On Aug 23, 9:19 pm, "Paul Raulerson" <p...@raulersons.com> wrote:[color=blue][color=green]
>> The only issue with
>> the Alpha is that the 4mm tape drive on it does not seem to be recognized.[/color]
>Given your inexperience with OpenVMS, perhaps you just don't know
>where to look for the device name?
>Have you tried $SHOW DEVICE MK[/color]
Well, it shows up if you do a show dev at the bios prompt, but not in VMS, even with a SHOW DEV /FULL/PAGE and looking pretty carefully for anything tht says "tape" in it.
As you suggest below, either the tape drive is dead or the Sony 4mm drivein the machine is just not recognized by VMS.
>Maybe the tape drive is dead? Hardware failures have been known to
>> off to the UNIX machine which *does* know how to
>> talk to tape.[/color]
>This is what makes you so annoying. You have admitted to having
>little experience with OpenVMS and yet you make statements like
>"OpenVMS can't do X like all those other operating systems". IIRC at
>every turn you've been shown to be incorrect about OpenVMS'
Boy are you ever sensitive.
By your statement, what you are saying is that I am incorrect that:
OpenVMS can be a sucessful replacement for a mainframe platform
OpenVMS on Itanium is a viable platform for SMB business clients
OpenVMS has one of the better COBOL compilers I have ever seen
OpenVMS has a record aware file system
OpenVMS is well supported by HP, and will probably be around for years
And so forth and so on.
What you *seem* to be objecting to is when I say, "Here is what I need todo,
here is how I would normally do it, what is the facility under VMS that does this?"
Rather than complaining that someone is comparing and contrasting VMS to other commercial systems, you might want to consider *why*.
In the partial quote you used as an example above, you left out the part that the hardware the tape is on is an Alpha that I picked up for just about nothing, and I also said I need to move it to a new (or used) supported Itanium machine.
Why in heavens name would I, or *anyone* for that matter, go chasing around a hunk of hardware that is either not supported or simply broken when the needed capabilty is available on another resource which is working?
Better yet, why in heavens name would you assume I would NOT backup valuable (at least to me) work on which I have spent much time and effort?
>Of course OpenVMS can work with tapes. Even file-oriented if that's
>your desire. Get the hardware working, learn to recognize the device
>name, and then it'll be trivial to do a backup to tape.[/color]
Why bother? I was talking mostly about hardware.
>Rather than making statements about what OpenVMS can or can't do,
>you'd be a lot better served (and earn more respect) by learning to
>ask questions first. Like, "how do I find my tape drive"[/color]
Gee, I kind of went through that with SCSI controllers; if a device showsup in the bios when you do a SHOW DEV, but not in VMS when you do a SHOWDEV, chances are it is not recognized by VMS.
I'm willing to hear what you think is wrong with that statement. Are you saying that is probably not true? I do have an old Compaq DTL tape I was thinking of connecting to it, and an old DEC 4mm tape. Just haven't bothered to do so since in reality, backup is going to be an issue for SMB andI don't have the best answer for that. Sure seems like a question to me.
, "is there[color=blue]
>an RPG compiler for OpenVMS",[/color]
Kerry sent a link on that the other day. The reason I did not reply is that the website maintains it is an RPG-II compiler. Being first as it was very kind of Kerry to do so, and second, as most people here have probably never ever seen RPG, I did not publicy reply that the current version of RPG is RPGIV, and is based upon an ILE base. A modern RPGIV program would be virutally unrecognizable to an RPG-II programmer, given as most modern programs do *not* use "the cycle", have a ton of built in fuctions, are written in free-form syntax, and so on and so forth. In other words, it is less trouble to convert the RPG to COBOL or even Assembler than it is to try and rewrite it RPG-II.
Now that everyone is throughly bored by a paragraph talking about something that is not really even relevant in the VMS world...
"is it RDB or RMS that handles indexed[color=blue]
Okay, what is the equivalent in RMS of sepcifying the CI intervals to control splits? How large a file can RMS support, and where and when does the indexing start to bog down because of size? Is there an significant impact on the indexing performance with software raid and if so, what is thecost/benefit ratio that determines when it makes sense to move to hardware raid? How easy is it to expand VMS volumes when necessary, and when/where does degration of performance set in? (If you don't understand what Imean by degredation, consider it in light of the CI question above.)
Okay, I admit to being just a bit annoyed with the level of your complaint. I don't put a lot of that stuff out there because the people here contribute answers out of the goodness of their heart. I have not sent any ofthem a check for their answers (well, outside of HP in general that is) and don't consider it polite to ask questions that I can usually find theanswer to,
either by experiment or digging though manuals.
You want a real complaint about VMS? The documentation isn't cross referenced well enough, and when you search through the PDF manual files, the PDF files are not bookmarked. You cannot click on the table of contents entry for a sectoin and have the PDF jump to that section. Nope- you have to SCROLL to page 6-11 or whatever. There - a real honest to goodness complaint about VMS! :)
>"how do I convert a status value to text in Cobol",
I know how to convert status values; the real question there should have been "how does the Alpha hold signed COMP values and how is Itanium different?" Obviously that is a question I can go look up myself, and then I might remember it next time I need it.
In short, VMS, in a very real sense, is in competition with other systems. If you do not compare and contrast everything, a potentional customer *will* do so, and you run the risk of loosing that customer to competitionwho *did* do all their homework.
Anyone here annoyed by those comparisions, well - I apologize for that. On the other hand, I very much APPRECIATE the people here who are not insulted and who are very very helpful.
It is a little depressing sometimes to hear the horror stories about non-support for VMS from HP. I do not doubt at all the veracity of those who have those stories, but I have not personally seen that problem.
Also remember, VMS is *not* a "mainstream" environment any longer, which is in many ways an advantage, but in many other ways, means taking what is common in VMS-land and having to translate it to the equivalent common facilty in Mainstream-land. None of which is a "cut down" to VMS.
If you want rough and insulting? Look into Windows. If you don't do everything the "Microsoft" way, you are out of date, antiquated, or just incapable of understanding any "advanced" topic. It isn't that way in the mainframe, or VMS, worlds. At least, not very much so.