In article , Jeff writes:
> Larry Kilgallen wrote:
> > You don't get much higher level that Ada or PL/I, the two notable
>> discontinuities where HP has declined to provide support.

> Ada is available on OpenVMS I64 from a third party, AdaCore. Customers
> can obtain support for this compiler from AdaCore if they wish.

But it is not up to the quality standards needed for VMS compilers.
For example, it does not provide machine code listings indicating
the exact address within a module of a particular instruction. For
a problem that can only be reproduced on the machine of a security
sensitive customer, an address in memory might be all we can get out
of them.

Since that is a show stopper, I have not checked to see whether it
is source compatible with the VAX and Alpha compilers provided by
DEC/Compaq/HP. Since there was a disconnect in exception handling
capabilities going from VAX to Alpha, it hardly seems possible that
a different company's Unix-centric compiler would match either one.

Even if one considered going to the effort of _switching_ to GNAT one
would still not have an application that would build on all of VAX,
Alpha and Itanium, because GNAT is not offered for VAX.

On 08/03/07 14:59, Stanley F. Quayle wrote:
> On 2 Aug 2007 at 20:22, John Wallace wrote:
>> By far the least reliable bit of a typical Proliant these days is not
>> hardware, it's Windows. But try telling that to the people doing
>> VMware-based (or similar) server consolidation (or to those about to
>> throw away a real VMS box to replace it with Charon?).
>
> I hate Windows, too. But it's an okay environment to run a singe
> application. I used to develop a product that ran on DOS -- it was
> great as long as you didn't expect much.
>
> As far as CHARON goes, it IS a VMS box. And 90% of my customers want
> Windows. Not for technical reasons, mind you. Don't complain to me -
> -it's just the way it is.
>
> You want CHARON on Linux (or some other OS)? Commit to buy a whole
> bunch of copies, and I can get that done.

I was actually quite surprised to see that Charon was hosted on
Windows instead of Unix/Linux.


--
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!

In article , Keith Parris writes:
> Keith Parris wrote:
>> No magic incantation needed: see http://www.hp.com/products/hprenew/
>
> And in the Americas, HP Financial Services also sells certified
> "pre-owned" systems with a program called Technology Value Solutions
> (TVS): http://www.hp.com/hpfinancialservices/preowned

Blank page in 2 out of 2 browsers.

7 errors from http://validator.w3.org

> -----Original Message-----
> From: JF Mezei [mailto:jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca]
> Sent: August 3, 2007 3:15 PM
> To: Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Com
> Subject: Re: Stay on Alpha forever?
>
> Keith Parris wrote:
>
> > "The current Integrity systems perform better than existing Alpha
> > systems in most cases
>
> It is a tribute to Alpha that a 2001 generation chip (that is when EV7
> was originally expected, right ?) still prevents a 2007 IA64 from
> claiming "in all cases".
>

I am sure there are some specific cases of code where the same could be stated for VAX beating Alpha.

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.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: JF Mezei [mailto:jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca]
> Sent: August 3, 2007 3:20 PM
> To: Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Com
> Subject: Re: Stay on Alpha forever?
>
> Keith Parris wrote:
> > Greg Jordan's OpenVMS Performance Update session from HPTF 2007 shows
> > the rx7640 and rx8640 have higher memory bandwidth than the GS-1280,
> and
> > the rx2600, rx2620, rx3600, and rx4640 have higher memory bandwidth
> than
> > the ES45 (the rx3600 actually has about twice the memory bandwidth of
> > the ES45).
>
> Sorry for my memory failures (no EEC or Parity in my bio memory pack),
> but is VMS qalified to sun on Superdomes yet ? Last I heard, they made
> it run on those C class wintel blade server enclosures that also
> support
> IA64 cards. Don't recall hearing about VMS on superdomes.
>
> If not yet available on superdomes, I am curious about why, what sort
> of
> technical architecture would prevent VMS from taking advantage of a
> Superdome. Or is it purely a political decision to not allow VMS to
> take
> better advantage of a superdome vs HP-UX ?

OpenVMS is supported on Superdomes and has been for some time now (as I recall officially supported since OpenVMS V8.2-1).

Customers have been buying as well.

http://h18000.www1.hp.com/info/XAV12X/XAV12XPF.PDF (V8.3 SPD)

http://www.shannonknowshpc.com/stori.../01/13/3323598 (older story that discusses Superdomes running with clustering on VMS V8.1.)

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.

Larry Kilgallen wrote:
>> (TVS): http://www.hp.com/hpfinancialservices/preowned
>
> Blank page in 2 out of 2 browsers.

I concurr. But when you turn on javascript (I know you are genetically
incapable of doing this...), it redirects to:

> http://h20330.www2.hp.com/hpfinancia...0-225-121.html

And the above isn't a blank page, even with javascript disabled.



>
> 7 errors from http://validator.w3.org

Well, that would be just the javascript stub that does the redirect. The
long URL above shows 15 errors which isn't bad for a wintel corporation.
(mostly non-existant tags which Microsoft still uses)

Air Canada used to have about 700 errors on its front page, and at one
point, it made a quick press release after the shutdown of a competitor,
and it was a 2 paragraph text containing 750 errors !


Bell Canada just refuses to serve the contents of a page if you are not
using a browser you like (they got a marketing alliance with Microsoft -
guess which browser they support ?)

In article , "Main, Kerry" writes:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: JF Mezei [mailto:jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca]
>> Sent: August 3, 2007 3:20 PM
>> To: Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Com
>> Subject: Re: Stay on Alpha forever?
>>
>> Keith Parris wrote:
>> > Greg Jordan's OpenVMS Performance Update session from HPTF 2007 shows
>> > the rx7640 and rx8640 have higher memory bandwidth than the GS-1280,
>> and
>> > the rx2600, rx2620, rx3600, and rx4640 have higher memory bandwidth
>> than
>> > the ES45 (the rx3600 actually has about twice the memory bandwidth of
>> > the ES45).
>>
>> Sorry for my memory failures (no EEC or Parity in my bio memory pack),
>> but is VMS qalified to sun on Superdomes yet ? Last I heard, they made
>> it run on those C class wintel blade server enclosures that also
>> support
>> IA64 cards. Don't recall hearing about VMS on superdomes.
>>
>> If not yet available on superdomes, I am curious about why, what sort
>> of
>> technical architecture would prevent VMS from taking advantage of a
>> Superdome. Or is it purely a political decision to not allow VMS to
>> take
>> better advantage of a superdome vs HP-UX ?
>
>OpenVMS is supported on Superdomes and has been for some time now (as I rec=
>all officially supported since OpenVMS V8.2-1).
>

Unfortunately Galaxy support wasn't ported to Itanium for superdomes.


David Webb
Security team leader
CCSS
Middlesex University


>Customers have been buying as well.
>
>http://h18000.www1.hp.com/info/XAV12X/XAV12XPF.PDF (V8.3 SPD)
>
>http://www.shannonknowshpc.com/stori.../01/13/3323598 (older =
>story that discusses Superdomes running with clustering on VMS V8.1.)
>
>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.
>
>
>
>
>

david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk wrote:
> Unfortunately Galaxy support wasn't ported to Itanium for superdomes.


So, what sort of functionality exists for VMS on Superdomes ? Can it
have just one instance using all CPUs ? Is there some hard partitioning
where VMS can exist as totally separate instances that are totally
unaware of each other ?

Is there dynamic reallocation of CPU capabilities (to give one instance
more power when needed ?) or does that need a reboot ?

JF Mezei writes:

>david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk wrote:
>> Unfortunately Galaxy support wasn't ported to Itanium for superdomes.


> Is there some hard partitioning
>where VMS can exist as totally separate instances that are totally
>unaware of each other ?

>Is there dynamic reallocation of CPU capabilities (to give one instance
>more power when needed ?) or does that need a reboot ?

That's Galaxy, which David mentioned doesn't exist yet (ever?) for
Itanic.

VMS/Galaxy may require all VMS instances be part of the same cluster
(which excludes the 'totally unaware' part), I don't remember.

On 08/05/07 12:30, Michael Moroney wrote:
> JF Mezei writes:
>
>> david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk wrote:
>>> Unfortunately Galaxy support wasn't ported to Itanium for superdomes.
>
>
>> Is there some hard partitioning
>> where VMS can exist as totally separate instances that are totally
>> unaware of each other ?
>
>> Is there dynamic reallocation of CPU capabilities (to give one instance
>> more power when needed ?) or does that need a reboot ?
>
> That's Galaxy, which David mentioned doesn't exist yet (ever?) for
> Itanic.

You've GOT to be kidding, right? What serious Enterprise platform
doesn't have dynamic reallocation?

> VMS/Galaxy may require all VMS instances be part of the same cluster
> (which excludes the 'totally unaware' part), I don't remember.


--
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!

In article , JF Mezei writes:
>david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk wrote:
>> Unfortunately Galaxy support wasn't ported to Itanium for superdomes.
>
>
>So, what sort of functionality exists for VMS on Superdomes ? Can it
>have just one instance using all CPUs ? Is there some hard partitioning
>where VMS can exist as totally separate instances that are totally
>unaware of each other ?
>
>Is there dynamic reallocation of CPU capabilities (to give one instance
>more power when needed ?) or does that need a reboot ?

My understanding is that hard partitioning works. But no I don't think you can
dynamically reallocate CPUs. I'm not sure if it is available yet but I believe
the replacement (?) for Galaxy functionality was to be able to run VMS as
multiple virtual OS instances on top of HP-UX.


David Webb
Security team leader
CCSS
Middlesex University

> -----Original Message-----
> From: david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk [mailto:david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk]
> Sent: August 5, 2007 6:53 PM
> To: Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Com
> Subject: Re: Stay on Alpha forever?
>
> In article , JF Mezei
> writes:
> >david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk wrote:
> >> Unfortunately Galaxy support wasn't ported to Itanium for
> superdomes.
> >
> >
> >So, what sort of functionality exists for VMS on Superdomes ? Can it
> >have just one instance using all CPUs ? Is there some hard
> partitioning
> >where VMS can exist as totally separate instances that are totally
> >unaware of each other ?
> >
> >Is there dynamic reallocation of CPU capabilities (to give one
> instance
> >more power when needed ?) or does that need a reboot ?
>
> My understanding is that hard partitioning works. But no I don't think
> you can
> dynamically reallocate CPUs. I'm not sure if it is available yet but I
> believe
> the replacement (?) for Galaxy functionality was to be able to run VMS
> as
> multiple virtual OS instances on top of HP-UX.
>
>
> David Webb
> Security team leader
> CCSS
> Middlesex University

See the following OpenVMS virtualization whitepaper -
http://h71028.www7.hp.com/ERC/downlo...A0-5801ENW.pdf


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.

In article ,
Kilgallen@SpamCop.net (Larry Kilgallen) wrote:

> In article , Jeff
> writes:
> > Larry Kilgallen wrote:
> > > You don't get much higher level that Ada or PL/I, the two notable
> >> discontinuities where HP has declined to provide support.
>
> > Ada is available on OpenVMS I64 from a third party, AdaCore. Customers
> > can obtain support for this compiler from AdaCore if they wish.
>
> But it is not up to the quality standards needed for VMS compilers.
> For example, it does not provide machine code listings indicating
> the exact address within a module of a particular instruction. For
> a problem that can only be reproduced on the machine of a security
> sensitive customer, an address in memory might be all we can get out
> of them.
>
> Since that is a show stopper, I have not checked to see whether it
> is source compatible with the VAX and Alpha compilers provided by
> DEC/Compaq/HP. Since there was a disconnect in exception handling
> capabilities going from VAX to Alpha, it hardly seems possible that
> a different company's Unix-centric compiler would match either one.

http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-4....ibility-with-A
da-83.html


> Even if one considered going to the effort of _switching_ to GNAT one
> would still not have an application that would build on all of VAX,
> Alpha and Itanium, because GNAT is not offered for VAX.

Or take up HP's suggestion of rewriting in C++

:-(

--
Paul Sture

Sue's OpenVMS bookmarks:
http://eisner.encompasserve.org/~stu...bookmarks.html

In article , "P. Sture" writes:
> In article ,
> Kilgallen@SpamCop.net (Larry Kilgallen) wrote:

>> Since that is a show stopper, I have not checked to see whether it
>> is source compatible with the VAX and Alpha compilers provided by
>> DEC/Compaq/HP. Since there was a disconnect in exception handling
>> capabilities going from VAX to Alpha, it hardly seems possible that
>> a different company's Unix-centric compiler would match either one.
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-4....th-Ada-83.html

Note that page deals with language compatibility, not compiler features.
The GNAT approach is beyond incompatibility with DEC Ada's ACS - it just
has no comparable feature. That is a permission given by the Ada 1995
standard, but does nothing for those of us who depend on the ACS approach.

For the non-Ada programmers who are still reading, how would you feel
about porting to Itanium if you used MMS on VAX and Alpha but could not
use MMS (or anything similar) on Itanium ?

>> Even if one considered going to the effort of _switching_ to GNAT one
>> would still not have an application that would build on all of VAX,
>> Alpha and Itanium, because GNAT is not offered for VAX.
>
> Or take up HP's suggestion of rewriting in C++
>
> :-(

Exactly. And I note that HP makes a similar suggestion for PL/I users.

Larry Kilgallen wrote:
> In article , moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) writes:
>
>>John Reagan writes:
>>
>>
>>>There has been only one case with me where a customer had this rather
>>>ugly Macro-32 application on Alpha which directly manipulated the FP,
>>>SP, etc. to emulate some PDP-11 application. I looked for about 30
>>>minutes and threw up my hands. I recommended they stay on Alpha or go
>>>to a VAX emulator product.
>>
>>(waves!)
>>
>>It's on a VAX, not an Alpha. The Alpha compiler would have choked on the
>>bizarre code just as much as the Itanium compiler does now.
>
>
> That is why TECO is emulated on Alpha.
>
> My one experience with it on Itanium is that it:
>
> a) Is still emulated
> b) crashes

It only crashes when you search for something that isn't there, or move
the dot past the end of the buffer. Clearly these are both user errors.
:-) :-) :-)

P.S. I wouldn't much mind (a) if (b) wasn't also true... :-(



--
John Santos
Evans Griffiths & Hart, Inc.
781-861-0670 ext 539