INFO-VAX Sat, 15 Nov 2008 Volume 2008 : Issue 618 Contents: Re: AlphaServer 8400 for Trade Re: Emulation Re: Emulation Fibre channel driver documentation Re: Fibre channel driver documentation Re: Fibre channel driver documentation Re: Fibre channel driver documentation Re: Most impressive VAX installations Re: Seagate ST31051N on MicroVAX 3100 Re: Seagate ST31051N on MicroVAX 3100 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 15 Nov 2008 00:04:18 +0000 (UTC) From: Rick Jones Subject: Re: AlphaServer 8400 for Trade Message-ID: In comp.unix.tru64 Dennis Grevenstein wrote: > That's just my point. You can't predict how an 11/750 might > score on SPEC. Doesn't help that there are what, four or five of them from which to choose (off the top of my head - I was doing SPECsfs in '91 and wasn't paying _that_ much attention to the CPU guys ): SPECcpu89 (specmark iirc) SPECcpu92 SPECcpu95 SPECcpu2000 SPECcpu2006 If the 750 is going to have 1MB of memory, unless one wanted to wait a _really_ long time for paging/whatnot you'd probably have to go all the way back to the '89 version. '08 is designed to "fit" in a system with 1GB of RAM, I forget the specifics of the prior versions but would guess that there may be some information on www.spec.org rick jones -- Process shall set you free from the need for rational thought. these opinions are mine, all mine; HP might not want them anyway... :) feel free to post, OR email to rick.jones2 in hp.com but NOT BOTH... ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2008 21:08:16 +0100 From: Wilm Boerhout Subject: Re: Emulation Message-ID: <491ddab2$0$8592$ba620dc5@nova.planet.nl> PR vaguely mentioned on 14-11-2008 15:13: > Okay, I am weighing in late with this, but you do have some really > good options here, most of which are a bit cheaper that running Charon > under VMWare. (Virtualization). > > Note, that running Charon is EMULATION - not virtualization. If you > customer wants to virtualize, then under Intel, I would use VMWare > ESX. Last I looked, that invoked a hefty license cost just to start. > You do not > want to run under the less expensive Workstation versions. I can give > you plenty of reasons, but for now, just rrust me on that one. : ) > > HP is pushing Parallels, which is pretty much Windows based, and also > carries a hefty license fee. It works, but I have little experience > with it. > > Now, given that, you could then run Charon under Windows under VMWare > on a blade or standalone server. > You gain a LOT of Disaster Recovery capability that way. You will give > up a few processor cycles, but emulating a VAX, you really wont > notice. The Charon license will throttle you down in any case. > > However - there is perhaps a much better way. Less expensive and > faster too. > > Porting from a Vax to Itanium is generally pretty easy, and there are > a TON of people who can help you do so at a reasonable cost. (Im not > one of them- no time. But there are a lot of people right on this list > that could probably do it in one or two *days*. Seriously. ) > > A RX2660, plus a base VM license will cost you much less than a Charon > license and Intel hardware. > An Itanium blade, if you have an HP BladeServer, will cost less than > that. > > Now that isn't a virtualized solution, however, supposedly the next > version of VMS will virtualize correctly under HP-UX, which again, is > NOT expensive, will run on the same server, and give you the same > advantages as VMWare under Intel. I believe the virtualization > capability is built into HP-UX these days too. No extra cost. > > Finally, doing that, you can negotiate with your HP rep to get a > really good deal. I woudl stay a paycheck that the Itanium route, > including the cost of the machine, license, and even hiring someone > here to do the port for you, will cost less than the emulate it on > Intel route. > > The benefits are much greater to my way of thinking. > > Also, purely in my experience, these "just load the emulator, then the > software, then run!" types of deals never are as simple as they seem. > They work, indeed they even work well, but I bet it won't be a simple > load and go operation. > > Something will go wrong. No battle plan survives contact with the > enemy, and no migration plan survives contact with reality! > > -Paul How many times have you replaced a VAX with a newer model VAX, or an Alpha with a newer model Alpha? Backup, Forklift, Restore was the battle plan. However, with newer models VAX or Alpha, you sometimes had to upgrade VMS (hardware releases), and then recertify your apps and databases. A CHARON project is the same, only without the hardware releases. The VAX remains the same model. Do image backups, then make the receiving CHARON platform ready, and do the restore. In and out in a few days, in *all* of my projects. Same battle plan, always. Optimize later. Migrating to Itanium can *never* be done that way, most certainly not in government or heavily SOXed organizations. But hey, what do I know, I'm biased as a reseller. Wanna ask my customers why they don't go for the migration route? Government --> less hassle with CHARON. Private companies --> business cases always solid. Apparently, I live in a different universe. Sorry... /Wilm ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2008 12:54:40 -0800 (PST) From: PR Subject: Re: Emulation Message-ID: <75a60f0f-3396-4ee5-804a-d6aa46cd6c9c@e1g2000pra.googlegroups.com> On Nov 14, 2:08=A0pm, Wilm Boerhout wrote: > PR vaguely mentioned on 14-11-2008 15:13: > > > > > Okay, I am weighing in late with this, but you do have some really > > good options here, most of which are a bit cheaper that running Charon > > under VMWare. =A0(Virtualization). > > > Note, that running Charon is EMULATION - not virtualization. If you > > customer wants to virtualize, then under Intel, I would use VMWare > > ESX. Last I looked, that invoked a hefty license cost just to start. > > You do not > > want to run under the less expensive Workstation versions. I can give > > you plenty of reasons, but for now, just rrust me on that one. : ) > > > HP is pushing Parallels, which is pretty much Windows based, and also > > carries a hefty license fee. It works, but I have little experience > > with it. > > > Now, given that, you could then run Charon under Windows under VMWare > > on a blade or standalone server. > > You gain a LOT of Disaster Recovery capability that way. You will give > > up a few processor cycles, but emulating a VAX, you really wont > > notice. The Charon license will throttle you down in any case. > > > However - there is perhaps a much better way. Less expensive and > > faster too. > > > Porting from a Vax to Itanium is generally pretty easy, and there are > > a TON of people who can help you do so at a reasonable cost. (Im not > > one of them- no time. But there are a lot of people right on this list > > that could probably do it in one or two *days*. Seriously. ) > > > A RX2660, plus a base VM license will cost you much less than a Charon > > license and Intel hardware. > > An Itanium blade, if you have an HP BladeServer, will cost less than > > that. > > > Now that isn't a virtualized solution, however, supposedly the next > > version of VMS will virtualize correctly under HP-UX, which again, is > > NOT expensive, will run on the same server, and give you the same > > advantages as VMWare under Intel. I believe the virtualization > > capability is built into HP-UX these days too. No extra cost. > > > Finally, doing that, you can negotiate with your HP rep to get a > > really good deal. I woudl stay a paycheck that the Itanium route, > > including the cost of the machine, license, and even hiring someone > > here to do the port for you, will cost less than the emulate it on > > Intel route. > > > The benefits are much greater to my way of thinking. > > > Also, purely in my experience, these "just load the emulator, then the > > software, then run!" types of deals never are as simple as they seem. > > They work, indeed they even work well, but I bet it won't be a simple > > load and go operation. > > > Something will go wrong. =A0No battle plan survives contact with the > > enemy, and no migration plan survives contact with reality! > > > -Paul > > How many times have you replaced a VAX with a newer model VAX, or an > Alpha with a newer model Alpha? Backup, Forklift, Restore was the battle > plan. However, with newer models VAX or Alpha, you sometimes had to > upgrade VMS (hardware releases), and then recertify your apps and databas= es. > > A CHARON project is the same, only without the hardware releases. The > VAX remains the same model. Do image backups, then make the receiving > CHARON platform ready, and do the restore. In and out in a few days, in > *all* of my projects. Same battle plan, always. Optimize later. > > Migrating to Itanium can *never* be done that way, most certainly not in > government or heavily SOXed organizations. > > But hey, what do I know, I'm biased as a reseller. Wanna ask my > customers why they don't go for the migration route? Government --> less > hassle with CHARON. Private companies --> business cases always solid. > > Apparently, I live in a different universe. Sorry... > > /Wilm Apparently, you do. Perhaps one with less SOX restrictions that mine. For one thing, the platform the emulator runs on has to be put together correctly, both to run the emulator, and second, to run the host OS in accordance with shop and security standards. That's easier if you virtualize your server using VMWare or some other product of course, but believe me, there are a LOT of shops out there that simply do NOT want to deal with Yet Another WIndows Machine (YAWM). Or are you suggesting that they do not install or keep up to date with the Windows patches? I do not always do so with Linux, but that is an entirely different animal. As for porting to Itanium - you content that porting to a far faster machine, with much saner license costs and practices, and with current support doesn't make sense? Even when it will (1) most likely cost *less* and (2) be just about as fast to do and (3) leave the customer with a platform with a higher residual value than a Windows box AND (4) where you don't have to renew the license cost of the emulator every year or your whole installation just stops working? Also, why haven't you suggested putting the VAX programs under VAX emulation on Itanium? Charon also sells that. I'm not cutting down the Charon Emulator, it is a fine piece of work. Indeed, it is really a nice emulator. I *like* it. I'm just far from convinced that emulation is the best or even the most cost effective path for them. If Charon licenses were perpetual, and had a one time cost in the $10 - $20K range, then I would probably judge it differently. Then again, it isn't my project. There might be some financial or technical considerations I don't know about. YMMV, yada yada... -Paul ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2008 13:55:13 -0800 (PST) From: FrankS Subject: Fibre channel driver documentation Message-ID: <9c9df522-30c1-45b2-bc3e-c53e9369ad76@40g2000prx.googlegroups.com> Is the PG or FG device driver interface documented? I looked in the I/ O User's reference quickly and didn't spot anything. I'm hoping to find a way of forcing a host to re-login to a given fibre channel device (in this case, an MDR) after that device has been powered off. I know I can do this using SYS$ETC:FC$CP to toggle interrupt coalescing, but whenever I use that utility all the disks on the SAN go through a mount verification and it freaks out the operators. If I can avoid freaking anyone out then it would be a good thing. The root issue here is that I need to power cycle the MDR so that it will rediscover attached SCSI devices, and then make them available to the host systems. I've also tried the remapfcscsi command, which the documentation states will redo the discovery, but it doesn't redo the discovery. Given no existing utility then I thought I'd look at the driver interface to see if I can roll my own. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2008 14:20:28 -0800 (PST) From: IanMiller Subject: Re: Fibre channel driver documentation Message-ID: On Nov 14, 9:55=A0pm, FrankS wrote: > Is the PG or FG device driver interface documented? =A0I looked in the I/ > O User's reference quickly and didn't spot anything. > > I'm hoping to find a way of forcing a host to re-login to a given > fibre channel device (in this case, an MDR) after that device has been > powered off. > > I know I can do this using SYS$ETC:FC$CP to toggle interrupt > coalescing, but whenever I use that utility all the disks on the SAN > go through a mount verification and it freaks out the operators. =A0If I > can avoid freaking anyone out then it would be a good thing. > > The root issue here is that I need to power cycle the MDR so that it > will rediscover attached SCSI devices, and then make them available to > the host systems. =A0I've also tried the remapfcscsi command, which the > documentation states will redo the discovery, but it doesn't redo the > discovery. > > Given no existing utility then I thought I'd look at the driver > interface to see if I can roll my own. Perhaps you can do something with SYSMAN IO SCSI_PATH_VERIFY then SYSMAN IO AUTOCONFIGURE or IO FIND_WWID etc See http://h71000.www7.hp.com/doc/83final/6048/6048pro_078.html#startsubcommand= _460 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2008 16:16:36 -0800 (PST) From: FrankS Subject: Re: Fibre channel driver documentation Message-ID: On Nov 14, 5:20=A0pm, IanMiller wrote: > Perhaps you can do something with > > SYSMAN IO SCSI_PATH_VERIFY > then > SYSMAN IO AUTOCONFIGURE > > or IO FIND_WWID etc > Been there, tried that. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2008 22:18:24 -0500 From: "Jeff Goodwin" Subject: Re: Fibre channel driver documentation Message-ID: <491e3f62$0$5073$9a6e19ea@unlimited.newshosting.com> "FrankS" wrote in message news:9c9df522-30c1-45b2-bc3e-c53e9369ad76@40g2000prx.googlegroups.com... > Is the PG or FG device driver interface documented? I looked in the I/ > O User's reference quickly and didn't spot anything. > > I'm hoping to find a way of forcing a host to re-login to a given > fibre channel device (in this case, an MDR) after that device has been > powered off. > > I know I can do this using SYS$ETC:FC$CP to toggle interrupt > coalescing, but whenever I use that utility all the disks on the SAN > go through a mount verification and it freaks out the operators. If I > can avoid freaking anyone out then it would be a good thing. > > The root issue here is that I need to power cycle the MDR so that it > will rediscover attached SCSI devices, and then make them available to > the host systems. I've also tried the remapfcscsi command, which the > documentation states will redo the discovery, but it doesn't redo the > discovery. > > Given no existing utility then I thought I'd look at the driver > interface to see if I can roll my own. On rare occasion, we have access issues with the SCSI devices on our MDR. To correct the issue, we disable and then re-enable the MDR fiber port on the FC switch to correct the issue. -Jeff ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2008 20:27:24 -0500 From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Arne_Vajh=F8j?= Subject: Re: Most impressive VAX installations Message-ID: <491e257c$0$90263$14726298@news.sunsite.dk> Bart.Zorn@gmail.com wrote: > It surprises me that nobody in this thread has mentioned any VAX 9000 > or VAX 10000 configurations! My impression is that the 9000's came in and went out within a few years while the 6000's were kept for a decade (or two !). Arne ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2008 13:11:06 -0600 From: Chris Scheers Subject: Re: Seagate ST31051N on MicroVAX 3100 Message-ID: shadoooo wrote: > I acquired two Seagate ST31051N to use it on my VAX boxes. > I used TEST 75 on the MicroVAX 3100, disk erased correctly. Then I > tried to install a VMS 5.5 from > another bootable disk I prepared with STABACKIT, but when it tries to > INIT/MOUNT it, I received a drive fatal error. > I read the ng and found the problem about ARRE ARWE bits, so > downloaded the SCU application, connected the drive to the PC and > disabled these bits. Then I retried with install operation, but it is > the same as before, even with ARRE ARWE disabled. So I tried to > disable also EER (early error recovery) but it's the same. I tried to > mount the disk also on my 4000-100A, but also there no way. I don't > understand why it doesn't work. > Any idea? Maybe I need to redo TEST75 after the bit disable operation? For VMS 5.5, in addition to the ARRE and ARWE bits, there is also an RC bit that needs to be set correctly. If these bits are not all set as expected, you get the "fatal error" when mounting the drive. This restriction is still in place in 5.5-2 and is removed in 6.2. I don't know its status in 6.0 and 6.1. Good luck! -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Chris Scheers, Applied Synergy, Inc. Voice: 817-237-3360 Internet: chris@applied-synergy.com Fax: 817-237-3074 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2008 11:12:47 -0800 (PST) From: H Vlems Subject: Re: Seagate ST31051N on MicroVAX 3100 Message-ID: On 14 nov, 15:20, shadoooo wrote: > About the size, it's shown as 1.06GB (it should be correct), I hope > not too big for the 3100 (should be exactly the upper limit). > I tried to INIT the disk without the /SYSTEM flag on the 4000-100A, > with no luck. When I did this, immediately I received the "drive > fault" error. > During the erase process of the TEST 75 (or TEST E1 on the 4000-100A, > I received no error and the process went to the end successfully). Hmm, when I arrive at that point I attempt an ANALYZE/MEDIA command (mount the disk /FOREIGN). If it doesn't report anything useful then I'd declare the drive dead. I sure hope you didn't spend too much money on them. Hans ------------------------------ End of INFO-VAX 2008.618 ************************