|
|
|
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
Ken Robinson
*nix forums Guru Wannabe
Joined: 21 Feb 2005
Posts: 289
|
 Posted: Mon Jun 05, 2006 6:33 pm Post subject:
Re: Can't deassign
|
|
|
On 6/5/06, Tom Linden <tom@kednos.com> wrote:
| Quote: | Why am I getting following?
FREJA> sho log/all MX_SITE_CLIENT_ACCESS_CHECK
"MX_SITE_CLIENT_ACCESS_CHECK" = "MX_EXE:ACCESS_CHECK.EXE"
(LNM$SYSTEM_TABLE)
FREJA> deassign/system MX_SITE_CLIENT_ACCESS_CHECK
%SYSTEM-F-NOLOGNAM, no logical name match
|
What does sho log/fu MX_SITE_CLIENT_ACCESS_CHECK show? If the logical
name is an exec mode logical you would need to specify "/exec" on the
deassign command.
Ken |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Main, Kerry
*nix forums Guru
Joined: 22 Jul 2005
Posts: 399
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 06, 2006 9:17 pm Post subject:
RE: Unix runs faster, maybe
|
|
|
| Quote: | -----Original Message-----
From: Kevin Handy [mailto:kth@srv.net]
Sent: June 6, 2006 4:18 PM
To: Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Com
Subject: Re: Unix runs faster, maybe
Dave Froble wrote:
If VMS ran on only itanic, and Unix also ran only on itanic, do you
truly feel that Unix would enjoy such greater numbers of users? No
bullshitting around, just answer the question as it's posed. No
bullshit about the real world as a way of avoiding the question.
Which would you choose? Based on perceptions and facts, known to
the intended users/purchasers:
1. VMS: A $1400 per cpu OS license for a system few people have even
heard of, (more $$$ if you don't want to use obsolete version of
the hardware), which gives you a single user license with some
network capabilities (make sure you don't lose the license
paperwork), few user/developer programs included. There is an
extra cost $$$ for more users, programming languages, etc..
Some additional programs (most of which are ports from the
other OS) available on the internet, but expect to
tinker with them a lot to get them to work properly.
Expect to may more $$$ if you decide to upgrade the hardware.
No advertisements, except a few odd ones in obscure journals.
|
Lets compare apples to apples .. I am not saying there are not
differences, but you need to get a few facts straight.
- OpenVMS hobbyist license = less than $100 (media kit).
- OpenVMS base OS on IA64 includes unlimited users, full networking
capability.
- IA64 servers to keep + full 3 day dev workshop are available for
USD$2K.
- number of OpenVMS securiity patches per year = less than number of
fingers on 1 hand. Linux security patches are released at approx 10-20
*per month*. For Prod shops that test OS/security patches impact on prod
applications before releasing, this is huge, huge impact. Check RH we
site:
https://www.redhat.com/archives/enterprise-watch-list/ (click on each
month).
- For Linux users that say their OS is secure, ask them if they have
verified and/or installed all the security patches that are applicable
to their environment. Keep in mind that a number of these patch headings
are bundled patches and do not fully describe all that they do in the
heading.
- OpenVMS app's on IA64 can be found at: (more cooking as we speak)
http://h71000.www7.hp.com/solutions/matrix/i64partner_A.html (click on
each letter for various vendors)
| Quote: | 2. Linux: A $10 per site OS (cost of a CD dist) with unlimited users,
full networking capabilities, no licensing hassels (unless
you want to deal with SCO), numerous programming languages
and user programs included, source code freely available, with
a very active, well known, and vocal user/developer base. It is
considered to be as secure as #1 by its users. It is
periodically advertised on TV and in magazines.
These perceptions are just the tip of the iceberg.
|
And a very "coloured iceberg" at that.
| Quote: | If you were a department on a limited budget, which would you
choose? Which one would give you the most bang for the buck:
a $1400+ (per cpu) with no applications, or a $10 (toal cost)
system with thousands of applications?
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com -
Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the
World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via
Encryption =----
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JF Mezei
*nix forums Guru
Joined: 21 Jul 2005
Posts: 2556
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 06, 2006 9:43 pm Post subject:
Re: Unix runs faster, maybe
|
|
|
"Main, Kerry" wrote:
| Quote: | - number of OpenVMS securiity patches per year = less than number of
fingers on 1 hand.
|
Don't brag about this. This can be spun into the image that VMS is
lethargic and that there is nobody ensuring that no patches are required.
At least with Linux, when a generic vulnerability has been found, I know
to expect a patch to be issued if it affects the Linux version. With
VMS, there is no way to know if bno patch is needed ir whether there
have not been any resources allocated to even study this.
Or does it take a number of paying customers to make formal requests to
HP to allocate resources to confirm whether the VMS version of some Unix
software requires patching ?
| Quote: | These perceptions are just the tip of the iceberg.
And a very "coloured iceberg" at that.
|
Perceptions are very important. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BRAD
*nix forums addict
Joined: 08 Sep 2005
Posts: 62
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 06, 2006 10:58 pm Post subject:
Re: Unix runs faster, maybe
|
|
|
Main, Kerry wrote:
[...]
| Quote: | 1. VMS: A $1400 per cpu OS license for a system few people have even
heard of, (more $$$ if you don't want to use obsolete version of
the hardware), which gives you a single user license with some
network capabilities (make sure you don't lose the license
paperwork), few user/developer programs included. There is an
extra cost $$$ for more users, programming languages, etc..
Some additional programs (most of which are ports from the
other OS) available on the internet, but expect to
tinker with them a lot to get them to work properly.
Expect to may more $$$ if you decide to upgrade the hardware.
No advertisements, except a few odd ones in obscure journals.
Lets compare apples to apples .. I am not saying there are not
differences, but you need to get a few facts straight.
|
OK - let's... :-)
| Quote: | - OpenVMS hobbyist license = less than $100 (media kit).
|
But you can't run a business (or even develop a business app) with the
hobbyist license! Looks as though you forgot this (very important) fact...
[...]
| Quote: | 2. Linux: A $10 per site OS (cost of a CD dist) with unlimited users,
full networking capabilities, no licensing hassels (unless
you want to deal with SCO), numerous programming languages
and user programs included, source code freely available, with
a very active, well known, and vocal user/developer base. It is
considered to be as secure as #1 by its users. It is
periodically advertised on TV and in magazines.
|
Hmmmm...$10 for a platform on which you can develop an app, and then
make money on it, vs. ~$30 (for the media alone, plus another $XX for
the Encompass membership) for a platform which you can't develop or run
a money-making app. Hard choice...
I'm not saying VMS has its advantages - but initial cost of acquisition
is not of one of them.
[...] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Villy Madsen
*nix forums beginner
Joined: 23 May 2006
Posts: 10
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 07, 2006 12:47 am Post subject:
Re: Unix runs faster, maybe
|
|
|
OK - more importantly
How many identified vulnerabilities ???
many vulnerabilities - few patches ==> a BAAAAD thing
many vulnerabilities - man patches =====> lots of work
few vulnerabilities & few patches ====> I can sleep at night....
It's interesting, one of the few VAX "vulnerabilities" that I can remember
was a SNMP problem.
On *ix the problem resulted in people taking over systems.
on VMS the SNMP server crashed (and was automatically restarted by VMS).
Similar issues with OS/400 (or whatever it's called these days) - not much
in the way of vulnerabilities - and therefore not much in the way of
patches.
It also seems to me that a significant # of the problems that did develop
were as a result
of things that were ported from *ix. (TCPIP on VMS), Apache on both
platforms.
Having said that - I do believe that part of the problem has been the
historically high cost of ownership of both of these quite excellent (in
their own way) platforms- and I speak from the view point of someone who
spent over 20 years supporting VMS and supported OS/400 from just about its
birth until about 3 years ago.
Lifetime cost of ownership may be a lot lower than people realize (because
OS maintenance (your people costs) are so much lower for the aforementioned
platforms, but that doesn't seem to be as important as the one time hit.. -
and the arguably high cost of the year to year manufacturer maintenance.
I never worked *ix support -- not my cup of tea at all. Yes it's getting
better, but you still don't know what a -I or a -i will do. I'm not case
sensitive either so that makes me a cripple as far as *ix & C is
concerned....
Villy
"JF Mezei" <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote in message
news:4485F710.E6342878@vaxination.ca...
| Quote: | "Main, Kerry" wrote:
- number of OpenVMS securiity patches per year = less than number of
fingers on 1 hand.
Don't brag about this. This can be spun into the image that VMS is
lethargic and that there is nobody ensuring that no patches are required.
At least with Linux, when a generic vulnerability has been found, I know
to expect a patch to be issued if it affects the Linux version. With
VMS, there is no way to know if bno patch is needed ir whether there
have not been any resources allocated to even study this.
Or does it take a number of paying customers to make formal requests to
HP to allocate resources to confirm whether the VMS version of some Unix
software requires patching ?
These perceptions are just the tip of the iceberg.
And a very "coloured iceberg" at that.
Perceptions are very important. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Villy Madsen
*nix forums beginner
Joined: 23 May 2006
Posts: 10
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 07, 2006 12:55 am Post subject:
Re: Unix runs faster, maybe
|
|
|
Another thought
on VMS - you have to go out of your way to write an application that will be
vulnerable to a buffer overflow attack.
on *ix - you really have to know what you are doing in order to write an
application that isn't vulnerable to a buffer overflow. (then there is of
course RDB & Oracle which I understand actually uses self modifying code
(double gag!))
I at one time would say that it isn't even possible to write a buffer
overflow vulnerable application on OS/400, but I don't know how far the *ix
virus has invaded that platform...
Villy
| Quote: | OK - more importantly
How many identified vulnerabilities ???
many vulnerabilities - few patches ==> a BAAAAD thing
many vulnerabilities - man patches =====> lots of work
few vulnerabilities & few patches ====> I can sleep at night....
It's interesting, one of the few VAX "vulnerabilities" that I can remember
was a SNMP problem.
On *ix the problem resulted in people taking over systems.
on VMS the SNMP server crashed (and was automatically restarted by VMS).
Similar issues with OS/400 (or whatever it's called these days) - not much
in the way of vulnerabilities - and therefore not much in the way of
patches.
It also seems to me that a significant # of the problems that did develop
were as a result
of things that were ported from *ix. (TCPIP on VMS), Apache on both
platforms.
Having said that - I do believe that part of the problem has been the
historically high cost of ownership of both of these quite excellent (in
their own way) platforms- and I speak from the view point of someone who
spent over 20 years supporting VMS and supported OS/400 from just about
its
birth until about 3 years ago.
Lifetime cost of ownership may be a lot lower than people realize
(because
OS maintenance (your people costs) are so much lower for the
aforementioned
platforms, but that doesn't seem to be as important as the one time
hit.. -
and the arguably high cost of the year to year manufacturer maintenance.
I never worked *ix support -- not my cup of tea at all. Yes it's getting
better, but you still don't know what a -I or a -i will do. I'm not case
sensitive either so that makes me a cripple as far as *ix & C is
concerned....
Villy
"JF Mezei" <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote in message
news:4485F710.E6342878@vaxination.ca...
"Main, Kerry" wrote:
- number of OpenVMS securiity patches per year = less than number of
fingers on 1 hand.
Don't brag about this. This can be spun into the image that VMS is
lethargic and that there is nobody ensuring that no patches are
required.
At least with Linux, when a generic vulnerability has been found, I know
to expect a patch to be issued if it affects the Linux version. With
VMS, there is no way to know if bno patch is needed ir whether there
have not been any resources allocated to even study this.
Or does it take a number of paying customers to make formal requests to
HP to allocate resources to confirm whether the VMS version of some Unix
software requires patching ?
These perceptions are just the tip of the iceberg.
And a very "coloured iceberg" at that.
Perceptions are very important.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JF Mezei
*nix forums Guru
Joined: 21 Jul 2005
Posts: 2556
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 07, 2006 1:24 am Post subject:
Re: Unix runs faster, maybe
|
|
|
Villy Madsen wrote:
| Quote: |
Another thought
on VMS - you have to go out of your way to write an application that will be
vulnerable to a buffer overflow attack.
|
Buffer overflow is not the only problem.
Consider the POP server on VMS. It was loaded with SYSPRV. And someone
found out long after it was distributied to many customers that any
unprovileged user could defined the pop server as a foreign command and
invoke it with a log file speficication. The application, given SYSPRV,
was able to create a logfile ANYWHERE on the system, allowing any user
to essentially overwrite any file on the system.
A patch was not issued as I recall. Just a suggestion to temporarily
disable SYSPRV from the pop server image until the new version came out.
Remember that many apps in the TCPIP stack are installed with very
powerful privileges. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Villy Madsen
*nix forums beginner
Joined: 23 May 2006
Posts: 10
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 07, 2006 1:42 am Post subject:
Re: Unix runs faster, maybe
|
|
|
Yes the TCPIP under VMS products have problems
guess where it came from.....
(they couldn't even convert the time and date stuff to use the standard VMS
datetime - I wonder if that has been fixed, or whether the whole shooting
match will croak - in what 2014 or something..)
Villy
"JF Mezei" <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> wrote in message
news:44862A9D.A7FDC60E@teksavvy.com...
| Quote: | Villy Madsen wrote:
Another thought
on VMS - you have to go out of your way to write an application that
will be
vulnerable to a buffer overflow attack.
Buffer overflow is not the only problem.
Consider the POP server on VMS. It was loaded with SYSPRV. And someone
found out long after it was distributied to many customers that any
unprovileged user could defined the pop server as a foreign command and
invoke it with a log file speficication. The application, given SYSPRV,
was able to create a logfile ANYWHERE on the system, allowing any user
to essentially overwrite any file on the system.
A patch was not issued as I recall. Just a suggestion to temporarily
disable SYSPRV from the pop server image until the new version came out.
Remember that many apps in the TCPIP stack are installed with very
powerful privileges. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dave Froble
*nix forums Guru
Joined: 21 Jul 2005
Posts: 1172
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 07, 2006 5:33 am Post subject:
Re: Unix runs faster, maybe
|
|
|
Main, Kerry wrote:
| Quote: | -----Original Message-----
From: Kevin Handy [mailto:kth@srv.net]
Sent: June 6, 2006 4:18 PM
To: Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Com
Subject: Re: Unix runs faster, maybe
Dave Froble wrote:
If VMS ran on only itanic, and Unix also ran only on itanic, do you
truly feel that Unix would enjoy such greater numbers of users? No
bullshitting around, just answer the question as it's posed. No
bullshit about the real world as a way of avoiding the question.
Which would you choose? Based on perceptions and facts, known to
the intended users/purchasers:
|
First, if Unix only ran on a single platform, not x86, then:
1) There never would have been a Linux
2) There would not be a hugh Unix user base
3) There would not be a hugh Unix application base
..
..
..
Seems like another who choose to not understand the question, or to
answer it as asked.
| Quote: | 1. VMS: A $1400 per cpu OS license for a system few people have even
heard of, (more $$$ if you don't want to use obsolete version of
the hardware), which gives you a single user license with some
network capabilities (make sure you don't lose the license
paperwork), few user/developer programs included. There is an
extra cost $$$ for more users, programming languages, etc..
Some additional programs (most of which are ports from the
other OS) available on the internet, but expect to
tinker with them a lot to get them to work properly.
Expect to may more $$$ if you decide to upgrade the hardware.
No advertisements, except a few odd ones in obscure journals.
Lets compare apples to apples .. I am not saying there are not
differences, but you need to get a few facts straight.
- OpenVMS hobbyist license = less than $100 (media kit).
|
Meaningless for commercial use.
| Quote: | - OpenVMS base OS on IA64 includes unlimited users, full networking
capability.
- IA64 servers to keep + full 3 day dev workshop are available for
USD$2K.
- number of OpenVMS securiity patches per year = less than number of
fingers on 1 hand. Linux security patches are released at approx 10-20
*per month*. For Prod shops that test OS/security patches impact on prod
applications before releasing, this is huge, huge impact. Check RH we
site:
|
Once the statement "considered to be as secure as #1 by its users" is
made, then you can assume that such people will not consider vetting any
patches.
| Quote: | https://www.redhat.com/archives/enterprise-watch-list/ (click on each
month).
- For Linux users that say their OS is secure, ask them if they have
verified and/or installed all the security patches that are applicable
to their environment. Keep in mind that a number of these patch headings
are bundled patches and do not fully describe all that they do in the
heading.
- OpenVMS app's on IA64 can be found at: (more cooking as we speak)
http://h71000.www7.hp.com/solutions/matrix/i64partner_A.html (click on
each letter for various vendors)
2. Linux: A $10 per site OS (cost of a CD dist) with unlimited users,
full networking capabilities, no licensing hassels (unless
you want to deal with SCO), numerous programming languages
and user programs included, source code freely available, with
a very active, well known, and vocal user/developer base. It is
considered to be as secure as #1 by its users. It is
periodically advertised on TV and in magazines.
These perceptions are just the tip of the iceberg.
And a very "coloured iceberg" at that.
|
Rainbow!
| Quote: | If you were a department on a limited budget, which would you
choose? Which one would give you the most bang for the buck:
a $1400+ (per cpu) with no applications, or a $10 (toal cost)
system with thousands of applications?
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com -
Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the
World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via
Encryption =----
|
--
David Froble Tel: 724-529-0450
Dave Froble Enterprises, Inc. E-Mail: davef@tsoft-inc.com
DFE Ultralights, Inc.
170 Grimplin Road
Vanderbilt, PA 15486 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dave Froble
*nix forums Guru
Joined: 21 Jul 2005
Posts: 1172
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 07, 2006 5:41 am Post subject:
Re: Unix runs faster, maybe
|
|
|
Villy Madsen wrote:
| Quote: | OK - more importantly
How many identified vulnerabilities ???
many vulnerabilities - few patches ==> a BAAAAD thing
many vulnerabilities - man patches =====> lots of work
few vulnerabilities & few patches ====> I can sleep at night....
It's interesting, one of the few VAX "vulnerabilities" that I can remember
was a SNMP problem.
On *ix the problem resulted in people taking over systems.
on VMS the SNMP server crashed (and was automatically restarted by VMS).
Similar issues with OS/400 (or whatever it's called these days) - not much
in the way of vulnerabilities - and therefore not much in the way of
patches.
It also seems to me that a significant # of the problems that did develop
were as a result
of things that were ported from *ix. (TCPIP on VMS), Apache on both
platforms.
Having said that - I do believe that part of the problem has been the
historically high cost of ownership of both of these quite excellent (in
their own way) platforms- and I speak from the view point of someone who
spent over 20 years supporting VMS and supported OS/400 from just about its
birth until about 3 years ago.
Lifetime cost of ownership may be a lot lower than people realize (because
OS maintenance (your people costs) are so much lower for the aforementioned
platforms, but that doesn't seem to be as important as the one time hit.. -
and the arguably high cost of the year to year manufacturer maintenance.
|
There is always a minimum of two (2) sides to any issue, consider:
1) Employees like an environment that provides job security. The more
needed, the more security. (So, just what type of 'security' were we
discussing?)
2) Managers might rate their importance by how many people they have
working for them.
--
David Froble Tel: 724-529-0450
Dave Froble Enterprises, Inc. E-Mail: davef@tsoft-inc.com
DFE Ultralights, Inc.
170 Grimplin Road
Vanderbilt, PA 15486 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
norm.raphael@metso.com
*nix forums Guru Wannabe
Joined: 02 Jun 2005
Posts: 227
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 14, 2006 12:56 pm Post subject:
Re: Slowin' machine while zipping or deleting big binary files
|
|
|
"xxrmanza" <rrmj@gmv.es> wrote on 06/14/2006 08:20:15 AM:
| Quote: | Hi,
I have a XP1000 with OpenVMS V7.2-1 and when I zip or delete a big file
(120000 blocks) it slows so much that becomes almost useless for other
users to work in. I have tried to do it with a default user (no privs,
no big quotas) and it is the same. Can you provide me a hint?
|
Submit it to a batch queue with a priority of 1.
| Quote: |
Thanx in advance and cheers
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steven M. Schweda
*nix forums Guru
Joined: 01 Aug 2005
Posts: 300
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 14, 2006 12:57 pm Post subject:
Re: Slowin' machine while zipping or deleting big binary files
|
|
|
From: "xxrmanza" <rrmj@gmv.es>
| Quote: | I have a XP1000 with OpenVMS V7.2-1 and when I zip or delete a big file
(120000 blocks) it slows so much that becomes almost useless for other
users to work in. I have tried to do it with a default user (no privs,
no big quotas) and it is the same. Can you provide me a hint?
|
120000 blocks is not all that big. More than 2GB is big.
Zip versions before 2.31 (and UnZip before 5.52) had slower I/O on
VMS, but if delete is bad, too, then it may not be a Zip-specific
problem.
Big quotas might help. How much memory is in the system, and how
much are you allowed to use? ("SHOW MEMORY /PHYSICAL", "SHOW
WORKING_SET".) How many users? Does everyone have the same process
priority, or is yours higher? ("SHOW PROCESS".)
Deleting a file can be slow if erase-on-delete is set for the disk of
interest. ("HELP SET VOLUME /ERASE_ON_DELETE", "SHOW DEVICE /FULL
disk:".)
MONITOR SYSTEM in one window/session while doing the unpleasant
operation in another?
"OpenVMS Performance Management":
http://h71000.www7.hp.com/doc/73final/6491/6491pro.html
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Steven M. Schweda sms@antinode-org
382 South Warwick Street (+1) 651-699-9818
Saint Paul MN 55105-2547 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Larry Kilgallen
*nix forums Guru
Joined: 05 Mar 2005
Posts: 729
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 14, 2006 1:35 pm Post subject:
Re: Slowin' machine while zipping or deleting big binary files
|
|
|
In article <06061407575481_2022872F@antinode.org>, sms@antinode.org (Steven M. Schweda) writes:
| Quote: | From: "xxrmanza" <rrmj@gmv.es
I have a XP1000 with OpenVMS V7.2-1 and when I zip or delete a big file
(120000 blocks) it slows so much that becomes almost useless for other
users to work in. I have tried to do it with a default user (no privs,
no big quotas) and it is the same. Can you provide me a hint?
120000 blocks is not all that big. More than 2GB is big.
Zip versions before 2.31 (and UnZip before 5.52) had slower I/O on
VMS, but if delete is bad, too, then it may not be a Zip-specific
problem.
|
How many files are in the directory involved ? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Eberhard Heuser-Hofmann
*nix forums addict
Joined: 07 Jul 2005
Posts: 67
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 14, 2006 3:08 pm Post subject:
Re: Slowin' machine while zipping or deleting big binary files
|
|
|
In article <+fastehWBrYD@eisner.encompasserve.org>, Kilgallen@SpamCop.net
(Larry Kilgallen) writes:
| Quote: | In article <06061407575481_2022872F@antinode.org>, sms@antinode.org
(Steven M. Schweda) writes:
From: "xxrmanza" <rrmj@gmv.es
I have a XP1000 with OpenVMS V7.2-1 and when I zip or delete a big
file
(120000 blocks) it slows so much that becomes almost useless for other
users to work in. I have tried to do it with a default user (no privs,
no big quotas) and it is the same. Can you provide me a hint?
120000 blocks is not all that big. More than 2GB is big.
Zip versions before 2.31 (and UnZip before 5.52) had slower I/O on
VMS, but if delete is bad, too, then it may not be a Zip-specific
problem.
How many files are in the directory involved ?
|
Is highwater_marking enabled???
Eberhard |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
xxrmanza
*nix forums beginner
Joined: 14 Jun 2006
Posts: 2
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 14, 2006 4:26 pm Post subject:
Re: Slowin' machine while zipping or deleting big binary files
|
|
|
thank you all for your help.
The winner is : highwater mark!
was enabled. As soon as I set it to nohighwater it works splendid.
Cheers
Eberhard Heuser-Hofmann ha escrito:
| Quote: | In article <+fastehWBrYD@eisner.encompasserve.org>, Kilgallen@SpamCop.net
(Larry Kilgallen) writes:
In article <06061407575481_2022872F@antinode.org>, sms@antinode.org
(Steven M. Schweda) writes:
From: "xxrmanza" <rrmj@gmv.es
I have a XP1000 with OpenVMS V7.2-1 and when I zip or delete a big
file
(120000 blocks) it slows so much that becomes almost useless for other
users to work in. I have tried to do it with a default user (no privs,
no big quotas) and it is the same. Can you provide me a hint?
120000 blocks is not all that big. More than 2GB is big.
Zip versions before 2.31 (and UnZip before 5.52) had slower I/O on
VMS, but if delete is bad, too, then it may not be a Zip-specific
problem.
How many files are in the directory involved ?
Is highwater_marking enabled???
Eberhard |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Google
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
The time now is Tue Dec 02, 2008 6:01 am | All times are GMT
|
|
2008 Air Jordan Release Dates | Credit Cards | Personal Loans | Credit Check | Mortgages
|
|
Copyright © 2004-2005 DeniX Solutions SRL
|
|
|
|
Other DeniX Solutions sites:
Unix/Linux blog |
electronics forum |
medicine forum |
science forum |
|
|
Privacy Policy
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Forum index
»
Not Unix
»
VMS
