have been executed at all. Yep. But why was someone else's tape in the drive during backup time? Maybe he deserves to have his tape overwritten! ;-) I certainly hope you agree that there shouldn't have been someone else's tape in the drive during backup time. > > At my current job no one but me loads tapes. No one but me uses DCL on > > the system. The tape drives are in the data center which is locked. > > Only people who need access to the room are allowed in. So a command > > procedure that would be okay at my site would not be okay at others. > > Well I think it's safe to say that my site is not as self-contained > as yours, because the "impossible" did in fact happen. Good luck to > you and your co-workers when it happens to you. I've been at my current job for 7 years and have been a VMS admin for 13 years and have not had any problems like this. I don't write code like this. I did inheret some code I wasn't happy with, and I fixed what I could with what time I had (what I could get authorized by management to do) and things have been okay. My primary problems (with my VMS systems and apps) at my current job have been with network hits and outages, and hardware failures. I do the best I can given the constraints I have to work under (I have a fair amount of non-VMS work to do, e.g.) I've had plenty of problems with my 4mm DAT drives, none of them due to bad code or bad users. I don't run code like your example and I don't write code like your example. You're clearly not reading my posts very carefully and now unfairly accuse me of wrongdoing. If I were in your position I'd fix the code. But if no one else put tapes in the drive, your error scenario wouldn't have happened. So you're there now, you've found a problem, so fix it and be done with it!!! > > For example, you complained that the code didn't have a DEALLOCATE > > command. Why is this a big problem? Could it not be, maybe, that no > > one else ever uses this tape drive, in which case the lack of a > > DEALLOCATE command is not a problem? > > Because it's simple decent programming. You allocate a resource, you > deallocate it when you're done. You open a file, you close the file. When I write code I do exactly these things. I this, I unthis. I that, I unthat. Again, maybe the author of your bad code snippet was a novice and simply didn't know better. > You reserve an event flag, you free the event flag. You release the > virtual memory you've grabbed when you're through with it. You don't > *rely* on the operating system to do it for you via LOGINOUT.EXE. > Why do I have to explain this to you? Because you didn't read my posts carefully in which I clearly said I don't recommend and don't write code like that. I think this is the 4th or 5th time I've had to mention this. Why do I have to explain this to you over and over again? Also, I follow the organized error and control-y handling method given in "Writing Real Programs In DCL" which includes clean-up, which I was actually drifting towards before I read the book. I do what's appropriate for the job at hand. I take all reasonable precautions. > Nothing personal, since I have no idea who you are, but I wouldn't > want you near any code I'm involved in, if you have such a slacker > attitude towards cleaning up. You either have good habits or you're > going to screw up . . . and from the number of posts I've seen from > you > arguing this point, I'm afraid it's the latter. And I wouldn't want to hire someone who jumps to conclusions like you do! I'm afraid you're mistaken. If you look at my other posts over the years or look at some of my code, you will see. Please stop accusing me of wrongdoing I am not guilty of. I'm not religious, but I do have a favorite "prayer": O Great Spirit, may I not criticize my neighbor until I have walked a mile in his moccasins. (Another version says "two weeks in his moccasins".) > ok > dpm AEF ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 16 Sep 2007 15:45:51 +0200 From: "P. Sture" Subject: Re: despair Message-ID: In article <1189821464.805918.183330@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com>, "David P. Murphy" wrote: > On Sep 14, 1:40 pm, AEF wrote: > > > So the author of this bad code was apparently only worried about show- > > stoppers. > > I beg to differ. Anytime you code > > $ ON ERROR THEN CONTINUE > > in front of a ALLOCATE command, that is just plain wrong. No debate. > Your arguments seem to hold water only as far as error trapping the > outcome of the BACKUP command, but this lies before the INITIALIZE > and ALLOCATE as well as the BACKUP. Guilty, guilty, guilty. > > > I'm not recommending this way of doing things; I'm just > > trying to explain what I think the motivating factors were. > > Of course incompetence and not-giving-a-s%%% are other possible > > reasons! > > I'm going with "stupidity" here. Truly, a little knowledge can be > a very dangerous thing. > > > Maybe it was written by a BOFH! > > Nah, the Bastard always knows exactly what he's doing. > I think the Bastard could think of a way to use it to his advantage though. :_) -- Paul Sture Sue's OpenVMS bookmarks: http://eisner.encompasserve.org/~sture/ovms-bookmarks.html ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 16 Sep 2007 09:50:08 -0700 From: Doug Phillips Subject: Re: despair Message-ID: <1189961408.660498.161920@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com> On Sep 14, 8:57 pm, "David P. Murphy" wrote: > On Sep 14, 1:40 pm, AEF wrote: > > > So the author of this bad code was apparently only worried about show- > > stoppers. > > I beg to differ. Anytime you code > > $ ON ERROR THEN CONTINUE > > in front of a ALLOCATE command, that is just plain wrong. No debate. > Your arguments seem to hold water only as far as error trapping the > outcome of the BACKUP command, but this lies before the INITIALIZE > and ALLOCATE as well as the BACKUP. Guilty, guilty, guilty. > > > I'm not recommending this way of doing things; I'm just > > trying to explain what I think the motivating factors were. > > Of course incompetence and not-giving-a-s%%% are other possible > > reasons! > > I'm going with "stupidity" here. Truly, a little knowledge can be > a very dangerous thing. > > > Maybe it was written by a BOFH! > > Nah, the Bastard always knows exactly what he's doing. > Reminds me of one of those quick & dirty little things done for testing or for "personal use", or like that program you threw together in 10 minutes for some little thing the Comptroller was "just curious about" -- everything hard-coded, no error checking, no fancy screen or anything -- just a one-shot deal -- you know, that dirty little bit of code you'd completely forgotten about and then years later you discover it's taken on some name like "projected cash-flow analysis" and it's being used to run the company and you get that lurch in the pit of your stomach? Or am I the only one something like that's ever happened to? ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 16 Sep 2007 16:06:13 +0200 From: "P. Sture" Subject: Re: OT: SCO files for chapter 11 bnkrupcy protection Message-ID: In article , JF Mezei wrote: > http://www.news.com/8301-13580_3-9778778-39.html > > SCO having lost its big lawsuit against Novell has decided to file for > chapter 11 bankrupcy protection before the judge decides on the > financial penalties. This way, SCO is protected from having to pay Novell. > > This is not unexpected and I guess a bit welcome since SCO really had no > business suing left and right. > The final paragraph at: "Thus, SCO has litigated itself into bankruptcy court, seeking protection under Chapter 11 from the probable outcomes it foresees from its own lawsuits." -- Paul Sture Sue's OpenVMS bookmarks: http://eisner.encompasserve.org/~sture/ovms-bookmarks.html ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 16 Sep 2007 15:12:00 GMT From: VAXman- @SendSpamHere.ORG Subject: Re: OT: SCO files for chapter 11 bnkrupcy protection Message-ID: <4JbHi.24$eJ3.5@newsfe12.lga> In article , "P. Sture" writes: > > >In article , > JF Mezei wrote: > >> http://www.news.com/8301-13580_3-9778778-39.html >> >> SCO having lost its big lawsuit against Novell has decided to file for >> chapter 11 bankrupcy protection before the judge decides on the >> financial penalties. This way, SCO is protected from having to pay Novell. >> >> This is not unexpected and I guess a bit welcome since SCO really had no >> business suing left and right. >> > >The final paragraph at: > > > >"Thus, SCO has litigated itself into bankruptcy court, seeking >protection under Chapter 11 from the probable outcomes it foresees from >its own lawsuits." It seems that only the sleaziest of organizations always want to litigate something regardless of the merits and the likelihood that they're likely to fail. What happens? They wind up proving to the public that they are the sleazy organizations that they are. When they can't make it on their own company merits, they litigate and try to blame all of their failures on some other -- usually innocent -- party. It sends chills of contempt up and down my spine! -- VAXman- A Bored Certified VMS Kernel Mode Hacker VAXman(at)TMESIS(dot)COM "Well my son, life is like a beanstalk, isn't it?" http://tmesis.com/drat.html ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 16 Sep 2007 10:58:45 +0000 (UTC) From: helbig@acavms.mc.man.ac.uk Subject: problem in TCPIP configuration Message-ID: Hi! Since my LINKSYS router seems to have stopped working, I had to set up another box for my DSL connection and as a result reconfigure TCPIP on the VMS side. I have done this servecerveral times over the years, when changing routers etc. There never was a problem like this. Now, it seems that evertything works except TCPIP SHOW HOST and other stuff which works the same internally, i.e. iI can't resolve internet addresses, which is a big problem. I've configured one name server which I'm sure works. Interestingly, NSLOOKUP works propelryrly using htthis same name sererver, but TCPIP SHOW HOST Ddoes not. Everything else wseems to work. I can ping all addresses I excppect to vebe able to reach, I can get out via telnet, I can get backin  using a numeric address as the remote system, accan telnet back in etc. However, with no DNS reolsiolution I hobviously have big problems. Any ideas_ Any ideas? Do to my lack of connectivity, please reply by email and I will post the winning solution. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 16 Sep 2007 11:19:12 +0000 (UTC) From: helbig@astro.multiCLOTHESvax.de (Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply) Subject: Re: problem in TCPIP configuration Message-ID: In article , helbig@acavms.mc.man.ac.uk writes: Just after I posted the article I'm replying to, TCPIP SHOW HOST started working, even though I didn't change anything, at least if I set the name server /PROCESS. (With it just set SYSTEM it doesn't work, even if a) it is the only one listed and b) TCPIP is completely restarted.) What could cause this delay? Otherwise, everything works as expected, i.e. I just set a new default route. Why I even have to change the nameservers at all I don't know. Since at the moment I'm not using a router which relays DNS requests (although I do have one, which I'm not using for other reasons), as was also the case with the LINKSYS router, I just queried the router to see which nameservers it had picked up via DHCP and used them to configure the nameservers under VMS. There's a long list which I haven't changed for months or years. The new router picked up two new name servers, but neither those nor any of the old ones worked from VMS, but another one did. (Maybe the others would if I did SET NAME/PROCESS, but I don't see why that should be necessary at all.) ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 16 Sep 2007 13:49:44 -0400 From: JF Mezei Subject: Re: problem in TCPIP configuration Message-ID: <93269$46ed6cb9$cef8887a$19605@TEKSAVVY.COM> Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply wrote: > Just after I posted the article I'm replying to, TCPIP SHOW HOST started > working, even though I didn't change anything, at least if I set the > name server /PROCESS. (With it just set SYSTEM it doesn't work, even if > a) it is the only one listed and b) TCPIP is completely restarted.) > What could cause this delay? You need to provide more details: Does your VMS host have its onw DNS server, or is it just a client ? If it runs its own server, then the changes needs to be in the TCPIP$BIND.CONF file (forwarding stuff). Changing this file then requires you TCPIP> SET NAME/INITIALIZE to get the bind server to reload its config. If you are using DHCP and hope that your NAT router will be able to update the VMS client config, then good luck (remember that the VMS system won't up-date the DHCP config until the lease needs to be renewed, so you would need to force a DHCP renewall for there to be any hope of VMS updating its config (and then hope the VMS side of DHCP actually works). If you have a fixed config (SET NAME /SERVER= ) remember that you may need to restart some/all applications that use TCPIP so that they get the new definitions. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 16 Sep 2007 08:53:47 +0000 (UTC) From: david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk Subject: Re: TCP/IP Message-ID: In article <1189876495.381295.58470@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, "johnhreinhardt@yahoo.com" writes: >On Sep 15, 9:20 am, dgsof...@gmail.com (David Goodwin) wrote: >> In a few days I will finally get my hands on a machine to learn >> OpenVMS on (an AlphaServer 1200). Before then I must figure out what >> TCP/IP stack to use. I know almost nothing about any of them and dont >> know very much about how to use OpenVMS in general. >> >> Multinet and TCPware seem to be made by the same company and their >> website pages seem almost identical. I assume there must be some major >> difference between them - I dont see any reason why one company would >> make two seemingly identical products for the same platform. >> >> Could anyone tell me which TCP/IP stack I want to use and what are the >> major differences between them? > >If you're new to OpenVMS then just install the HP stack that comes on >the distribution media. You didn't say what version of OpenVMS you >have, but any recent (V7.3.-2 and later) version is adequate for home >and learning use. If you have the latest versions (OpenVMS V8.3 and >TCP/IP V5.6) then you have a very good combination. > >All three TCP/IP stacks will do the job and are overall pretty equal >in features and performance. Each also has advantages in different >areas. The HP stack has the advantage of being the vendor supported >one. Installation is easy and the setup is fairly painless for >typical usage - especially for use on an internal network in a general >server role. Once you get a little more advanced and if you want to >put your system onto the internet then you might consider one of the >two offerings from Process. Both TCPWare and Multinet seem to have >features which lend themselves to internet use particularly in dealing >with SMTP mail processing and VPN options. I'm not an expert on >either, unfortunately, so hopefully their various proponents will >chime in also. > The other main advantage of TCPWARE and Multinet is that the latest versions are supported on older versions of VMS (VMS 5.5-2 and later) whereas the latest version of DEC TCPIP Services (UCX) is only supported on fairly recent VMS releases (eg DEC TCPIP Services v5.6 requires VMS 8.2 or later). For SMTP Mail if you are running a hobbyist system then get PMDF from Process. This is a full function MTA which also provides extra features such as a VMS Mail clone which properly handles sending and reading Mime messages. Like the TCPIP stacks this is free to hobbyists. ( If you are going to be receiving mail on this system then you might also be interested in PMAS - Precisemail AntiSpam - which is also free from Process to hobbyists. ) David Webb Security team leader CCSS Middlesex University >Hope this helps. > > John H. Reinhardt > ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 16 Sep 2007 02:50:51 -0400 From: "Richard B. Gilbert" Subject: Re: VMS as hypervisor ? Message-ID: <46ECD24B.7080604@comcast.net> Lee K. Gleason wrote: > "JF Mezei" wrote in message > news:dd217$46ec7b84$cef8887a$24782@TEKSAVVY.COM... > >>OK, So HP has made HP-UX capable of hosting multiple OS instances. >>(glorifided VM from IBM). >> > > > This while virtualization movement is a bit of a puzzle to me. When I > question it, the PC types at work tell me it's great, since you can run lots > of different things on the same machine, and can buy fewer servers. Since > VMS already has a decent scheduler and excellent inter-process memory > protection and resource allocation, I'm always left wondering, why couldn't > they just use an operating system that can allow you to "run lots of > different things on the same machine", each in their own process? That way > you don't have to drag the overhead of a whole copy of Windows along with > each separate thing you want to do. As they try to explain, I often feel > like President Not Sure, listening to his cabinet tell him about the > electrolytes in Brawndo (if you;'ve seen Idiocracy...). > -- > > The whole virtualization movement is about the fact that Windows is not very good at protecting applications from each other! Virtual servers compensate for Windows' shortcomings by providing the necessary isolation. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 16 Sep 2007 11:02:22 +0200 From: Michael Kraemer Subject: Re: VMS as hypervisor ? Message-ID: Richard B. Gilbert schrieb: > The whole virtualization movement is about the fact that Windows is not > very good at protecting applications from each other! Virtual servers > compensate for Windows' shortcomings by providing the necessary isolation. This virtualization stuff is hip on Unix too, where it puzzles me even more. Unix supports multiple services on the same box for decades now, so isolation shouldn't be an issue. Virtualization just makes things more complicated. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 16 Sep 2007 09:24:56 +0000 (UTC) From: Roar =?iso-8859-1?Q?Thron=E6s?= Subject: Re: VMS as hypervisor ? Message-ID: JF Mezei wrote: : OK, So HP has made HP-UX capable of hosting multiple OS instances. : (glorifided VM from IBM). : Out of curiosity, would VMS be well suited for such a task ? What are : the traits of a good OS to become a hypervisor ? And also begin Open Source. Then it would be possible for someone to add hypervisor functionality. (Since Open Source among other things facilitates creativity and innovation, because otherwise you would have to build a hypervisor kernel from scratch.) But it is pretty clear that the VMS people is not into Open Source thinking, and must then accept declining HP support. -- -Roar Thronęs ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 16 Sep 2007 07:27:30 -0500 From: Ron Johnson Subject: Re: VMS as hypervisor ? Message-ID: On 09/16/07 06:04, Larry Kilgallen wrote: > In article , Ron Johnson writes: >> On 09/15/07 22:06, Lee K. Gleason wrote: > >>> This while virtualization movement is a bit of a puzzle to me. When I >>> question it, the PC types at work tell me it's great, since you can run lots >>> of different things on the same machine, and can buy fewer servers. Since >>> VMS already has a decent scheduler and excellent inter-process memory >>> protection and resource allocation, I'm always left wondering, why couldn't >>> they just use an operating system that can allow you to "run lots of >>> different things on the same machine", each in their own process? That way > >> In the Linux world, the only answers I can think of are: > >> (b) Upgrading one app might require an upgrade to, for example, >> libc. That would entail certifying all of the (possibly many >> apps on the box. With VMs, only that one VM would need libc6 >> upgraded and so only that single app would need to be certified. > > That applies for VMS as well, if you need two different versions of > VMS and prefer to have only one hardware box. Old box or "new" box that can partition itself into multiple nodes? -- Ron Johnson, Jr. Jefferson LA USA Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day. Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good! ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 16 Sep 2007 07:29:46 -0500 From: Ron Johnson Subject: Re: VMS as hypervisor ? Message-ID: <_k9Hi.3303$OD5.305@newsfe22.lga> On 09/16/07 04:02, Michael Kraemer wrote: > Richard B. Gilbert schrieb: > >> The whole virtualization movement is about the fact that Windows is >> not very good at protecting applications from each other! Virtual >> servers compensate for Windows' shortcomings by providing the >> necessary isolation. > > This virtualization stuff is hip on Unix too, where it puzzles me even > more. > Unix supports multiple services on the same box for decades now, > so isolation shouldn't be an issue. > Virtualization just makes things more complicated. IMNSHO, it's hip because everyone under age 40 has grown up in a Windows-means-computing-and-Windows-is-fragile-so-all-computing-must- be-fragile world, and so that is their mindset. -- Ron Johnson, Jr. Jefferson LA USA Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day. Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good! ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 16 Sep 2007 13:56:16 GMT From: VAXman- @SendSpamHere.ORG Subject: Re: VMS as hypervisor ? Message-ID: <4CaHi.88$Rx2.67@newsfe12.lga> In article <_k9Hi.3303$OD5.305@newsfe22.lga>, Ron Johnson writes: > > >On 09/16/07 04:02, Michael Kraemer wrote: >> Richard B. Gilbert schrieb: >> >>> The whole virtualization movement is about the fact that Windows is >>> not very good at protecting applications from each other! Virtual >>> servers compensate for Windows' shortcomings by providing the >>> necessary isolation. >> >> This virtualization stuff is hip on Unix too, where it puzzles me even >> more. >> Unix supports multiple services on the same box for decades now, >> so isolation shouldn't be an issue. >> Virtualization just makes things more complicated. > >IMNSHO, it's hip because everyone under age 40 has grown up in a >Windows-means-computing-and-Windows-is-fragile-so-all-computing-must- >be-fragile world, and so that is their mindset. Micro$oft, IMHO, has done more to malign the opinions held by the vast majority about the computer and software industry than it has done to make it better. I try to tell people that it doesn't have to be this way and that, in general, outside of Micro$oft, it is not. However, since they know nothing else it is like trying to explain the color orange to a blind from birth individual. -- VAXman- A Bored Certified VMS Kernel Mode Hacker VAXman(at)TMESIS(dot)COM "Well my son, life is like a beanstalk, isn't it?" http://tmesis.com/drat.html ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 16 Sep 2007 14:10:16 GMT From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jan-Erik_S=F6derholm?= Subject: Re: VMS as hypervisor ? Message-ID: VAXman- @SendSpamHere.ORG wrote: > In article <_k9Hi.3303$OD5.305@newsfe22.lga>, Ron Johnson writes: >> >> On 09/16/07 04:02, Michael Kraemer wrote: >>> Richard B. Gilbert schrieb: >>> >>>> The whole virtualization movement is about the fact that Windows is >>>> not very good at protecting applications from each other! Virtual >>>> servers compensate for Windows' shortcomings by providing the >>>> necessary isolation. >>> This virtualization stuff is hip on Unix too, where it puzzles me even >>> more. >>> Unix supports multiple services on the same box for decades now, >>> so isolation shouldn't be an issue. >>> Virtualization just makes things more complicated. >> IMNSHO, it's hip because everyone under age 40 has grown up in a >> Windows-means-computing-and-Windows-is-fragile-so-all-computing-must- >> be-fragile world, and so that is their mindset. > > Micro$oft, IMHO, has done more to malign the opinions held by the vast > majority about the computer and software industry than it has done to > make it better. > > I try to tell people that it doesn't have to be this way and that, in > general, outside of Micro$oft, it is not. However, since they know > nothing else it is like trying to explain the color orange to a blind > from birth individual. > As someone said to another guy who said that "blue" didn't have any meaning to him since he was color-blind, "You know, just like a pair of jeans...". Jan-Erik. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 16 Sep 2007 14:41:14 +0000 From: "Main, Kerry" Subject: RE: VMS as hypervisor ? Message-ID: > -----Original Message----- > From: Lee K. Gleason [mailto:lee.gleason@comcast.net] > Sent: September 15, 2007 11:07 PM > To: Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Com > Subject: Re: VMS as hypervisor ? > > > "JF Mezei" wrote in message > news:dd217$46ec7b84$cef8887a$24782@TEKSAVVY.COM... > > OK, So HP has made HP-UX capable of hosting multiple OS instances. > > (glorifided VM from IBM). > > > > Out of curiosity, would VMS be well suited for such a task ? What are > > the traits of a good OS to become a hypervisor ? > > > > In the case of IO, is it correct to state that VMS , as a hypervisor, > > would not actually be performing IO on bealf of the instances it > hosts > > and that the later would have direct access to their disk drives ? > > > > Does HP-UX have advantages over VMS in terms of process switching, > > priority and general multi-tasking, or is VMS up to par on that > aspect ? > > This while virtualization movement is a bit of a puzzle to me. When I > question it, the PC types at work tell me it's great, since you can run > lots > of different things on the same machine, and can buy fewer servers. > Since > VMS already has a decent scheduler and excellent inter-process memory > protection and resource allocation, I'm always left wondering, why > couldn't > they just use an operating system that can allow you to "run lots of > different things on the same machine", each in their own process? That > way > you don't have to drag the overhead of a whole copy of Windows along > with > each separate thing you want to do. As they try to explain, I often > feel > like President Not Sure, listening to his cabinet tell him about the > electrolytes in Brawndo (if you;'ve seen Idiocracy...). > -- > Lee, The current fascination with OS instance virtualization (as opposed to App = stacking virtualization) in the Windows and Linux world is partially in response to = the business screaming at IT to reduce IT related costs as well as the reality of escala= ting DC power and space issues. It is also related to the "one bus app, one OS" culture that has become par= t of the Linux and Windows culture. While this model worked very well when the industry wa= s caught up in the distributed computing model, distributed computing strategies are no= w the new dinosaurs of current IT strategies. Server and DC consolidation programs are white hot right now as companies s= truggle to get their IT costs back under control. Good news - OS instance Virtualization (Zen, VMware etc) does save $'s asso= ciated with reduced HW Maint costs as well as alleviate some DC space, cooling type iss= ues. It also partially addresses the internal politics and culture issues as you can sti= ll maintain separate OS instances for each bus App. Bad news - OS virtualization does very little to reduce the FTE staffing re= quirements which is typically 60-70% of most IT budgets today. It may actually increas= e the OS work as you now also have to maintain the hypervisor OS's as well (manage, patch= , monitor etc). Yes, tools help, but maintaining 10 Windows VM's is only marginally easier = to maintain than 10 separate servers from an OS FTE support perspective. The 800 lb gorilla remains the work required to patch, upgrade, monitor, ba= ckup, manage and license each OS instance. Ask any outsourcer for a quote on 10 VM's on= a single server vs 10 physical servers and the quote for the VM's wil be approx 90% = of the 10 physical servers (keeping in mind they will likely drop the quote to 80% to= get your business). Hence, while the current hype is all about saving HW/DC related costs, this= is very much only a small stepping stone on the road to addressing the concerns of the b= usiness about high IT costs. Once the OS instance virtualization work is completed, IT ma= nagement will be forced to look at the 60-70% of their IT budget that has not yet been to= uched by all of the OS virtualization work completed. And the business will be on their = backs to drastically reduce IT costs even more. That is when the Windows/Linux culture issues associated with sharing App's= from different groups on the same OS instance will really hit the fan. Many of the Windows= /Linux ISV's will be impacted, because a number of them still required dedicated HW or a= t least a dedicated OS instance to get support from them. 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: Sun, 16 Sep 2007 10:18:40 -0500 From: Ron Johnson Subject: Re: VMS as hypervisor ? Message-ID: On 09/16/07 08:56, VAXman- @SendSpamHere.ORG wrote: > In article , Ron Johnson writes: [snip] >> IMNSHO, it's hip because everyone under age 40 has grown up in a >> Windows-means-computing-and-Windows-is-fragile-so-all-computing-must- >> be-fragile world, and so that is their mindset. > > Micro$oft, IMHO, has done more to malign the opinions held by the vast > majority about the computer and software industry than it has done to > make it better. > > I try to tell people that it doesn't have to be this way and that, in > general, outside of Micro$oft, it is not. However, since they know > nothing else it is like trying to explain the color orange to a blind > from birth individual. Big ACK. -- Ron Johnson, Jr. Jefferson LA USA Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day. Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good! ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 16 Sep 2007 11:56:34 -0400 From: "Richard B. Gilbert" Subject: Re: VMS as hypervisor ? Message-ID: <46ED5232.7020906@comcast.net> Michael Kraemer wrote: > Richard B. Gilbert schrieb: > >> The whole virtualization movement is about the fact that Windows is >> not very good at protecting applications from each other! Virtual >> servers compensate for Windows' shortcomings by providing the >> necessary isolation. > > > This virtualization stuff is hip on Unix too, where it puzzles me even > more. > Unix supports multiple services on the same box for decades now, > so isolation shouldn't be an issue. > Virtualization just makes things more complicated. > Like you, I can't imagine why anyone would want it. But in the days when I was being paid to do this stuff, my needs were minimal. Everyone was running a typesetting application and, other than reading their mail, that's all my users did. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 16 Sep 2007 12:04:31 -0400 From: "Richard B. Gilbert" Subject: Re: VMS as hypervisor ? Message-ID: <46ED540F.3040006@comcast.net> Larry Kilgallen wrote: > In article , Ron Johnson writes: > >>On 09/15/07 22:06, Lee K. Gleason wrote: > > >>> This while virtualization movement is a bit of a puzzle to me. When I >>>question it, the PC types at work tell me it's great, since you can run lots >>>of different things on the same machine, and can buy fewer servers. Since >>>VMS already has a decent scheduler and excellent inter-process memory >>>protection and resource allocation, I'm always left wondering, why couldn't >>>they just use an operating system that can allow you to "run lots of >>>different things on the same machine", each in their own process? That way >> > >>In the Linux world, the only answers I can think of are: > > >>(b) Upgrading one app might require an upgrade to, for example, >> libc. That would entail certifying all of the (possibly many >> apps on the box. With VMs, only that one VM would need libc6 >> upgraded and so only that single app would need to be certified. > > > That applies for VMS as well, if you need two different versions of > VMS and prefer to have only one hardware box. When did this happen? It used to be that images linked on a VAX ca. 1978/79 would run without problems on any later version. Now if you have third party software, the vendor might not it support it on all versions of VMS but it should still WORK on the version it was built on and all later versions unless someone is doing something very strange. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 16 Sep 2007 11:17:25 -0500 From: Ron Johnson Subject: Re: VMS as hypervisor ? Message-ID: On 09/16/07 11:04, Richard B. Gilbert wrote: [snip] > > When did this happen? It used to be that images linked on a VAX ca. > 1978/79 would run without problems on any later version. > > Now if you have third party software, the vendor might not it support it > on all versions of VMS but it should still WORK on the version it was > built on and all later versions unless someone is doing something very > strange. For about the past 6-8 years, Rdb has specified, for each release, a minimum and maximum VMS version and a minimum Alpha CPU type. Something about loop timings, etc. http://www.oracle.com/technology/products/rdb/htdocs/rdb7/rdb_pmatrix_rdb.html Obviously, though, Rdb isn't your typical application. -- Ron Johnson, Jr. Jefferson LA USA Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day. Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good! ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 16 Sep 2007 13:37:00 -0400 From: JF Mezei Subject: Re: VMS as hypervisor ? Message-ID: <2e3b0$46ed69bc$cef8887a$18483@TEKSAVVY.COM> I think Ron Johnson wrote: >> This while virtualization movement is a bit of a puzzle to me. When I >> question it, the PC types at work tell me it's great, since you can run lots >> of different things on the same machine, and can buy fewer servers. Consider licencing for VMS. Say your system has 16 cores. Depending on licensing you may have to pay for sofwtare based on 16 cores. But if you could create a virtual instance of VMS (running on VMS !), that instance might have just one core defined and hence you would only need to buy software for 1 core. But still my question stands. As an operating system, is VMS well suited to host multiple operating systems (devices, processes, priotities etc), and would it have any advantage over Unix such as Linux or HP-UX ? (lets assume VMS ran on the 8086 and could therefore host Windows and Linux instances as well as VMS). ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 16 Sep 2007 13:41:09 -0400 From: JF Mezei Subject: Re: VMS as hypervisor ? Message-ID: <32979$46ed6ab4$cef8887a$18483@TEKSAVVY.COM> Michael Kraemer wrote: > This virtualization stuff is hip on Unix too, where it puzzles me even more. > Unix supports multiple services on the same box for decades now, > so isolation shouldn't be an issue. > Virtualization just makes things more complicated. Same could be said of VMS Galaxies on wildfire class machines. If your scale your hardware to be large enough, it isn't a given that an single instance of an OS can make best use of all the resources/CPUs, but multiple instances might. Multiple instances also allow you to "play" with one instance, while the production instance runs smoothly. More importantly, you can run multiple different OS (Linux and Windows on the 8086 for instance) on the same machine. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 16 Sep 2007 17:50:58 GMT From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jan-Erik_S=F6derholm?= Subject: Re: VMS as hypervisor ? Message-ID: <62eHi.8906$ZA.4624@newsb.telia.net> Ron Johnson wrote: > On 09/16/07 11:04, Richard B. Gilbert wrote: > [snip] >> When did this happen? It used to be that images linked on a VAX ca. >> 1978/79 would run without problems on any later version. >> >> Now if you have third party software, the vendor might not it support it >> on all versions of VMS but it should still WORK on the version it was >> built on and all later versions unless someone is doing something very >> strange. > > For about the past 6-8 years, Rdb has specified, for each release, a > minimum and maximum VMS version and a minimum Alpha CPU type. > Something about loop timings, etc. But at the same time, you have two "versions" of each release, one for older Alphas and one for EV56 (I think) or newer Alphas. (Besides of the IA64 version, of course.) Seems reasonable for a software like Rdb, where you realy want to squize every CPU cycle out of the available hardware. Jan-Erik. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 16 Sep 2007 13:55:29 -0400 From: JF Mezei Subject: Re: VMS as hypervisor ? Message-ID: <315a6$46ed6e12$cef8887a$19605@TEKSAVVY.COM> Richard B. Gilbert wrote: > Now if you have third party software, the vendor might not it support it > on all versions of VMS but it should still WORK on the version it was > built on and all later versions unless someone is doing something very > strange. There are many types of applications (think heavy duty financial stuff) which a bank will absolutely not run an on unsupported platform. They need 100% support from the vendor and no reason for any excuses for the vendor not to provide a fix to a problem within 10 minutes of the app going down. ------------------------------ End of INFO-VAX 2007.506 ************************