BACKUP A:[...]*.* B:[...] missing root

FAQ

Memberlist

Usergroups

Profile

Preferences

· nixdoc.net

· man pages

· Linux HOWTOs

· FreeBSD Tips

· Forums

Forum index » Not Unix » VMS

BACKUP A:[...]*.* B:[...] missing root

Page 143 of 143 [2145 Posts]

View previous topic :: View next topic
Goto page: Previous 1, 2, 3, ..., 141, 142, 143

Author

Message

Mark Townsend
*nix forums Guru Wannabe

Joined: 02 Apr 2005
Posts: 213

Posted: Sat Jul 08, 2006 5:23 pm Post subject: Note

Re: No Oracle Standard Edition planned for VMS on IA64

Malcolm Dunnett wrote:

Malcolm - please send me an email at mark.townsend at oracle.com and I
will get this checked for you. As far as I can see, 10.2.0.2 is
scheduled for OpenVMS. I will need to check if SE is part of that, and
if not, then any feedback you can provide on your situation may help
change that decision

adde l aide
*nix forums beginner

Joined: 08 Jul 2006
Posts: 1

Posted: Sat Jul 08, 2006 6:15 pm Post subject: Note

Re: J F at his best!!!

"Nomen Nescio" <nobody@dizum.com> wrote in message
news:d5ddd83b9ee386f544259928b7c843d9@dizum.com...

Quote:

Insane Canadian psychopath JF Mezei planted this IED:

mrtravel wrote:
How can anyone stabilized the middle east where there are multiple
internal groups fighting for control with each other?

Your regime had been warned by former allies that going into Iraq would
destabilise the situation BIG TIME. And this is why none of the
neighbours, except Kurwait supported the USA invasion of Iraq. Hussein
was an evil leader that was contained, and more importantly, that
contained the bad guys within his country.

Your regime chose to disregard worldwide advice to leave Iraq alone, and
instead use money and coercion to enlist some other countries (except
Australia which begged to be part of this war crime without expecting
anything in return).

CanKt wait for the day when Bush will have killed more americans because
of his terrorist attack on Iraq than Bin Ladin's terrorist attack on
USA. It is coming this year. Excpect major announcement of troup
widthdrawals just before that milestone is reached in order to
pre-emtively defise the bad news of Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz
having killed more americans than Bin Ladin.

Of course, the USA doesn't care about how many Iraqis they have killed.
This is more than 5 times more than the number of americans killed by
Ossama. Yet, there is now "Wanted dead or alive" sign for the Bush
regime who have committed even bigger crimes than Bin Landin.

http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.quebec/msg/880c1fd75171d44c

If you think the USA is bad just wait a few years till China rules the
world.

Dust off your Learn Mandarin in 10 Minutes A Day and get crackin' I say.

Gregory Morrow
*nix forums beginner

Joined: 23 Jul 2005
Posts: 34

Posted: Sat Jul 08, 2006 6:31 pm Post subject: Note

Re: J F at his best!!!

Nomen Nescio wrote:

Quote:

JF is like an especially leftist and USA - hating GABBY parrot, he has
repeated this folderol at LEAST 10,000 times over the years...

It would be laughable if it weren't actually so pathetic and sad...

--
Best
Greg

Dan O'Reilly
*nix forums addict

Joined: 08 Jul 2005
Posts: 78

Posted: Tue Jul 11, 2006 1:33 pm Post subject: Note

Re: Any Way to Validate Username & Password from an Application?

You might consider looking into the new VAM (VMS Authentication Module)
from Process Software. It has exactly this functionality in it, plus LDAP
and RSA SecurID lookups as well.

At 07:17 AM 7/11/2006, Craig Dedo wrote:

Quote:

Everyone:
Is there any way to validate a username and password from an
application? We need to have this functionality in one of our OpenVMS
applications.

The application program has a variety of application-defined
advanced privileges, e.g., granting certain kinds of exceptions to the
usual business rules. At the time such privileges need to be used, it
is necessary to validate the username and password for several reasons.
These include:
1. Regulatory and audit trail requirements.
2. Warning to privileged users that they are about to do a
privileged task.
3. Ordinary users often don't have the required privilege for the
task and need a supervisor or specialist to do it for them.

Right now, we are using a hack in order to get this functionality.
After the user enters the required username and password, we do a
directory search of the default directory using a fully-qualified node
name with access control string. The command is of the form:
$ DIR NODE"USERNAME PASSWORD"::SYS$LOGIN:*.*

I was wondering of there was a more elegant method, e.g., some kind
of OpenVMS API procedure.

I have already done some homework. I looked in the Run Time
Library (LIB$), System Services Library (SYS$), and Utility Routines
LOGINOUT procedures (LGI$) without finding anything that provides what
I need. I am wondering what, if anything, I have overlooked.

I such a capability available in one or more of the OpenVMS API
procedures? If so, which ones?

Craig T. Dedo, VMS Consultant
Mayo Central Lab for Clinical Trials
Superior Drive Support Center 2-110-26
3050 Superior Drive NW
Rochester, MN 55905-1700
Voice Phone: (507) 538-4636
Fax Phone: (507) 284-0615
Mobile Phone: (414) 412-5869
E-mail: <Dedo.Craig@mayo.edu

dphill46@netscape.net
*nix forums Guru Wannabe

Joined: 20 Sep 2005
Posts: 100

Posted: Thu Jul 13, 2006 3:57 pm Post subject: Note

Re: Micro-pump is cool idea for future computer chips

studyandscience@yahoo.com wrote:

Quote:

Micro-pump is cool idea for future computer chips

http://www.studyandjobs.com/Micro_pump.html

or visit

http://www.studyandjobs.com/IT_study.htm

Regards

Another cool idea: silicon Raman amplifiers;

<http://www.newsroom.ucla.edu/page.asp?RelNum=7160>

##
In a study to be presented today [June 28, 2006] at the 2006
International Optical Amplifiers and Applications Conference in
Vancouver, Canada, UCLA Engineering researchers report that not only
can optical amplification in silicon be achieved with zero power
consumption, but power can now be generated in the process.
##

Looking at the latest advancements in materials, nanotech and opticals,
it sure feels like we're starting to push through the next-gen
technology barriers.

*************
As the proverbial curse of unknown origin states:
"May you live in interesting times."

Tom Linden
*nix forums Guru

Joined: 06 May 2002
Posts: 841

Posted: Thu Jul 13, 2006 4:34 pm Post subject: Note

Re: Micro-pump is cool idea for future computer chips

On Thu, 13 Jul 2006 08:57:41 -0700, Doug Phillips <dphill46@netscape.net>
wrote:

Quote:

##
In a study to be presented today [June 28, 2006] at the 2006
International Optical Amplifiers and Applications Conference in
Vancouver, Canada, UCLA Engineering researchers report that not only
can optical amplification in silicon be achieved with zero power
consumption, but power can now be generated in the process.
##

So perpetual motion is possible after all.

Bill Gunshannon
*nix forums Guru

Joined: 21 Jul 2005
Posts: 1019

Posted: Thu Jul 13, 2006 4:43 pm Post subject: Note

Re: Micro-pump is cool idea for future computer chips

In article <op.tcmyzgh3zgicya@hyrrokkin>,
"Tom Linden" <tom@kednos.com> writes:

Quote:

On Thu, 13 Jul 2006 08:57:41 -0700, Doug Phillips <dphill46@netscape.net=
=

wrote:

##
In a study to be presented today [June 28, 2006] at the 2006
International Optical Amplifiers and Applications Conference in
Vancouver, Canada, UCLA Engineering researchers report that not only
can optical amplification in silicon be achieved with zero power
consumption, but power can now be generated in the process.
##

So perpetual motion is possible after all.

Damn, you beat me to it. I figured this was why the prices for
gas were so high. The oil companies were trying to milk all they
could out of this before the perpetual motion machine was announced.

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 <std.disclaimer.h>

Main, Kerry
*nix forums Guru

Joined: 22 Jul 2005
Posts: 399

Posted: Sun Jul 16, 2006 1:36 pm Post subject: Note

RE: VMS and HPVM (was: Parsec webinar (2006-07-12) OpenVMS Licensing)

Quote:

-----Original Message-----
From: johnhreinhardt@yahoo.com [mailto:johnhreinhardt@yahoo.com]
Sent: July 15, 2006 5:00 PM
To: Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Com
Subject: Re: VMS and HPVM (was: Parsec webinar (2006-07-12)
OpenVMS Licensing)

Larry Kilgallen wrote:
In article <e9b33l$shr$1@news.mdx.ac.uk>,
david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk writes:

Folks at the boot camp last month had the chance to view
my demonstration
of a VMS guest on top of HPVM; the VMS guest was clustered with
another VMS guest and several other Alpha and I64 systems
(and a VAX thrown in
for good measure). We still have a lot of work to do,
but features like
shadowing are working with no problem. It is expected
that this will be
shipping and supported at the end of 2007.

Why would anyone want to do this ?

Some people want to subdivide a large machine into multiple
operating
systems or multiple instances of a single operating system.
On Alpha
that is done with Galaxy. On Itanium it is possible to do it fully
in software, since (I gather) the Itanium instruction set design is
such that it can be virtualized, like OS360 and unlike VAX.

In addition it gives you a bit more flexibility in dividing your
system. If I am not mistaken, the cell-based Integrity servers
(Superdome, rx74xx,rx84xx) all support running multiple OSs on the
different cells of the same server. However, to
re-distribute the CPUs
between the cells requires the machine be downed and the hardware
configuration changed. With the HPVM it seems like it would be
possible to make such changes without downing the whole server - only
the affected virtual machines. Possibly it could be done on the fly
without requiring a shutdown of any virtual server.

Note that the reason for doing partitioning to begin with is usually to
make better use of fewer, but larger server resources.

Keep in mind that most Customers today are faced with the average
utilization of their Windows systems being 5-15% busy in *peak* times
(only 5-10% of servers ever exceed 80-90%). For UNIX servers, this ratio
is a bit higher, but not much higher (10-25% range).

This grossly under utilized server problem is also why many Cust's are
not impressed with performance benchmarks of new systems. They already
have huge imbalance of under-utilized server resources. It is why the
whole VM/consolidation topic is so hot today.

The analogy I use with Customers considering consolidation is "what
would you do if your IT staff was only 5-20% busy at peak times? Would
you not want to do something about it?"

With most OpenVMS Customers, if they wanted to consolidate their
workloads, they would simply run the app's on a single system/cluster
i.e. App sharing because that is accepted culture/practice for OpenVMS
Customers. It is quite common for example to run the DB and middle tier
business logic on the same OpenVMS system/cluster. They have been doing
that for years.

However, there are some areas where local politics means that having a
VM capability to keep the OpenVMS apps from different BU's separate
would be beneficial. Every Cust typically has those internal political
challenges.

With Windows/Linux and many UNIX environments, the same App sharing
culture/practice is not as accepted for both technical and political
reasons, and the "one app, one server" mentality makes those
environments more ripe for VM type environments.

Keep in mind that VM's reduce HW requirements, but not OS licensing,
hence the reduction of SysAdmins is minimal since FTE ratios are
typically built of OS instance per SysAdmin ratio's. Each OS instance
still needs to be monitored, managed, licenses, updated. The main focus
is HW reduction. With App sharing, you reduce not only HW, but also the
number of OS instances as well.

The other challenge with VM's is that some ISV's are much better than
others when it comes to VM licensing and support. ISV licensing of VM's
can be a topic all of its own. As an example, Microsoft does not support
Cust's where their application is running on VMware. Their std line
(unless it has changed) is "reproduce the problem on a standalone
machine and we will take a look at it".

Bottom line is that that there are pro's and con's with VM strategies.
Each needs to be reviewed to determine if it is right for you or not.

However, unless you also reduce the OS instances, the IT dept will be
able to reduce HW costs, but not likely be able to reduce their IT staff
much. And IT Staff is the single biggest slice of IT expenses (by far).

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
*nix forums Guru

Joined: 05 Mar 2005
Posts: 729

Posted: Sun Jul 16, 2006 2:38 pm Post subject: Note

RE: VMS and HPVM (was: Parsec webinar (2006-07-12) OpenVMS Licensing)

In article <FA60F2C4B72A584DBFC6091F6A2B8684017234E5@tayexc19.americas.cpqcorp.net>, "Main, Kerry" <Kerry.Main@hp.com> writes:

Quote:

With most OpenVMS Customers, if they wanted to consolidate their
workloads, they would simply run the app's on a single system/cluster
i.e. App sharing because that is accepted culture/practice for OpenVMS
Customers. It is quite common for example to run the DB and middle tier
business logic on the same OpenVMS system/cluster. They have been doing
that for years.

However, there are some areas where local politics means that having a
VM capability to keep the OpenVMS apps from different BU's separate
would be beneficial. Every Cust typically has those internal political
challenges.

One such challenge is a top manager who looks at how the company has
dealt with Windows and determines to take that path with VMS. It is
important that VMS be able to play in that fashion, even if it is not
required for technical reasons.

JF Mezei
*nix forums Guru

Joined: 21 Jul 2005
Posts: 2556

Posted: Sun Jul 16, 2006 3:48 pm Post subject: Note

Re: VMS and HPVM (was: Parsec webinar (2006-07-12) OpenVMS Licensing)

"Main, Kerry" wrote:

Quote:

Keep in mind that most Customers today are faced with the average
utilization of their Windows systems being 5-15% busy in *peak* times
(only 5-10% of servers ever exceed 80-90%). For UNIX servers, this ratio
is a bit higher, but not much higher (10-25% range).

But HP's IA64 solutions are not of any use for those since they are not
likely to be able to run their apps on that IA64 thing.

Quote:

However, there are some areas where local politics means that having a
VM capability to keep the OpenVMS apps from different BU's separate
would be beneficial. Every Cust typically has those internal political
challenges.

Those very politics would also likely preclude runing both instances on
the same hardware because of hardware management issues. Remember the
1980s debates between departments who wanted autonomy from the "MIS data
centre" ????

Dave Froble
*nix forums Guru

Joined: 21 Jul 2005
Posts: 1172

Posted: Mon Jul 17, 2006 1:40 am Post subject: Note

Re: VMS and HPVM (was: Parsec webinar (2006-07-12) OpenVMS Licensing)

Larry Kilgallen wrote:

Quote:

In article <FA60F2C4B72A584DBFC6091F6A2B8684017234E5@tayexc19.americas.cpqcorp.net>, "Main, Kerry" <Kerry.Main@hp.com> writes:

With most OpenVMS Customers, if they wanted to consolidate their
workloads, they would simply run the app's on a single system/cluster
i.e. App sharing because that is accepted culture/practice for OpenVMS
Customers. It is quite common for example to run the DB and middle tier
business logic on the same OpenVMS system/cluster. They have been doing
that for years.

However, there are some areas where local politics means that having a
VM capability to keep the OpenVMS apps from different BU's separate
would be beneficial. Every Cust typically has those internal political
challenges.

One such challenge is a top manager who looks at how the company has
dealt with Windows and determines to take that path with VMS. It is
important that VMS be able to play in that fashion, even if it is not
required for technical reasons.

It would seem to me that educating the top manager might be better than
attempting to jump through useless hoops. Some obstacles:

1) top managers sometimes believe in their infailability.
2) beancounters many times prove uneducatable.
3) ego.

--
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

Main, Kerry
*nix forums Guru

Joined: 22 Jul 2005
Posts: 399

Posted: Mon Jul 17, 2006 3:26 pm Post subject: Note

RE: VMS and HPVM (was: Parsec webinar (2006-07-12) OpenVMS Licensing)

Quote:

-----Original Message-----
From: JF Mezei [mailto:jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com]
Sent: July 16, 2006 11:48 AM
To: Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Com
Subject: Re: VMS and HPVM (was: Parsec webinar (2006-07-12)
OpenVMS Licensing)

"Main, Kerry" wrote:
Keep in mind that most Customers today are faced with the average
utilization of their Windows systems being 5-15% busy in
*peak* times
(only 5-10% of servers ever exceed 80-90%). For UNIX
servers, this ratio
is a bit higher, but not much higher (10-25% range).

But HP's IA64 solutions are not of any use for those since
they are not
likely to be able to run their apps on that IA64 thing.

Why not?

Lots of app's certified or in process of being certified for IA64 /
OpenVMS, Check out:
http://h71000.www7.hp.com/solutions/matrix/i64partner_A.html (click on
letter for each vendor)

They can also run their app's in translated mode (OMSAI and VEST) on
OpenVMS via:
http://h71000.www7.hp.com/doc/82final/translating_images.pdf?jumpid=reg_
R1002_USEN

And tools and code planning modules to assist in migration:
http://h71000.www7.hp.com/openvms/integrity/transition/app_tools.html
http://h71000.www7.hp.com/openvms/integrity/transition/modules.html

Quote:

However, there are some areas where local politics means
that having a
VM capability to keep the OpenVMS apps from different BU's separate
would be beneficial. Every Cust typically has those
internal political
challenges.

Agree - politics is a fact of life in any shop.

[snip..]

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.

Brian Inglis
*nix forums beginner

Joined: 16 Feb 2005
Posts: 22

Posted: Wed Jul 19, 2006 5:32 pm Post subject: Note

Re: RFD: Remove comp.os.rsts

[xposted to comp.os.vms,alt.sys.pdp11]

On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 09:09:45 GMT in comp.os.rsts, Jim Riley
<jimrtex@pipeline.com> wrote:

Quote:

REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)

This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) to remove the following
Usenet newsgroup:

remove remove comp.os.rsts

RATIONALE: remove comp.os.rsts

This is one of a set of 31 low-traffic former INET groups proposed for
removal. Please see the article

"2nd RFD: Remove low traffic former INET groups"

posted to news.announce.newgroups and news.groups for a more general
discussion.

**********************************************************************************

RATIONALE: remove comp.os.rsts

The newsgroup line is:

|comp.os.rsts Topics related to the PDP-11 RSTS/E operating system.

comp.os.rsts has had 15 on-topic messages in the past 11 months, in 3
threads. Two of the threads were cross-posted to groups such as
vmsnet.pdp-11, alt.sys.pdp11, and comp.sys.dec.

**********************************************************************************

PROCEDURE:

The full (draft) group removal procedure is documented here:

http://www.big-8.org/dokuwiki/doku.php?id=policies:rmgroup

Those who wish to comment on this request to remove this newsgroup
should subscribe to news.groups and participate in the relevant threads
in that newsgroup.

To this end, the followup header of this RFD has been set to
news.groups.

All discussion of active proposals should be posted to news.groups.

If desired by the readership of closely affected groups, the discussion
may be crossposted to those groups, but care must be taken to ensure
that all discussion appears in news.groups as well.

DISTRIBUTION:

news.announce.newgroups (omitted)
news.groups
comp.os.rsts
comp.org.decus
comp.sys.dec

PROPONENT:

Jim Riley <jimrtex@pipeline.com

CHANGE HISTORY:

2006-07-08 Original RFD.

--
Thanks. Take care, Brian Inglis Calgary, Alberta, Canada

Brian.Inglis@CSi.com (Brian[dot]Inglis{at}SystematicSW[dot]ab[dot]ca)
fake address use address above to reply

Valentin Likoum
*nix forums beginner

Joined: 24 Apr 2006
Posts: 4

Posted: Fri Jul 21, 2006 3:22 am Post subject: Note

Re[2]: 2 CPU's in timeout on my ES40

On 21/07/06 dave.baxter@bannerhealth.com <dave.baxter@bannerhealth.com> wrote:

Quote:

Syltrem wrote:
Has anyone experienced CPU's ceasing to be in service on an ES40 ?

I've never seen this before, there are no errors on the system or reported
by DIAG
2 CPUs out of 4 are not working right now.

$ sh cpu

System: HELIOS, AlphaServer ES40

CPU ownership sets:
Active 0,2
Configure 0-3

CPU state sets:
Potential 0-3

Strangely enough, I had a similar event last week. I had an ES40
crash and reboot on Saturday Afternoon. Since it was not critical, I
didn't get to it until Monday, however I found a situation similar to
that described above, (one I had never seen before either!). One CPU
(#2) was in a "TIMEOUT" state. For me, the command above showed

Last week seems to be unlucky for ES40s woldwide. Our ES40
encountered stange hangs. No crash dump, no error entries, no SRM
prompt - nothing at all, the machine just hangs. Very stange behaviour
for this iron.

--
Best regards,
Valentin
valentin.likoum at ncc dot volga dot ru

Valentin Likoum
*nix forums beginner

Joined: 24 Apr 2006
Posts: 4

Posted: Fri Jul 21, 2006 6:37 am Post subject: Note

Re[2]: 2 CPU's in timeout on my ES40

On 21/07/06 Volker Halle <volker_halle@hotmail.com> wrote:

Quote:

Valentin,

once your ES40 was hung, did you try to press the HALT button ? If the
system would not react when pressing HALT, this is most likely a
hardware hang, otherwise it could be software and you can force a crash
entering >>>> CRASH.

No reaction to HALT button. Yes, it's hardware problem and most
likely culprit is somewhere around memory (we change memory back from
field-installed BIG memory option to factory-installed SMALL memory
and system is working 3 days now). The things what makes me wonder
are the hang without diagnostic what is unusual for this class of iron
and the bad luck of ES40s around the world this week :)

--
Best regards,
Valentin
valentin.likoum@ncc.volga.ru

Google

Display posts from previous:

Page 143 of 143 [2145 Posts]

Goto page: Previous 1, 2, 3, ..., 141, 142, 143
View previous topic :: View next topic

The time now is Tue Dec 02, 2008 5:17 am | All times are GMT

Forum index » Not Unix » VMS

Jump to:

Topic		Author	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Similar Topics
	realm is missing in HTTP authnetication	Shai Halevi	PHP	0	Fri Jul 21, 2006 1:52 pm
	Backup	Jan Dinger	Debian	4	Fri Jul 21, 2006 8:50 am
	List History Backup	Gladiator	IBM DB2	3	Fri Jul 21, 2006 8:21 am
	Backup failure notification for 10g EM Console (not grid)	NetComrade	Server	0	Fri Jul 21, 2006 6:36 am
	Root relay issue	Johnson, S	Postfix	4	Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:50 pm

Loans | Online Advertising | Credit Card | Personal Injury Lawyer Los Angeles | Cheap mp3 players

Other DeniX Solutions sites: Unix/Linux blog | electronics forum | medicine forum | science forum |

[ Time: 7.5989s ][ Queries: 16 (7.4375s) ][ GZIP on - Debug on ]