Itanium / Integrity question - VMS

This is a discussion on Itanium / Integrity question - VMS ; I know this might be a simple question for some of you, but I've been searching the HP site for hours without an answer (I feel like the modern version of 'Charlie on the MTA'). I know the Itanium server ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 22

Thread: Itanium / Integrity question

  1. Itanium / Integrity question

    I know this might be a simple question for some of you, but I've been
    searching the HP site for hours without an answer (I feel like the
    modern version of 'Charlie on the MTA').
    I know the Itanium server will support VMS / Unix / Windows, but can
    you install more than one OS at the same time?

    Thanks,

    Dan

  2. Re: Itanium / Integrity question

    On Nov 30, 9:49 pm, jhjr4381 wrote:
    > I know this might be a simple question for some of you, but I've been
    > searching the HP site for hours without an answer (I feel like the
    > modern version of 'Charlie on the MTA').
    > I know the Itanium server will support VMS / Unix / Windows, but can
    > you install more than one OS at the same time?
    >
    > Thanks,
    >
    > Dan


    You want to look for: "HP Integrity Virtual Machines (Integrity VM)"
    It allows a (hpux) host to control OpenVMS, Windows and hpux clients
    on a single Montecito+ itanium.

    Quickspecs:

    http://h18004.www1.hp.com/products/q...12715_div.HTML

    hth,
    Hein.

  3. Re: Itanium / Integrity question

    In article
    <5e665368-53d2-4145-bbfc-22c4d15f1ebb@w40g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
    jhjr4381 wrote:

    > I know this might be a simple question for some of you, but I've been
    > searching the HP site for hours without an answer (I feel like the
    > modern version of 'Charlie on the MTA').
    > I know the Itanium server will support VMS / Unix / Windows, but can
    > you install more than one OS at the same time?


    Yes, provided you supply a dedicated disk for each OS. You can only
    boot 1 OS at a time.

  4. Re: Itanium / Integrity question

    jhjr4381 wrote:
    > I know this might be a simple question for some of you, but I've been
    > searching the HP site for hours without an answer (I feel like the
    > modern version of 'Charlie on the MTA').
    > I know the Itanium server will support VMS / Unix / Windows, but can
    > you install more than one OS at the same time?
    >
    > Thanks,
    >
    > Dan


    I don't see why you couldn't! Sharing a system disk could be
    problematic but if you have N disks, N different operating systems
    shouldn't be a problem. I believe that one of my former employers had a
    dual boot Alpha, VMS and True64.


  5. Re: Itanium / Integrity question

    On 2007-12-01 02:54, "Richard B. Gilbert" wrote:

    > I don't see why you couldn't! Sharing a system disk could be
    > problematic but if you have N disks, N different operating systems
    > shouldn't be a problem. I believe that one of my former employers had a
    > dual boot Alpha, VMS and True64.


    What about the problem of Windows writing a "harmless signature" to each
    disk it is able to recognize? Is this still true for current versions?

    Michael

    --
    Real names enhance the probability of getting real answers.
    My e-mail account at DECUS Munich is no longer valid.

  6. Re: Itanium / Integrity question

    Michael Unger wrote:
    > On 2007-12-01 02:54, "Richard B. Gilbert" wrote:
    >
    >
    >>I don't see why you couldn't! Sharing a system disk could be
    >>problematic but if you have N disks, N different operating systems
    >>shouldn't be a problem. I believe that one of my former employers had a
    >>dual boot Alpha, VMS and True64.

    >
    >
    > What about the problem of Windows writing a "harmless signature" to each
    > disk it is able to recognize? Is this still true for current versions?
    >
    > Michael
    >


    I'd forgotten about that little glitch. If Windows still behaves that
    way and, AFAIK Microsoft had no reason to fix it, then it would not be
    possible to include Windows in such a configuration.

    I've seen PCs dual boot Windows and Solaris. . . .


  7. RE: Itanium / Integrity question


    > From: Michael Unger [mailto:spam.to.unger@spamgourmet.com]
    > Sent: December 1, 2007 11:24 AM
    > To: Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Com
    > Subject: Re: Itanium / Integrity question
    >
    > On 2007-12-01 02:54, "Richard B. Gilbert" wrote:
    >
    > > I don't see why you couldn't! Sharing a system disk could be
    > > problematic but if you have N disks, N different operating systems
    > > shouldn't be a problem. I believe that one of my former employers

    > had a
    > > dual boot Alpha, VMS and True64.

    >
    > What about the problem of Windows writing a "harmless signature" to
    > each
    > disk it is able to recognize? Is this still true for current versions?
    >
    > Michael
    >
    > --
    > Real names enhance the probability of getting real answers.
    > My e-mail account at DECUS Munich is no longer valid.


    Unless you are running something like VMware, each OS requires dedicated drive
    (or SAN partition).

    Good news is that with drives being so cheap these days, this is usually not an
    issue.

    With 1 Integrity Dev server, you can support your application on OpenVMS, Linux,
    Windows, HP-UX and other OS's that run on IA64. Simply use separate disks for
    each OS and reboot as required.

    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.

  8. Re: Itanium / Integrity question

    Richard B. Gilbert wrote:
    > Michael Unger wrote:
    >>
    >> What about the problem of Windows writing a "harmless signature" to each
    >> disk it is able to recognize? Is this still true for current versions?

    >
    > I'd forgotten about that little glitch. If Windows still behaves that
    > way and, AFAIK Microsoft had no reason to fix it, then it would not be
    > possible to include Windows in such a configuration.


    The writing of the "harmless signature" has always been optional.

    The disk structure of the boot disk on the Itanium has a partition
    table, and as I understand it, VMS now also has a signature on it that
    will keep other operating systems from damaging it. I do not know if
    the data disks also have that partition table.

    -John
    wb8tyw@qsl.network
    Personal Opinion Only

  9. Re: Itanium / Integrity question


    "Main, Kerry" wrote in message
    news:C72D63EB292C9E49AED23F705C61957BDEBA56B1FE@G1 W0487.americas.hpqcorp.net...

    >Unless you are running something like VMware, each OS requires dedicated

    drive
    >(or SAN partition).
    >
    >Good news is that with drives being so cheap these days, this is usually

    not an
    >issue.
    >
    >With 1 Integrity Dev server, you can support your application on OpenVMS,

    Linux,
    >Windows, HP-UX and other OS's that run on IA64. Simply use separate disks

    for
    >each OS and reboot as required.


    (sorry for odd formatting, Kerry's client and mine can't seem to agree on
    quoting).

    "each OS requires dedicated drive"

    Itanium/Integrity may well require a drive per OS. Generic x86 and AMD64
    systems do not require a dedicated drive (or SAN partition) per OS. A
    dedicated partition is often required. (The dedicated drive is *presumably*
    an EFI boot, not Itanium architecture, requirement?? IE do trendy new
    EFI-based x86-boxes (Apple ones) also need a drive per OS?)


    "with drives being so cheap these days, this is usually not an issue."

    Although drive space is cheap these days, many big companies have outsourced
    (for better or worse), and storage management is now part of that deal.
    Somehow, some outsourcers manage to make storage adds moves and changes many
    times more expensive than the storage itself. Maybe this doesn't apply to
    desktop boxes, maybe it does, may depend on the local setup. Anyway, for
    some unlucky folks, reconfiguring storage today can be just as tedious and
    expensive as it was in the days of the RK05 (a 12 inch disk with a whole
    2.5MB), just today's units are measured in TB not MB.


    "Unless you are running something like VMware"

    What is the status of VMware on Itanium these days? Back in 2002/2003, HP
    and VMware were talking it up, at least for enterprise class versions and
    boxes. Last year (2006), I read that Itanium VMware was no longer happening
    (can't find a definitive reference just now but confidence is reasonably
    high). A very very quick scan of the VMware website just now doesn't quickly
    find anything definitive either way. Regardless of that, real business-class
    VMware users know that they don't just need a version of VMware that's
    available, for real business use they need one that's been *qualified* on
    the chosen platform, ideally one which is going to be actively *supported*
    for a reasonable length of time on the chosen platform. A worthwhile number
    of x86 and AMD64 boxes are qualified and supported. However, not all
    x86/AMD64 boxes come with such qualifications (eg the Unisys x86-based
    ES7000(?), rebadged briefly as Proliant 9000, at one stage had VMware
    qualified, but it wasn't a VMware version that anybody wanted to use in
    anger - it was too old or too new, I forget which, and hence at that time
    the P9000/ES7000 was ruled out of much of its target market). Folks who just
    want to tinker with VMware can probably find a zero-cost version for x86 or
    AMD64 on either Windows or Linux, and when the time comes to take it more
    seriously the software is there to buy.


    and from others "writing a signature ... safe operation"

    Don't know if Windows still does this, but some versions of imaging utility
    Ghost want to do it (presumably for licence-auditing purposes), so be
    careful if Ghost ever asks you about writing a signature (those probably
    aren't the words it uses, but the result is probably the same). My
    experience only applies to Ghost for x86; don't know if Itanium has a Ghost
    equivalent (maybe the SAN stuff is meant to sort it...).


    So to answer Dan's original question, on an Itanium box, it seems you can
    readily have more than one OS *installed* at once, given appropriate
    storage, but probably will only be able to *run* one OS at once, and VMware
    may not help. On an x86/AMD64, different rules apply.

    Regards
    John



  10. RE: Itanium / Integrity question

    > -----Original Message-----
    > From: John Wallace [mailto:johnwallace4@yahoo.spam.co.uk]
    > Sent: December 2, 2007 8:21 AM
    > To: Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Com
    > Subject: Re: Itanium / Integrity question
    >
    >
    > "Main, Kerry" wrote in message
    > news:C72D63EB292C9E49AED23F705C61957BDEBA56B1FE@G1 W0487.americas.hpqcor
    > p.net...
    >

    [snip..]


    > (sorry for odd formatting, Kerry's client and mine can't seem to agree
    > on
    > quoting).
    >


    As fyi, just when I thought I had my Outback client tuned for this NG, my entire
    laptop gets ripped off in Montreal (vehicle broken into).

    What a painful experience that is.

    New best practice - do not leave laptop in vehicles as the bad guys are going
    after the laptops big time for identity stuff. And in case you think the trunk
    is a safe option - forget it. Police state the pro's are using small portable
    x-ray scanners of some sort that allows them to see what is in car. And they
    can pop trunks faster than doors.

    [at least I had backup from weekend before]


    [snip...]

    >
    > So to answer Dan's original question, on an Itanium box, it seems you
    > can
    > readily have more than one OS *installed* at once, given appropriate
    > storage, but probably will only be able to *run* one OS at once, and
    > VMware
    > may not help. On an x86/AMD64, different rules apply.
    >
    > Regards
    > John
    >


    Remember that VMware is for virtualizing multiple low end performance systems
    and/or desktops. If your OS does lots of heavy cpu and/or IO, then VMware is
    not the right config for you. Also, VMware Enterprise for servers license is
    not a cheap option either.

    Regards



    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.




  11. Re: Itanium / Integrity question

    Main, Kerry wrote:
    >>-----Original Message-----
    >>From: John Wallace [mailto:johnwallace4@yahoo.spam.co.uk]
    >>Sent: December 2, 2007 8:21 AM
    >>To: Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Com
    >>Subject: Re: Itanium / Integrity question
    >>
    >>
    >>"Main, Kerry" wrote in message
    >>news:C72D63EB292C9E49AED23F705C61957BDEBA56B1FE@G1 W0487.americas.hpqcor
    >>p.net...
    >>

    >
    > [snip..]
    >
    >
    >
    >>(sorry for odd formatting, Kerry's client and mine can't seem to agree
    >>on
    >>quoting).
    >>

    >
    >
    > As fyi, just when I thought I had my Outback client tuned for this NG, my entire
    > laptop gets ripped off in Montreal (vehicle broken into).
    >
    > What a painful experience that is.



    Kerry,

    For your next Lap, I've read of software that will "call the police" as
    soon as a stolen laptop is connected to a network. I never checked it
    out because mine is not worth stealing and if someone did me that favor
    I certainly wouldn't want to have the laptop recovered.



  12. Re: Itanium / Integrity question

    re: Microsoft putting its "signature" on every drive.

    Does EFI have an ability to hide hardware from an OS ? (eg: wrote some
    parameters into EFI so that certain devices are not made available to
    the OS booting from that EFI programme. This way, one could configure
    EFI for windows to not see any real drives on the system, this way
    Windows wouldn't try to touch them with its satanic signature.

  13. Re: Itanium / Integrity question

    "John E. Malmberg" wrote:
    >
    > Richard B. Gilbert wrote:
    > > Michael Unger wrote:
    > >>
    > >> What about the problem of Windows writing a "harmless signature" to each
    > >> disk it is able to recognize? Is this still true for current versions?

    > >
    > > I'd forgotten about that little glitch. If Windows still behaves that
    > > way and, AFAIK Microsoft had no reason to fix it, then it would not be
    > > possible to include Windows in such a configuration.

    >
    > The writing of the "harmless signature" has always been optional.


    How does one set the "option" to "Never write 'harmless' signature"?

    David J Dachtera
    DJE Systems

  14. Re: Itanium / Integrity question

    David J Dachtera wrote:
    > "John E. Malmberg" wrote:
    >> Richard B. Gilbert wrote:
    >>> Michael Unger wrote:
    >>>> What about the problem of Windows writing a "harmless signature" to each
    >>>> disk it is able to recognize? Is this still true for current versions?
    >>> I'd forgotten about that little glitch. If Windows still behaves that
    >>> way and, AFAIK Microsoft had no reason to fix it, then it would not be
    >>> possible to include Windows in such a configuration.

    >> The writing of the "harmless signature" has always been optional.

    >
    > How does one set the "option" to "Never write 'harmless' signature"?


    You do not respond with a yes to the prompt to write the "harmless
    signature".

    -John
    wb8tyw@qsl.network
    Personal Opinion Only

  15. Re: Itanium / Integrity question

    In article <4752DA1A.3080909@comcast.net>,
    "Richard B. Gilbert" writes:
    > Main, Kerry wrote:
    >>>-----Original Message-----
    >>>From: John Wallace [mailto:johnwallace4@yahoo.spam.co.uk]
    >>>Sent: December 2, 2007 8:21 AM
    >>>To: Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Com
    >>>Subject: Re: Itanium / Integrity question
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>"Main, Kerry" wrote in message
    >>>news:C72D63EB292C9E49AED23F705C61957BDEBA56B1FE@G1 W0487.americas.hpqcor
    >>>p.net...
    >>>

    >>
    >> [snip..]
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>>(sorry for odd formatting, Kerry's client and mine can't seem to agree
    >>>on
    >>>quoting).
    >>>

    >>
    >>
    >> As fyi, just when I thought I had my Outback client tuned for this NG, my entire
    >> laptop gets ripped off in Montreal (vehicle broken into).
    >>
    >> What a painful experience that is.

    >
    >
    > Kerry,
    >
    > For your next Lap, I've read of software that will "call the police" as
    > soon as a stolen laptop is connected to a network.


    And you think the bad guys wouldn't know about this? Reminds me
    of the story told by a guy from California who was awaken early
    one morning by his car alarm. He got to the window just in time
    to see them rolling his Porsche 911 Carrera into the back of tractor
    trailer and closing the doors, thus effectively blocking the signal
    from his LoJack. The police told him it was likely that by the time
    the re-opened those doors the carr was little more than a whole bunch
    of boxed up parts ready for sale.

    > I never checked it
    > out because mine is not worth stealing and if someone did me that favor
    > I certainly wouldn't want to have the laptop recovered.


    At this time of year it is much more likely they are not x-raying trunks
    looking for laptops (wouldn't an x-ray machine with a signal strong enough
    to penetrate the steel of most cars also erase the disk or even trash the
    electronics of the laptop?) but just breaking into them looking for Wii,
    Playstation, Garmin and other high value Christmas presents.

    bill

    --
    Bill Gunshannon | de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n. Three wolves
    bill@cs.scranton.edu | and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
    University of Scranton |
    Scranton, Pennsylvania | #include

  16. Re: Itanium / Integrity question


    Short answer: This mixture is a non-issue; Windows will find the disk
    signatures it expects, and should not stomp on the OpenVMS I64
    bootstrap, save for cases where you repartition disks or write to
    partitions you don't own, etc. Long answer follows...

    JF Mezei wrote:
    > re: Microsoft putting its "signature" on every drive.
    >
    > Does EFI have an ability to hide hardware from an OS ? (eg: wrote some
    > parameters into EFI so that certain devices are not made available to
    > the OS booting from that EFI programme. This way, one could configure
    > EFI for windows to not see any real drives on the system, this way
    > Windows wouldn't try to touch them with its satanic signature.


    The message would involve mixing Microsoft Windows on Alpha or Microsoft
    Windows on Itanium, and another operating system that does not offer MBR
    or GPT disk structures. (We could discuss Windows on x86-32 and x86-64,
    but there is no native port of OpenVMS for those boxes, so that
    combination is not currently an issue.)

    If you're still using Windows on Alpha and you're swapping disks around
    or you're swapping operating systems, you are probably already aware of
    this.

    This signature does only affect the system disk or another bootable
    disk, and it's easily remedied -- once you know what happened -- with a
    WRITEBOOT command. The signature is confined to the boot block.

    Now as for Microsoft Windows on Itanium, disks initialized by OpenVMS on
    Integrity servers will have a low-level disk volume structure that is
    sufficiently recognized by Windows that Windows should not be seeking to
    write its headers onto the disk.

    Bootable disks hauled over to Itanium from Alpha or VAX -- those that
    lack a GPT.SYS and the underlying GPT structures -- that are booted by
    MBR-style bootstraps could still be vulnerable to this corruption,
    though a SET BOOTBLOCK (/MBR) will clear this case. (For various
    reasons, reinitializing a disk can be a good idea; there are
    recommendations along these lines in the existing documentation, IIRC.)

    With system and data disks that have been initialized by OpenVMS I64 (or
    initialized on Alpha with INITIALIZE /GPT) and that have the GPT.SYS
    file, the Windows disk detection and signature processing should not be
    triggered; the disks will have a GPT. Bootable disks that are not using
    GPT.SYS will have an MBR structure, which is what Microsoft Windows is
    looking for, so those too should not see issues with Microsoft Windows
    and its signature processing.

    Now as for EFI, EFI does not provide Galaxy capabilities.

    Part of the basis for Galaxy is that the console reports up only a
    subset of the available hardware to the operating system. The other
    part is that the operating system doesn't go looking to stomp on shared
    resources, or tossing out various reset operations.

    Conceivably, EFI could be modified to report a subset of disks. You'd
    have to ask HP if there are any plans in this area. When last I looked
    at the roadmap and the published materials, the plans were for
    compatibility with HPIVM for OpenVMS I64 V8.4. (HPIVM is the HP
    Integrity Virtual Machine environment that is based on HP-UX.)

    So the most likely issue with the "harmless signature" fun involves an
    Alpha system with Microsoft Windows NT Alpha or equivalent-vintage
    software mixed with a platform that does not use GPT or MBR or
    equivalent for its bootstrap structures. This is the case with OpenVMS
    Alpha, which uses the BTB structures for its bootstrap.

    Details of the boot path and the related bootstrap processing are in a
    document available /node/28 at the web site.



    --
    www.HoffmanLabs.com
    Services for OpenVMS

  17. Re: Itanium / Integrity question

    "John E. Malmberg" wrote:
    >
    > David J Dachtera wrote:
    > > "John E. Malmberg" wrote:
    > >> Richard B. Gilbert wrote:
    > >>> Michael Unger wrote:
    > >>>> What about the problem of Windows writing a "harmless signature" to each
    > >>>> disk it is able to recognize? Is this still true for current versions?
    > >>> I'd forgotten about that little glitch. If Windows still behaves that
    > >>> way and, AFAIK Microsoft had no reason to fix it, then it would not be
    > >>> possible to include Windows in such a configuration.
    > >> The writing of the "harmless signature" has always been optional.

    > >
    > > How does one set the "option" to "Never write 'harmless' signature"?

    >
    > You do not respond with a yes to the prompt to write the "harmless
    > signature".


    Is that the EXACT text of the message?

    It's possible I've seen it, and not recognized it as such.

    ....and is it *ALWAYS* optional?

    David J Dachtera
    DJE Systems

  18. Re: Itanium / Integrity question

    In article ,
    Stephen Hoffman writes:
    >
    > Short answer: This mixture is a non-issue; Windows will find the disk
    > signatures it expects, and should not stomp on the OpenVMS I64
    > bootstrap, save for cases where you repartition disks or write to
    > partitions you don't own, etc. Long answer follows...


    "Should not"!! But my experience with Windows and other OSes trying
    to occupy the same system, even on separate disks says otherwise.

    bill


    --
    Bill Gunshannon | de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n. Three wolves
    bill@cs.scranton.edu | and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
    University of Scranton |
    Scranton, Pennsylvania | #include

  19. RE: Itanium / Integrity question

    > -----Original Message-----
    > From: Bill Gunshannon [mailto:billg999@cs.uofs.edu]
    > Sent: December 3, 2007 9:14 AM
    > To: Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Com
    > Subject: Re: Itanium / Integrity question
    >
    > In article <4752DA1A.3080909@comcast.net>,
    > "Richard B. Gilbert" writes:
    > > Main, Kerry wrote:
    > >>>-----Original Message-----
    > >>>From: John Wallace [mailto:johnwallace4@yahoo.spam.co.uk]
    > >>>Sent: December 2, 2007 8:21 AM
    > >>>To: Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Com
    > >>>Subject: Re: Itanium / Integrity question
    > >>>


    [snip...]

    > > I never checked

    > it
    > > out because mine is not worth stealing and if someone did me that

    > favor
    > > I certainly wouldn't want to have the laptop recovered.

    >
    > At this time of year it is much more likely they are not x-raying
    > trunks
    > looking for laptops (wouldn't an x-ray machine with a signal strong
    > enough
    > to penetrate the steel of most cars also erase the disk or even trash
    > the
    > electronics of the laptop?) but just breaking into them looking for
    > Wii,
    > Playstation, Garmin and other high value Christmas presents.
    >
    > bill
    >


    Well, fwiw, the police told me that the $ value of the laptop was
    nothing compared to what the bad guys can get for personal information
    gleamed from the laptop. Hence the reason why laptops were such a high
    focus area for the bad guys.

    So now I have power up password, drive lock on HDD (prevents drive
    being read on another laptop) and encryption on sensitive folders. It
    likely is not 100%, but hopefully will be enough to make the bad guys
    give up and move on to easier laptops they have in their possession.

    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.



  20. Re: Itanium / Integrity question

    On 2007-12-04 01:11, "Stephen Hoffman" wrote:

    > [...]
    >
    > Conceivably, EFI could be modified to report a subset of disks. You'd
    > have to ask HP if there are any plans in this area. When last I looked
    > at the roadmap and the published materials, the plans were for
    > compatibility with HPIVM for OpenVMS I64 V8.4. (HPIVM is the HP
    > Integrity Virtual Machine environment that is based on HP-UX.)


    In the "old days" disk drives had a *real* switch labelled "ONLINE --
    OFFLINE" which sort of disconnected the disk from the bus. A similar
    approach would be to store the "availability" of disk drives (or other
    peripherals) to an operating system by setting "bits" in NVRAM which
    would result in devices being "ignored" by the built-in "console" firmware.

    > [...]


    Michael

    --
    Real names enhance the probability of getting real answers.
    My e-mail account at DECUS Munich is no longer valid.

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast