INFO-VAX Fri, 20 Jun 2008 Volume 2008 : Issue 342 Contents: Re: Configuring an MSL fibre NSR via serial port Re: GNV and directories Re: How things change for VMS Re: LMF and abandonned products Re: LMF and abandonned products Re: Possible SMTP Missing postmaster bounce messages Re: Python for VMS Re: Very cool Ethernet speedup on OpenVMS Re: Very cool Ethernet speedup on OpenVMS Re: Very cool Ethernet speedup on OpenVMS Re: Very cool Ethernet speedup on OpenVMS Re: Very cool Ethernet speedup on OpenVMS ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2008 17:52:32 -0600 From: Jim Mehlhop Subject: Re: Configuring an MSL fibre NSR via serial port Message-ID: <485AF140.8000209@this.parsec.com> David Turner, Island Computers wrote: > It would be cheaper to just buy the cable ! > > David > Works for me!! ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2008 21:30:01 -0500 From: "Craig A. Berry" Subject: Re: GNV and directories Message-ID: JKB wrote: > Le 18-06-2008, à propos de > Re: GNV and directories, > Joseph Huber écrivait dans comp.os.vms : > >>JKB wrote: >> >>>Le 18-06-2008, à propos de >>>Re: GNV and directories, >>> Ken Robinson écrivait dans comp.os.vms : >>> >>>>On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 10:11 AM, JKB wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hello, >>>>> >>>>> I'm trying to build postgresql on OpenVMS APX 8.3. I have installed >>>>> GNV, untared postgresql-8.3.3.tar. >>>>> >>>>>$ dir >>>>> >>>>>Directory DISK$USERS:[BERTRAND.POSTGRESQL] >>>>> >>>>>backend.DIR;1 postgresql-8^.3^.3.DIR;1 >>>>>postgresql-8^.3^.3.tar;1 src.DIR;1 >>>>> >>>>>Total of 4 files. >>>>>$ >>>>> >>>>> How can I change directory to postgresql-8^.3^.3.DIR;1 ? >>>>> I have tried without success : >>>>> >>>>>set def [.postgresql-8^.3^.3] >>>>>%DCL-W-DIRECT, invalid directory syntax - check brackets and otherdelimiters >>>>>\[.POSTGRESQL-8\ >>>> >>>>Make sure your process's "Parse Style" is set to extended: >>>> >>>>$ show process/parse >>>> >>>>$ set process/parse=extended >>> >>> OK, with set process/parse=extended, I can change directory with set >>> default, but I cannot change directory with cd (GNV). >>> >>> Regards, >>> >>> JKB >>> >> >>I can't verify it just now, but I think for bash You need the U*x syntax: >> cd postgresql-8.3.3 >>ls under bash should show it without the "^" escapes. >> >>Eventually check some of the DECC$* logicals: >>DECC$EFS_CASE_SPECIAL = "ENABLE" ? >>DECC$FILENAME_UNIX_REPORT = "ENABLE" ? >> >>I think in general DECC$UNIX_LEVEL should be 20. DECC$UNIX_LEVEL will probably get you this implicitly, but the one you need and that no one has mentioned yet is DECC$EFS_CHARSET -- enable that and then "cd postgresql-8.3.3" just as you would on any unix-like system. IMO the bash that ships with GNV should enable the features it needs in a LIB$INITIALIZE section so that you don't have to sort out all the esoteric settings of the CRTL just to change directories under bash. ------------------------------ Date: 20 Jun 2008 00:41:52 GMT From: billg999@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) Subject: Re: How things change for VMS Message-ID: <6c0cmgF3edbf1U1@mid.individual.net> In article , Michael Kraemer writes: > John Smith schrieb: >> I was looking for a citation on-line for a computer crime case which occured >> in the late 1970's (I think) and stumbled upon this site >> http://www.phrack.org/issues.html?issue=6&id=12 >> >> and a short way into the web page there is a section entitled >> >> CONNECTED NODES AS OF 10/05/88 >> TOTAL NODES = 2491 >> which lists all the known connected nodes on the internet as of that date >> and the operating system running on each node. >> > > Are you sure these are "internet" (i.e. TCP/IP) nodes ? > I recognize some of my organization's nodes of that time, > but I'm pretty sure that neither the IBM nor the DEC boxes > had "internet" access at that time. > The names look more like Bitnet/Earn nodes. It's BITNET. I found both of our old nodes listed. VMS was a major player in BITNET, as was IBM. I have often wished I could get a copy of the source for the old BITNET software. It would make a nice addition to the museum I still hope to set up someday. :-) bill -- Bill Gunshannon | de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n. Three wolves billg999@cs.scranton.edu | and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. University of Scranton | Scranton, Pennsylvania | #include ------------------------------ Date: 20 Jun 2008 01:00:33 GMT From: billg999@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) Subject: Re: LMF and abandonned products Message-ID: <6c0dphF3edbf1U2@mid.individual.net> In article <485a2a17$0$7219$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com>, JF Mezei writes: > OK, this is a very grey area, I know. > > Say you have an old Digital product which has been abandonned, and for > which new licences can't seem to be obtainable (and are not included in > the hobbyist package). > > Technically speaking, how difficult would it be to either produce a fake > licence that works, or patch the vax image of the product to not require > a licence (or perhaps check licence of another product which you have) ? It would be illegal and I would hope there is no one here stupid enough to tell how to do it in a public forum. There is no such thing as "abandoned" software. It still belongs to someone and they are not required to provide licenses for continued use if they choose not to. > > Also, if one VESts (or whatever name it has this week) a DEC VAX product > to Alpha. Will the VAX licence function on the Alpha for that product ? > (it is a product that never existed on alpha so no alpha licences would > have ever been generated). > > Or is the best approach to go to VMS management and request that they > issue a generic licence that would be posted on the freeware site ? > (like they did for Notes). > > For some products, notably the PSPINT utility (postscript to sixel), I > suspect VMS management would not be able to do this because this product > came with lots of parts belonging to Adobe). > > > Reason I bring this up was a recent request for VAX DOCUMENT. This is a > tough issue because it is supp0sedly not onwed by VMS anymore, but the > company that supposedly owns it has long ago retired it or whatever. retired != abandoned If the owner of the product does not want you to continue using it that is their right. The product is not abandoned because they aren't willing to meet your demands. Damn, this is starting to look like the PDP-11 newsgroups. bill -- Bill Gunshannon | de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n. Three wolves billg999@cs.scranton.edu | and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. University of Scranton | Scranton, Pennsylvania | #include ------------------------------ Date: 20 Jun 2008 01:02:41 GMT From: billg999@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) Subject: Re: LMF and abandonned products Message-ID: <6c0dthF3edbf1U3@mid.individual.net> In article <485a34c7$0$7335$607ed4bc@cv.net>, VAXman- @SendSpamHere.ORG writes: > In article <485a2a17$0$7219$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com>, JF Mezei writes: >>OK, this is a very grey area, I know. >> >>Say you have an old Digital product which has been abandonned, and for >>which new licences can't seem to be obtainable (and are not included in >>the hobbyist package). >> >>Technically speaking, how difficult would it be to either produce a fake >>licence that works, or patch the vax image of the product to not require >>a licence (or perhaps check licence of another product which you have) ? > > Technically, it's a piece of cake. Feigned PAKs can easily be generated. > Product's image(s) can be easily hacked/patched. One could even rewrite > the SYS$GRANT_LICENSE service to allow it. > > Legally, it can be a pandora's box. No pandora's box. It is flat out illegal. Just like faking licenses for VMS or Windows or MS Office. bill -- Bill Gunshannon | de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n. Three wolves billg999@cs.scranton.edu | and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. University of Scranton | Scranton, Pennsylvania | #include ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2008 00:56:27 -0400 From: "Richard B. Gilbert" Subject: Re: Possible SMTP Missing postmaster bounce messages Message-ID: AEF wrote: > On Jun 17, 3:31 pm, "Richard B. Gilbert" > wrote: >> JF Mezei wrote: >>> Alpha 8.3, TCPIP Services 5.6 >>> send to: >>> val...@domain.tld, >>> inval...@domain.tld, >>> val...@domain.tld, >>> inval...@domain.tld >>> VMS makes one TCPIP connection to the domain.tld mail server (as it >>> should). It notes that invalid1 and invalid2 are rejected, but proceeds >>> nevertheless with the other two and the message is sent and accepted. >>> VMS logs show valid1 and valid2 as sent, and invalid12 and invalid2 as >>> having failed and being requeued. >>> They are not requeued, and no postmaster message is issued to advise >>> that invalid1 and invalid2 have not been delivered. >>> I realise that VMS engineers no longer look at this newgroup, so this >>> won't get fixed, but at least, users here will know of this potential >>> problem. >> SOME of the VMS Engineers still read this newsgroup. More might if we >> were a little better about staying on topic. Asking them to wade >> through the drivel on "global warming", quantum mechanics, etc, is a >> little too much to ask. Reading sixty to a hundred messages per day can >> consume a significant amount of time!! >> >> I'm not going to hold my breath. . . ! > > Richard, > > Is this your post about hospital care? > > http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.vms/msg/696cc0cf61337392?dmode=source > > AEF Yes. Why? ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2008 21:19:16 -0500 From: "Craig A. Berry" Subject: Re: Python for VMS Message-ID: <4qSdnTwaPcU5jsbVnZ2dnUVZ_hWdnZ2d@speakeasy.net> Jean-François Piéronne wrote: > R.A.Omond wrote: > [snip] > >> >> I second this; it's very easy to setup. There's no VAX >> version that I am aware of (possibly because of lack of >> IEEE floating-point ?). I've got it setup using logical > > > [snip] > > That's correct, Python need IEEE floating-point, 64 bits integer support > ('long long int' C type) and ODS-5. If you are looking for a scripting language that does run just about anywhere, current versions of Perl run on VAX as well as Alpha and Itanium, and though IEEE floating point and ODS-5 disks are now preferred, they are not required. It made a lot of sense for JFP to start with 7.3-2 as a requirement when porting Python, but the Perl port has simply been around a lot longer and so far it's been only moderately painful to keep support for older systems in there. That will almost certainly change at some point in the not too distant future. N.B. It took me about three days to build Perl 5.10.0 from source on OpenVMS VAX v7.3 under SIMH on a dual 2.0 GHz Power Mac G5. ------------------------------ Date: 19 Jun 2008 14:02:53 -0400 From: brooks@cuebid.zko.hp.nospam (Rob Brooks) Subject: Re: Very cool Ethernet speedup on OpenVMS Message-ID: ewilts writes: > I disagree and if you read the NetBackup mailing list, you'll see > regular reports of people who also disagree with you. The rule of > thumb I follow is: > For 100mbps, FORCE the speed AND the duplex on BOTH ends of the > connection > For GigE, autonegotiate > > It hasn't failed me, and I've seen a LOT of issues with autonegotation > on 100Mbps ports failing to negotiate the duplex. It seems to work, > but performance really, really sucks. > > There is NO disadvantage to forcing speed and duplex at 100Mbps. > There are potential disadvantages to autonegotiating. Why take a > chance? Standard refrain from the guy who writes the ethernet drivers for VMS is (assuming a modern switch, modern NIC and modern version of VMS) is to set both switch and console to autonegotiate. In the above context, V7.3-2 and newer is considerd "modern". It may (likely?) work for older versions than that, but certainly V7.3-2 has newest "bits". He does a great job of keeping everything in sync, so if he makes a change to (say, V8.3), he'll drop those changes into the V7.3-2 code base for a future patch kit. If it doesn't work, let us know, because he's spent a staggering amount of time to make sure that VMS handles this correctly 100% of the time. For speeds at 1GB and above, you have no choice -- you must allow autonegotiation. -- Rob Brooks MSL -- Nashua brooks!cuebid.zko.hp.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2008 14:44:10 -0500 From: Chris Scheers Subject: Re: Very cool Ethernet speedup on OpenVMS Message-ID: Rob Brooks wrote: > ewilts writes: >> I disagree and if you read the NetBackup mailing list, you'll see >> regular reports of people who also disagree with you. The rule of >> thumb I follow is: >> For 100mbps, FORCE the speed AND the duplex on BOTH ends of the >> connection >> For GigE, autonegotiate >> >> It hasn't failed me, and I've seen a LOT of issues with autonegotation >> on 100Mbps ports failing to negotiate the duplex. It seems to work, >> but performance really, really sucks. >> >> There is NO disadvantage to forcing speed and duplex at 100Mbps. >> There are potential disadvantages to autonegotiating. Why take a >> chance? > > Standard refrain from the guy who writes the ethernet drivers for VMS is > (assuming a modern switch, modern NIC and modern version of VMS) is to > set both switch and console to autonegotiate. In the above context, > V7.3-2 and newer is considerd "modern". It may (likely?) work for older > versions than that, but certainly V7.3-2 has newest "bits". He does a great > job of keeping everything in sync, so if he makes a change to (say, V8.3), > he'll drop those changes into the V7.3-2 code base for a future patch kit. > > If it doesn't work, let us know, because he's spent a staggering amount of > time to make sure that VMS handles this correctly 100% of the time. > > For speeds at 1GB and above, you have no choice -- you must allow > autonegotiation. FWIW: At the porting symposium a while back, I brought in a VAXstation VLC (10mb/half) with VMS 5.5-2 and my source code. I used a twisted pair transceiver and a crossover cable to connect this to the 2620 (1GB). This wasn't really expected to work, but it did. I brought up DECnet on both boxes and transferred my sources. I don't remember checking the error counters, so I don't know what kind of problems might have occurred, but I didn't notice any unusual latencies. -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Chris Scheers, Applied Synergy, Inc. Voice: 817-237-3360 Internet: chris@applied-synergy.com Fax: 817-237-3074 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2008 00:09:58 +0300 From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Kari_Uusim=E4ki?= Subject: Re: Very cool Ethernet speedup on OpenVMS Message-ID: <485acb26$0$15004$9b536df3@news.fv.fi> ewilts wrote: > On Jun 18, 10:50 am, "Richard B. Gilbert" > wrote: >> The network guy is TWICE an idiot. It's usually NOT a good idea to >> force speed and duplex settings. Except when dealing with certain VERY >> old (ten or more years) hardware, autonegotiation of speed and duplex >> settings is the way to go. > > I disagree and if you read the NetBackup mailing list, you'll see > regular reports of people who also disagree with you. The rule of > thumb I follow is: > For 100mbps, FORCE the speed AND the duplex on BOTH ends of the > connection > For GigE, autonegotiate > > It hasn't failed me, and I've seen a LOT of issues with autonegotation > on 100Mbps ports failing to negotiate the duplex. It seems to work, > but performance really, really sucks. > >> Ten, or more, years ago there was an ambiguity in the standard for >> autonegotiation. Cisco Systems interpreted it one way while Digital >> Equipment Corporation interpreted it the other way. Forcing the setting >> was the only way to get 100 Full Duplex. >> >> The ambiguity was resolved long ago but there is still some old hardware >> out there. . . . > > Current Cisco switches and current Ethernet adapters still have issues > at 100Mbps. > > There is NO disadvantage to forcing speed and duplex at 100Mbps. > There are potential disadvantages to autonegotiating. Why take a > chance? > > .../Ed In the field we have found out that the most reliable solution (with various switch brands) is to use autonegotiation with the DE60* adapters and speed & duplexity forcing with DE500 adapters. Regards, Kari ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2008 16:33:35 -0700 (PDT) From: ewilts Subject: Re: Very cool Ethernet speedup on OpenVMS Message-ID: <69a2b64e-53fe-41e4-97ea-208029b9fe6e@b1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com> On Jun 19, 1:02=A0pm, bro...@cuebid.zko.hp.nospam (Rob Brooks) wrote: > Standard refrain from the guy who writes the ethernet drivers for VMS is > (assuming a modern switch, modern NIC and modern version of VMS) is to > set both switch and console to autonegotiate. =A0In the above context, > V7.3-2 and newer is considerd "modern". =A0It may (likely?) work for olde= r > versions than that, but certainly V7.3-2 has newest "bits". =A0He does a = great > job of keeping everything in sync, so if he makes a change to (say, V8.3)= , > he'll drop those changes into the V7.3-2 code base for a future patch kit= . > > If it doesn't work, let us know, because he's spent a staggering amount o= f > time to make sure that VMS handles this correctly 100% of the time. It doesn't work 100% of the time. I'm going from memory probably 6-12 months old, but with 7.3-2 (likely close to up to date with patches), a DS10's internal NIC, and a Cisco switch, full duplex is not negotiated properly. Auto/auto on the switch and auto/auto on the DS10 will not negotiate properly. .../Ed -- Ed Wilts, Mounds View, MN, USA RHCE, BCFP, BCSD, SCSP, SCSE mailto:ewilts@ewilts.org ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2008 01:01:25 -0400 From: "Richard B. Gilbert" Subject: Re: Very cool Ethernet speedup on OpenVMS Message-ID: Kari Uusimäki wrote: > ewilts wrote: >> On Jun 18, 10:50 am, "Richard B. Gilbert" >> wrote: >>> The network guy is TWICE an idiot. It's usually NOT a good idea to >>> force speed and duplex settings. Except when dealing with certain VERY >>> old (ten or more years) hardware, autonegotiation of speed and duplex >>> settings is the way to go. >> >> I disagree and if you read the NetBackup mailing list, you'll see >> regular reports of people who also disagree with you. The rule of >> thumb I follow is: >> For 100mbps, FORCE the speed AND the duplex on BOTH ends of the >> connection >> For GigE, autonegotiate >> >> It hasn't failed me, and I've seen a LOT of issues with autonegotation >> on 100Mbps ports failing to negotiate the duplex. It seems to work, >> but performance really, really sucks. >> >>> Ten, or more, years ago there was an ambiguity in the standard for >>> autonegotiation. Cisco Systems interpreted it one way while Digital >>> Equipment Corporation interpreted it the other way. Forcing the setting >>> was the only way to get 100 Full Duplex. >>> >>> The ambiguity was resolved long ago but there is still some old hardware >>> out there. . . . >> >> Current Cisco switches and current Ethernet adapters still have issues >> at 100Mbps. >> >> There is NO disadvantage to forcing speed and duplex at 100Mbps. >> There are potential disadvantages to autonegotiating. Why take a >> chance? >> >> .../Ed > > In the field we have found out that the most reliable solution (with > various switch brands) is to use autonegotiation with the DE60* adapters > and speed & duplexity forcing with DE500 adapters. > > > Regards, > > Kari > > Note that the DE500 adapters are ten or more years old. "Modern" hardware seems to get it right! ------------------------------ End of INFO-VAX 2008.342 ************************