f



Open Server 5.0.5 Hardware Upgrade

I have a client who wants to upgrade the hardware, they want to stay
with Open Server 5.0.5, I am thinking about PIII machine with single
processor, what is the maximum size Processor 5.0.5 supports, any
specific brand name/model. I have used HP/Compaq Proliant in the past.

Thanks,

Abid

0
akhan (55)
2/9/2007 3:29:25 PM
comp.unix.sco.misc 3925 articles. 0 followers. Post Follow

9 Replies
536 Views

Similar Articles

[PageSpeed] 16

akhan@att.net wrote:
> I have a client who wants to upgrade the hardware, they want to stay
> with Open Server 5.0.5, I am thinking about PIII machine with single
> processor, what is the maximum size Processor 5.0.5 supports, any
> specific brand name/model. I have used HP/Compaq Proliant in the past.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Abid
> 
PIII 1.4GHz But they will be hard to find. Check SuperMicro. Intel still
manufactures PIII's but they only sell them to OEM's.
0
smfabac (422)
2/10/2007 6:50:14 AM
<akhan@att.net> wrote in message
news:1171034965.501078.105560@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com...
> I have a client who wants to upgrade the hardware, they want to stay
> with Open Server 5.0.5, I am thinking about PIII machine with single
> processor, what is the maximum size Processor 5.0.5 supports, any
> specific brand name/model. I have used HP/Compaq Proliant in the past.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Abid
>
Why stop at PIII.  I've been running 5.0.5 on Pentium 4's for more than 4
years and have never had a problem  (even on the Xeon chip).  Yes, I know
Xeon is supposed to have problems with any release prior to 5.0.6, but my
experience has been nothing but good when using them.  I have seen nary a
single fried CPU yet, and I must have 15 or more clients running them right
now.

Take it for what it's worth.  Action speaks louder than words.

JP


0
piperent (32)
2/10/2007 4:06:03 PM
On Feb 10, 10:06 am, "JP" <piper...@swbell.net> wrote:
> <a...@att.net> wrote in message
>
> news:1171034965.501078.105560@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com...> I have a client who wants to upgrade the hardware, they want to stay
> > with Open Server 5.0.5, I am thinking about PIII machine with single
> > processor, what is the maximum size Processor 5.0.5 supports, any
> > specific brand name/model. I have used HP/Compaq Proliant in the past.
>
> > Thanks,
>
> > Abid
>
> Why stop at PIII.  I've been running 5.0.5 on Pentium 4's for more than 4
> years and have never had a problem  (even on the Xeon chip).  Yes, I know
> Xeon is supposed to have problems with any release prior to 5.0.6, but my
> experience has been nothing but good when using them.  I have seen nary a
> single fried CPU yet, and I must have 15 or more clients running them right
> now.
>
> Take it for what it's worth.  Action speaks louder than words.
>
> JP

Thanks JP and Steve,

I end up going to the site to check some other stuff, It turns out
that they have 5.0.6 so now I guess I will have no problem running on
P4 (Xeon chip).

Abid

0
akhan (55)
2/13/2007 1:35:53 PM
<akhan@att.net> wrote in message
news:1171373753.784135.295060@q2g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 10, 10:06 am, "JP" <piper...@swbell.net> wrote:
> > <a...@att.net> wrote in message
> >
> > news:1171034965.501078.105560@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com...> I have a
client who wants to upgrade the hardware, they want to stay
> > > with Open Server 5.0.5, I am thinking about PIII machine with single
> > > processor, what is the maximum size Processor 5.0.5 supports, any
> > > specific brand name/model. I have used HP/Compaq Proliant in the past.
> >
> > > Thanks,
> >
> > > Abid
> >
> > Why stop at PIII.  I've been running 5.0.5 on Pentium 4's for more than
4
> > years and have never had a problem  (even on the Xeon chip).  Yes, I
know
> > Xeon is supposed to have problems with any release prior to 5.0.6, but
my
> > experience has been nothing but good when using them.  I have seen nary
a
> > single fried CPU yet, and I must have 15 or more clients running them
right
> > now.
> >
> > Take it for what it's worth.  Action speaks louder than words.
> >
> > JP
>
> Thanks JP and Steve,
>
> I end up going to the site to check some other stuff, It turns out
> that they have 5.0.6 so now I guess I will have no problem running on
> P4 (Xeon chip).
>
> Abid
>
>
Glad you're able to move up the food chain.

Now, for all of you inquisitors who are scared to death to move to a P4
because of SCO's TA, take me at my word.  I have plenty of 5.0.5 machines
running on a P4 processor; I have never experienced a single problem or
issue regarding the hardware on any of those machines; many of the machines
are in production mode 24/7 and have been running for more than 4 years.  Is
this an iron-clad guarantee that they won't fail?  Definitely not.  But,
experience tells me that the over-heating issue with the Xeon chip and 5.0.5
is not as serious as some would have you believe.

Each of us has to use our own good judgement regarding the Xeon chip.  Maybe
run a few trials or whatever.  But, don't be afraid to try it just because
some TA says you 'MIGHT' experience a problem.  The keyword here is 'might'.
They don't say you 'will', they say you 'could' experience a problem.  It's
not a prohibition against use, it's only an advisory of something they
experienced in their testing.  And as we all know, testing usually stresses
machines to the absolute limits, where-as, normal runs occupy maybe 30% of a
machines capacities.

If you have an application that absolutely crunches the machine at max
capacity, then you probably need to do some testing, but otherwise, try it,
you might like it.

JP





0
piperent (32)
2/17/2007 6:57:01 PM
On Sat, 17 Feb 2007 18:57:01 GMT, "JP" <piperent@swbell.net> wrote:

>
><akhan@att.net> wrote in message
>news:1171373753.784135.295060@q2g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> On Feb 10, 10:06 am, "JP" <piper...@swbell.net> wrote:
>> > <a...@att.net> wrote in message
>> >
>> > news:1171034965.501078.105560@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com...> I have a
>client who wants to upgrade the hardware, they want to stay
>> > > with Open Server 5.0.5, I am thinking about PIII machine with single
>> > > processor, what is the maximum size Processor 5.0.5 supports, any
>> > > specific brand name/model. I have used HP/Compaq Proliant in the past.

<snipped>

>Glad you're able to move up the food chain.
>
>Now, for all of you inquisitors who are scared to death to move to a P4
>because of SCO's TA, take me at my word.  I have plenty of 5.0.5 machines
>running on a P4 processor; I have never experienced a single problem or
>issue regarding the hardware on any of those machines; many of the machines
>are in production mode 24/7 and have been running for more than 4 years.  Is
>this an iron-clad guarantee that they won't fail?  Definitely not.  But,
>experience tells me that the over-heating issue with the Xeon chip and 5.0.5
>is not as serious as some would have you believe.
>

Thanks JP. This thread is really interesting to me because I have a
few legacy clients still running on SCO 5.0.5 (on Pentium II's
actually !) who are quite happy with what they've got but hardware age
and breakdown is a real issue.

I seem to remember a thread quite some time ago where you (JP ) were
wondering about this and Bella indicated there shouldn't really be a
problem, theoretically (? I'm paraphrasing wildly here).

I'm really glad to hear this because it gives me more options in terms
of upgrading. Thanks again for the info.

0
candr (6)
2/18/2007 9:15:26 AM
"JP" <piperent@swbell.net> (and is that a new address for JPR???) wrote:

> Each of us has to use our own good judgement regarding the Xeon chip.  Maybe
> run a few trials or whatever.  But, don't be afraid to try it just because
> some TA says you 'MIGHT' experience a problem.  The keyword here is 'might'.
> They don't say you 'will', they say you 'could' experience a problem.  It's
> not a prohibition against use, it's only an advisory of something they
> experienced in their testing.                                     ^^^^
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Not as far as I know.  SCO Engineering was told that P4 processors might
overheat if certain code changes weren't made, so we made those changes.
These were pretty pervasive changes, a supplement incorporating them
would have to replace most of the OS and it would require full OS
testing.  That was too much effort for 5.0.5, which had already been
shipping for a while by then, so we only did a version of the changes
for 5.0.6 (and of course they were in place from the start on 5.0.7).

This stuff came down as an erratum warning from Intel, and our reaction
was based purely on that, not on actual testing failures (as far as I
knew at the time).

>Bela<
0
filbo (325)
2/18/2007 9:16:56 PM
On Sun, 18 Feb 2007, Bela Lubkin wrote:
> "JP" <piperent@swbell.net> (and is that a new address for JPR???) wrote:
>
> > Each of us has to use our own good judgement regarding the Xeon chip.  Maybe
> > run a few trials or whatever.  But, don't be afraid to try it just because
> > some TA says you 'MIGHT' experience a problem.  The keyword here is 'might'.
> > They don't say you 'will', they say you 'could' experience a problem.  It's
> > not a prohibition against use, it's only an advisory of something they
> > experienced in their testing.                                     ^^^^
>   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Not as far as I know.  SCO Engineering was told that P4 processors might
> overheat if certain code changes weren't made, so we made those changes.
> These were pretty pervasive changes, a supplement incorporating them
> would have to replace most of the OS and it would require full OS
> testing.  That was too much effort for 5.0.5, which had already been
> shipping for a while by then, so we only did a version of the changes
> for 5.0.6 (and of course they were in place from the start on 5.0.7).
>
> This stuff came down as an erratum warning from Intel, and our reaction
> was based purely on that, not on actual testing failures (as far as I
> knew at the time).

And I have burn't up a P4 with OpenServer 5.0.5.  I do not remember the
details right now.  But I would strongly urge caution using 5.0.5 with a
P4.

--
Boyd Gerber <gerberb@zenez.com>
ZENEZ	1042 East Fort Union #135, Midvale Utah  84047
0
gerberb (221)
2/18/2007 9:52:35 PM
Bela Lubkin typed (on Sun, Feb 18, 2007 at 01:16:56PM -0800):
| "JP" <piperent@swbell.net> (and is that a new address for JPR???) wrote:

"'tis not I", said Cock Robin...


-- 
JP
0
jpr5879 (1159)
2/18/2007 11:17:59 PM
On Feb 17, 12:57 pm, "JP" <piper...@swbell.net> wrote:
> <a...@att.net> wrote in message
>
> news:1171373753.784135.295060@q2g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...> On Feb 10, 10:06 am, "JP" <piper...@swbell.net> wrote:
> > > <a...@att.net> wrote in message
>
> > >news:1171034965.501078.105560@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com...> I have a
>
> client who wants to upgrade the hardware, they want to stay
>
>
>
> > > > with Open Server 5.0.5, I am thinking about PIII machine with single
> > > > processor, what is the maximum size Processor 5.0.5 supports, any
> > > > specific brand name/model. I have used HP/Compaq Proliant in the past.
>
> > > > Thanks,
>
> > > > Abid
>
> > > Why stop at PIII.  I've been running 5.0.5 on Pentium 4's for more than
> 4
> > > years and have never had a problem  (even on the Xeon chip).  Yes, I
> know
> > > Xeon is supposed to have problems with any release prior to 5.0.6, but
> my
> > > experience has been nothing but good when using them.  I have seen nary
> a
> > > single fried CPU yet, and I must have 15 or more clients running them
> right
> > > now.
>
> > > Take it for what it's worth.  Action speaks louder than words.
>
> > > JP
>
> > Thanks JP and Steve,
>
> > I end up going to the site to check some other stuff, It turns out
> > that they have 5.0.6 so now I guess I will have no problem running on
> > P4 (Xeon chip).
>
> > Abid
>
> Glad you're able to move up the food chain.
>
> Now, for all of you inquisitors who are scared to death to move to a P4
> because of SCO's TA, take me at my word.  I have plenty of 5.0.5 machines
> running on a P4 processor; I have never experienced a single problem or
> issue regarding the hardware on any of those machines; many of the machines
> are in production mode 24/7 and have been running for more than 4 years.  Is
> this an iron-clad guarantee that they won't fail?  Definitely not.  But,
> experience tells me that the over-heating issue with the Xeon chip and 5.0.5
> is not as serious as some would have you believe.
>
> Each of us has to use our own good judgement regarding the Xeon chip.  Maybe
> run a few trials or whatever.  But, don't be afraid to try it just because
> some TA says you 'MIGHT' experience a problem.  The keyword here is 'might'.
> They don't say you 'will', they say you 'could' experience a problem.  It's
> not a prohibition against use, it's only an advisory of something they
> experienced in their testing.  And as we all know, testing usually stresses
> machines to the absolute limits, where-as, normal runs occupy maybe 30% of a
> machines capacities.
>
> If you have an application that absolutely crunches the machine at max
> capacity, then you probably need to do some testing, but otherwise, try it,
> you might like it.
>
> JP- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

JP,

I feel much better now, I will definitely go with a P4 (Xeon) for this
customer, thanks for sharing your experience.

Abid

0
akhan (55)
2/19/2007 9:46:24 PM
Reply:

Similar Artilces:

SCO Open Server 5.0.6 versus 5.0.4
Hi, Anybody can point me to info or can state if there is a performance improvement from running 5.0.6 versus 5.0.4. Application is database access centered. Regards, Marian news wrote: > Hi, > Anybody can point me to info or can state if there is a performance > improvement from running 5.0.6 versus 5.0.4. Application is database access > centered. I don't think you are going to get a useful answer. Let's assume that I could authoritatively say that 5.0.6 has performance related improvements over .4 in certain areas. I can't recall if it does or doesn't, but the release notes would surely mention any. But so what? What does that say about YOUR application? Do we know where its performance issuees are now? Nope. We could assume it's probably disk bound, because that's a pretty safe assumption most any time, but even if true, what have you done for better or worse in that regard already? Maybe this is an Oracle database and you have it running on a RAID 5 system. As that's usually going to be a bad idea, you could gain nothing even if 5.0.6 did otherwise provide features that would otherwise improve your lot. Maybe you have the whole thing improperly tuned. Maybe you have it so perfectly tuned that an upgrade would make it worse because everything is so critically balanced to what you have now.. There are plenty of good reasons to upgrade to 5.0.6/7. If that's what you are lookimg for (a reason to sell the idea to ...

Upgrading 5.0.5 to 5.0.6/5.0.7
Hi, I've inheirited 3 SCO Servers and need to upgrade one to 5.0.6 from 5.0.5. The other two are at 5.0.6 and I want them all in line. Some questions: 1. Does SCO charge for this upgrade? If so, how much? 2. How easy is the upgrade? 3. Should I go to 5.0.7 instead for all the machines? Thanks, Jon Jon Wynacht typed (on Thu, Sep 02, 2004 at 09:16:17AM -0700): | Hi, | | I've inheirited 3 SCO Servers and need to upgrade one to 5.0.6 from | 5.0.5. The other two are at 5.0.6 and I want them all in line. Some | questions: | | 1. Does SCO charge for this upgrade? If so, how much? >From 5.0.5 Enterprise to 5.0.7 Enterprise, $599. >From 5.0.6 Enterprise to 5.0.7 Enterprise, $369. | 2. How easy is the upgrade? Not hard; be sure to use ftp.jpr.com/pub/savefiles. | 3. Should I go to 5.0.7 instead for all the machines? Yes, and when you order the upgrades, also add in SCO Update, which will eventually bring you all the changes that bring you the Legend release. -- JP Jon Wynacht wrote: > Hi, > > I've inheirited 3 SCO Servers and need to upgrade one to 5.0.6 from > 5.0.5. The other two are at 5.0.6 and I want them all in line. Some > questions: > > 1. Does SCO charge for this upgrade? If so, how much? Of course. See http://aplawrence.com/scoprices.html > 2. How easy is the upgrade? Usually painless, but see http://aplawrence.com/Unixart/upgrades.html > 3. Should I go to 5.0.7 instead for all the machines? Yes, no questi...

Upgrade OSR 5.0.5 to 5.0.6 or 5.0.7
Hi all, I've two olds servers DELL Poweredge 2300 with Raid PERC, funtionning with OSR 5.0.5. Iwant upgrade the OS to 5.0.6 or 5.0.7 but it seems (sco.com) that the poweredge 2300 is bnot supported after OSR 5.0.5 (Hardware comptatibility). has somebody attempt this with success and which drivers (Raid PERC, Adaptec) are used. Thank you in advance fir the help. ----------------------------------------------------- Andre Georgel Email : andre.georgel@noos.fr "La perfection n'est pas lorsqu'il n'y a plus rien � ajouter, mais lorsque qu'il n'y a plus rien � enl...

error while installing on-board NIC on Proliant 1600 server in SCO Open Server 5.0.5
dear all, While installing the EFS, when I configure the TCP/IP then i get the messages while relinking the kernel. i encountered the message when after installing the Advanced File and Print Server in SCO Open Server 5 i rebooted the server Compaq Proliant 1600 i get the message /dev/nbcots: invalid transport provider name /dev/netbeui: invalid transport provider name this problem prevents me from printing thru UNIX on windows pcs. i m not able to print on printers attached to windows pcs. one another message also occurs while relinking kernel: /etc/conf/bin/idmknod: driver ida not a ch...

Looking for precompiled 'rsync" for SCO 5.0.5, 5.0.6 and 5.0.7
I was recommended to use 'rsync' for multi-site transfers. But I have come to find that "rsync" does not exist already in OpenServer 5.0.5, 5.0.6 and 5.0.7. You can only get the "source" files which you "must" compile in order to create the "rsync." These seems to require that you compile these on every level of OpenServer you need. Where / how can I get the 'rsync' binaries already compiled for the levels I need? smlunatick typed (on Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 11:10:53AM -0700): | I was recommended to use 'rsync' for multi-site transfers. But I have | come to find that "rsync" does not exist already in OpenServer 5.0.5, | 5.0.6 and 5.0.7. You can only get the "source" files which you "must" | compile in order to create the "rsync." These seems to require that | you compile these on every level of OpenServer you need. | | Where / how can I get the 'rsync' binaries already compiled for the | levels I need? Get a binary for OSR 5.0.7, and with oss646c, it should run on 5.0.4, 5.0.5, and 5.0.6. Binary afavilable on Brian White's page at www.aljex.com/bkw. -- JP On Aug 18, 7:37=A0pm, Jean-Pierre Radley <j...@jpr.com> wrote: > smlunatick typed (on Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 11:10:53AM -0700): > | I was recommended to use 'rsync' for multi-site transfers. =A0But I hav= e > | come to find that "rsync" does not exist already in OpenSer...

NFS SCo 5.0.5 with SCO 6.0.0
Hi everybody, I have a folder on SCO 5.0.5 server shared through NFS with a new SCO 6.0.0 with MP2 server (converted from a SCO 5.0.6 version). Before conversion file locks (over network) on this folder works well (eg from server SCO 5.0.6 I was able to see locks generated from SCO 5.0.5 box and viceversa), now with SCO 6.0.0 does not work ! I see that on SCO 6.0.0 the lockd daemon is active .. so it should work ... Please can you help me ? Thanks Cuffiette ...

Sco OpenServer upgrading 5.0.6 to 5.0.7
I need some help. I need to upgrade my Sco O.S.506 to 507 and told me that I need to reinstall all the operative system and not the upgrading of it. Is it true ? Thanks in advance and excuse me if before someone alredy answered this query but I do not find anything about this matter bye Roberto Pineapple typed (on Wed, Apr 07, 2004 at 01:39:46PM +0200): | I need some help. | I need to upgrade my Sco O.S.506 to 507 and told me that I need to reinstall | all the operative system and not the upgrading of it. | Is it true ? No. | Thanks in advance and excuse me if before someone alredy answe...

Upgrading 5.0.5 Host To 5.0.7 Enterprise
Hello, What are the flaming hoops I need to jump through to upgrade a 5.0.5 Host to 5.0.7 Enterprise? I've tried to do some net research on my own on this and it's darn confusing to a newbie to UNIX like myself. It looks like I have to first purchase an upgrade to 5.0.6 Host or 5.0.7 Host and then I can get a trade-in/upgrade to 5.0.7 Enterprise? WTF? Thanks for any help! Ian Motterman wrote: > Hello, > > What are the flaming hoops I need to jump through to upgrade > a 5.0.5 Host to 5.0.7 Enterprise? > > I've tried to do some net research on my own on this and it's darn confusing > to a newbie to UNIX like myself. It looks like I have to first purchase an > upgrade to 5.0.6 Host or 5.0.7 Host and then I can get a trade-in/upgrade > to 5.0.7 Enterprise? WTF? > It's less awful than it seems. The path is indeed upgrade to 5.0.7 host and then upgrade that to Enterprise. In practice, the first upgrade is the one where things can go wrong (if at all) and the second is trivial. -- Tony Lawrence > Thanks for any help! > > Ian ...

Open server 5.0.5 on Toshiba4200
Hi, I've got a problem when i want to install SCO on my laptop. It's an Toshiba 4200. I boot on the floppy drive "SCO OpenServer release 5.0.5 Boot Disk" And when i select my IDE CDrom drive to start the install, it don't find any device to install the system ./. I try to change the parameter of my bios section and boot directly on the CDrom, but no change, it don't find anything and start on the old system. If some one can help me... Thanks a lot. -- Posted via http://dbforums.com Thehush <member40401@dbforums.com> wrote in message news:<339...

Should I fear an upgrade from 5.0 to.. 5.1 or 5.5 on a CentOS box?
I've just been handed a CentOS 5.1 , WHM/Cpanel server to maintain, it's running MySQL 5.0 which powers a few Forum/CMS type sites.. I really need to upgrade MySQL, because until I do, WHM/CPanel upgrades aren't possible.. How scary is this? Likelyhood of scripts like SMF, Wordpress etc breaking? How much time involved? Minutes, hours days? Any insight would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance On 11/6/2013 2:26 PM, dewed wrote: > I've just been handed a CentOS 5.1 , WHM/Cpanel server to maintain, it's running MySQL 5.0 which powers a few Fo...

SYbase SQL & SCO OpenServer 5.0.4/5.0.5
Can somone help me with wich SQL versions runs on SCO OSR5.0.4 and SCO OSR 5.0.5? So your the customer SCO still has :-) Sorry.. Couldn't resist ! ASE 10.0.2 was certified on SCO OSR5.0.2 with OS patches SLS 422a, SLS 437a. It wasn't certified on anything higher. ASE 11.0.x was certified on 5.0.4, but nothing higher. Sybase doesn't support 10.x or 11.x any more ...

SCSI tape not working after upgrade 5.0.5 -> 5.0.7
Good day, After an upgrade of SCO OpenServer 5.0.5 running on Dell PowerEdge 2400 to 5.0.7 we found the tape drive does not work. In "mkdev tape", when you go view the installed tape drives it lists none. But if you try to create a new one, it can't: ---snip--- You are about to add the following SCSI device: Host Adapter Type Adapter Device Number ID LUN Bus ------------------------------------------------------- SCSI alad tape 0 6 0 0 Update SCSI configuration? (y/n) y Cannot add this tape. Another tape is already...

SCO 5.0.5/5.0.6 bios clock, time zone and synching
Hi All, Does SCO expect the BIOS clock to be set to UTC? Ive got a few SCO boxen spread across a couple of time zones and at the moment, the bios clocks in the servers are set to localtime not UTC. The timezone settings in SCO Admin are also wrong. I was under the impression *nix always expects the BIOS clock to be set to UTC and then the timezone settings in SCO tell the OS what the local time is. This does not seem to be the case for me. On a testing box, Ive set the BIOS clock to UTC, set the correct timezone in scoadmin but the date command in a root shell still gives the wrong time. E...

SCO 5.0.5 vs. 6.0
I'm having a new server built: SuperMicro P4SC8 Mother Board Intel P4 3.0Ghz 800 FSB 1GB CPU 73GB 10K 80 PIN SCSI Drive Sony 20/40GB DAT Drive SDT11000/BN DDS4 Adaptec 2010S Card for Mirroring Comtrol Rockport Card 99126-7 Is there any reason I should update my current version of SCO 5.0.5? Frank The following article is a recommendation from SCO when using P4 http://www.sco.com/ta/115963 "FrankS" <fshank@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:CqT_f.65026$H71.37215@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com... > I'm having a new server built: > > SuperMicro P4SC8 Mother Board > Intel P4 3.0Ghz 800 FSB 1GB CPU > 73GB 10K 80 PIN SCSI Drive > Sony 20/40GB DAT Drive SDT11000/BN DDS4 > > Adaptec 2010S Card for Mirroring > > Comtrol Rockport Card 99126-7 > > > > Is there any reason I should update my current version of SCO 5.0.5? > > > > Frank > > > > > > FrankS wrote: > I'm having a new server built: > > SuperMicro P4SC8 Mother Board > Intel P4 3.0Ghz 800 FSB 1GB CPU > 73GB 10K 80 PIN SCSI Drive > Sony 20/40GB DAT Drive SDT11000/BN DDS4 > > Adaptec 2010S Card for Mirroring > > Comtrol Rockport Card 99126-7 > > > > Is there any reason I should update my current version of SCO 5.0.5? Frank, OpenServer 5.0.5 is a retired product and is no longer generally supported by SCO. OpenServer 5.0.5 is not designed to work on P4 systems and y...

SCO OpenServer 5.0.4/5.0.5 New Daylight Savings dates
Has anyone yet come up with a solution on changing older SCO OpenServer 5.0.4 / 5.0.5 / 5.0.6 systems to accommodate the new daylight savings dates starting this year?? I have looked around at SCO's site and they have an update to install on 5.0.7 systems that also indicate you should install new libc, etc Anyone know how to fix this on older SCO OpenServer releases?? Thanks for any help Scott Ullmann Telespectrum sullmann@telespectrum.com scooter typed (on Mon, Jan 22, 2007 at 12:37:58PM -0800): | Has anyone yet come up with a solution on changing older SCO OpenServer | 5.0.4 / 5.0.5 / 5.0.6 systems to accommodate the new daylight savings | dates starting this year?? | | I have looked around at SCO's site and they have an update to install | on 5.0.7 systems that also indicate you should install new libc, etc | | Anyone know how to fix this on older SCO OpenServer releases?? I'm in the EST timezone, and so I would edit /etc/TIMEZONE from: TZ=EST5EDT to: TZ=EST5EDT,M3,2,0/2,M11,1,0/2 -- JP ==> http://www.frappr.com/cusm <== On Jan 22, 4:24 pm, Jean-Pierre Radley <j...@jpr.com> wrote: > scooter typed (on Mon, Jan 22, 2007 at 12:37:58PM -0800): > | Has anyone yet come up with a solution on changing older SCO OpenServer > | 5.0.4 / 5.0.5 / 5.0.6 systems to accommodate the new daylight savings > | dates starting this year?? > | > | I have looked around at SCO's site and they have an update to install > | on 5.0.7 ...

Image an SCO system (5.0.5) and run in a virtual machine on new hardware.
Was wondering if anyone has done this successfully and if so, what tools were used? On Thu, Oct 27, 2011, AB wrote: >Was wondering if anyone has done this successfully and if so, what >tools were used? > We have several versions of OpenServer running on VMware. There have been several fairly lengthy threads on this recently. Bill -- INTERNET: bill@celestial.com Bill Campbell; Celestial Software LLC URL: http://www.celestial.com/ PO Box 820; 6641 E. Mercer Way Voice: (206) 236-1676 Mercer Island, WA 98040-0820 Fax: (206) 232-9186 Skype: jwccsllc (206) 855-5792 Economic history is a never-ending series of episodes based on falsehoods and lies, not truths. It represents the path to big money. The object is to recognize the trend whose premise is false, ride that trend, and step off before it is discredited. -- George Soros Bill Campbell wrote: > On Thu, Oct 27, 2011, AB wrote: > >Was wondering if anyone has done this successfully and if so, what > >tools were used? > > We have several versions of OpenServer running on VMware. > > There have been several fairly lengthy threads on this recently. Heh. Where "recently" equals 2008 or so :) OSR505 would be considerably more difficult than OSR507 for various driver reasons. OTOH, the driver issues have been slowly baked out in newer VMware releases. vSphere 4.1 or 5, or Workstation 7+ should be able to run OSR505 with virtual IDE disks, without much dr...

Open Server 5.0.5: How to use the SNMP agent to monitor disk utilization?
Hi All, I've inhereted an old Open Server 5.0.5 instance. I would like to be able to use the native SNMP agent to monitor disk utilization. The agent seems to work... I get network utilization information when I poll, but I am unable to see the disks in my management platform. Any wisdom anyone? Thanks, John ...

Trying to compile putty-0.60 on SCO UNIX 5.0.7 with GCC and SCO Dev
I am trying to compile putty downloaded from http://linux.softpedia.com/progDownload/PuTTY-Download-347.html but get the error below. gcc -g -O2 -Wall -Werror -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -DHAVE_X11 -DHAVE_X -DSYSV -Di386 -DS CO325 -D__SCO__ -DHAVE_XAW -DHAVE_SHAPE_EXT -DHAVE_SHAPE -DHAVE_SHM_EXT -DHAVE_X SHM -DHAVE_XCONVERTCASE -I/usr/include/gtk-2.0 -I/usr/lib/gtk-2.0/include -I/usr /include/atk-1.0 -I/usr/include/cairo -I/usr/include/pango-1.0 -I/usr/include/gl ib-2.0 -I/usr/lib/glib-2.0/include -I/usr/include/freetype2 -I/usr/X11R6/include -I.././ -I../charset/ -I../windows/ -I../unix/ -I../mac/ -I../macosx/ -c ../ proxy.c cc1: warnings being treated as errors .../proxy.c: In function `proxy_for_destination': .../proxy.c:315: warning: implicit declaration of function `strncasecmp' gmake: *** [proxy.o] Error 1 # My programming skill level tops out at ./configure and make. Searching for instances of strncasecmp in the putty working directory shows: /tmp/putty-0.60/unix # cd .. # find . -type f -print | xargs grep strncasecmp | less ../mac/stricmp.c:#define strncasecmp strnicmp ../mac/stricmp.c:strncasecmp(s1, s2, n) ../unix/unix.h:#define strnicmp strncasecmp (END) In unix/unix.h: #define DEFAULT_CODEPAGE 0xFFFF #define CP_UTF8 CS_UTF8 /* from libcharset */ #define strnicmp strncasecmp #define stricmp strcasecmp /* BSD-semantics version of signal(), and another helpful function */ void (*putty_signal(int sig, void (*func)(int)))(int); void block_si...

Sybase and Openserver 5.0.4/5.0.5
Can somone give me information about what Sybase Sql version that runs on OSR5.0.4 and OSR5.0.5 etc? ...

openssh for sco 5.0.5
Does anybody know the steps for the installation of openssh on OSR 505 ? Is there a special file or paremeter I have to use to install it or does ftp.sco.com has a ssh ? Thanks E.A. "Corrlens" <ask@me.later> wrote in message news:26SJd.6161$8Z1.3177@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com... > Does anybody know the steps for the installation of openssh on OSR 505 ? > Is there a special file or paremeter I have to use to install it or does > ftp.sco.com has a ssh ? > > Thanks > > E.A. > > I forgot to mention that my goal is to have sftp working, be able to transfer files to a secure ftp server on a remote location. Corrlens typed (on Wed, Jan 26, 2005 at 07:22:38PM +0000): | Does anybody know the steps for the installation of openssh on OSR 505 ? Is | there a special file or paremeter I have to use to install it or does | ftp.sco.com has a ssh ? | ftp.jpr.com/pub/openssh4osr5.tgz or ftp.jpr.com/pub/openssh4osr5.tar.bz2 -- JP "Jean-Pierre Radley" <jpr@jpr.com> wrote in message news:20050126211328.GG11013@jpradley.jpr.com... > Corrlens typed (on Wed, Jan 26, 2005 at 07:22:38PM +0000): > | Does anybody know the steps for the installation of openssh on OSR 505 > ? Is > | there a special file or paremeter I have to use to install it or does > | ftp.sco.com has a ssh ? > | > > ftp.jpr.com/pub/openssh4osr5.tgz > or > ftp.jpr.com/pub/openssh4osr5.tar.bz2 > > > -- > JP...

Sendmail 8.12.x or above on SCO Open Server 5.0.6
Hi, Has anyone successfully built a recent(ish) version of Sendmail on SCO Open Server 5.0.6. I'm specifically needing Sendmail that supports authentication when acting as a client (basically pointing at my ISP mail server). Cheers, Stuart. "Stuart Marshall" <stuart@spidersoft.co.uk> wrote in message news:xPudnRuR8sOb8fnZRVnysw@pipex.net... > Hi, > > Has anyone successfully built a recent(ish) version of Sendmail on > SCO Open Server 5.0.6. I'm specifically needing Sendmail that > supports authentication when acting as a client (basically pointing > at my ISP mail server). > > Cheers, > > Stuart. The last time I tried to get Sendmail to do authentication on OpenServer I had to give up because it wants SASL to work, and it won't (see TA#125764). However, I do successfully use msmtp (http://msmtp.sourceforge.net/) to do what you describe. It (I think) will only support "plain" authentication on SCO, but that it is probably good enough for most ISP mail servers. Richard Seeder -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 > "Stuart Marshall" <stuart@spidersoft.co.uk> wrote in message > news:xPudnRuR8sOb8fnZRVnysw@pipex.net... > > > > Has anyone successfully built a recent(ish) version of Sendmail on > > SCO Open Server 5.0.6. I'm specifically needing Sendmail that > > supports authentication when acting as a client (basically pointing > > a...

Printing on a DP-301P Print server SCO Unix OSR 5.0.7
How do a setup a printer that is on my local network with IP 192.168.2.17 ? The Unix server is on 192.168.2.7 on the same network. I tried "scoadmin" looking for something like "add tcp/ip printer" but no luck at all. So I'm thinking that I have to create a new port (i.e. /dev/lp192.168.2.17) so then I can assign a printer to it right ? Any help would be greatly appreciate it. Thanks Enrique "Enrique Arredondo" <atk@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:X77Qi.59349$YL5.31497@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net... > How do a setup a printer that is on my local network with IP 192.168.2.17 > ? The Unix server is on 192.168.2.7 on the same network. > > I tried "scoadmin" looking for something like "add tcp/ip printer" but no > luck at all. So I'm thinking that I have to create a new port (i.e. > /dev/lp192.168.2.17) so then I can assign a printer to it right ? > > Any help would be greatly appreciate it. > > Thanks > > Enrique > I can ping 192.168.2.17 ...here: /# ping 192.168.2.17 PING 192.168.2.17 (192.168.2.17): 56 data bytes 64 bytes from mylan17 (192.168.2.17): icmp_seq=0 ttl=255 time=2.522 ms 64 bytes from mylan17 (192.168.2.17): icmp_seq=1 ttl=255 time=1.086 ms 64 bytes from mylan17 (192.168.2.17): icmp_seq=2 ttl=255 time=1.283 ms 64 bytes from mylan17 (192.168.2.17): icmp_seq=3 ttl=255 time=1.330 ms 64 bytes from mylan17 (192.168.2.17): icmp_seq=4 ttl=255 time=1...

if time = 3 seconds, how do i set the values of the time steps 0,0.1,0.2,0.3,0.5,1.0,1.5,2.0,3.0,5.0 to -9999 from time =3 seconds
Hi &nbsp; I have 18 inputs (arrays) which contain certain statistics and if time&nbsp;&nbsp;= 3 seconds, set the values of time step 5.0 to -9999.0. &nbsp; I was wondering if there is an efficient way to do this without using a lot of case statements? &nbsp; Thank you. Hello AdrianT, it's not really clear to me what you want to do... I suspect: you have an array containing values and you want to output them with a fixed timing of 3 seconds: you should use a for loop autoindexing trough your array and sending the value to your indicator/output/whatever. Put a "wait for next multiple" into your for loop. Or do you want to have a minimum time delay of 3 seconds? Again use a for loop, get the time value and use a InRange&amp;Coerce with minimum set to 3 seconds... Or you should explain more precisely what you need... Hi Thanks for that. Let me explain. &nbsp; The time may vary. Let me give an example. if time&nbsp; = 2.1, I want to set the time step's &nbsp;3.0 and 5.0's values to -9999.0. if the time =0.1 seconds then I want to set 0.2,0.3, 0.5 etc values to -9999.0 etc .................................................................... &nbsp; Can you please help? Thank you. Hello TUDS, do you use different accounts/nicknames ? Well, that's easy, at least for a sorted array: Search for your time-value in the array (Threshold 1D array). Fill all elements from that index till the end with your "error...

[ace-users] [ACE 5.5] Upgrade from ACE 5.4.7 to ACE 5.5
This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --Boundary_(ID_ogLNJ2XjtOnI/qoGYuqYNQ) Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT ACE VERSION: 5.5 HOST MACHINE and OPERATING SYSTEM: Intel, WindowsXp, Windows 2003 AREA/CLASS/EXAMPLE AFFECTED: Our team has upgraded from ACE 5.4.7 to ACE 5.5. I am submitting this email as a service for the ace members that considure upgrading to ACE 5.5 and using the same platform and features we are using from the ACE Frameworks library. After running a regression test the upgrade seemed to work without any problems. The only problem we encountered was a compilation error when construction ACE_Time_Value. The ACE_Time_Value cannot be constructed anymore from an integer. For example: ACE_Time_Value( 5 ) --> Compile error DESCRIPTION: We are using ACE_WIN32_Proactor with sockets, pipes and directory changes. BOTTOM LINE: If you are an ace user who are using the same platform and architecture you could upgrade to the new framework knowing that somewhere in the world (Israel/Onigma) the upgrade worked perfectly and nightly. ~ Ishay Software Architect Onigma Ltd. Tel: +972-3-6877315 Fax: +972-3-6877128 Mobile: +972-54-2325090 Email: ishay@onigma.com --Boundary_(ID_ogLNJ2XjtOnI/qoGYuqYNQ) Content-type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7BI...

Web resources about - Open Server 5.0.5 Hardware Upgrade - comp.unix.sco.misc

Simmons Hardware Company Warehouse - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
42°29′35″N 96°24′34″W  /  42.49306°N 96.40944°W  / 42.49306; -96.40944 Coordinates : 42°29′35″N 96°24′34″W  /  42.49306°N 96.40944°W  / ...

Battling Bunnings: Expert's plan to combine Masters and Home Timber & Hardware gains steam
Combining Masters Home Improvement with the Home Timber & Hardware is the only way to create a serious number two player in the hardware space, ...

Bunnings could be set to face a new force in hardware
... Dick Smith into a $520 million sharemarket sensation is hatching a plan to bring together Australia's two biggest, independent hardware chains ...

Battling Bunnings: Expert's plan to combine Masters and Home Timber & Hardware gains steam
Combining Masters Home Improvement with the Home Timber &amp; Hardware is the only way to create a serious number two player in the hardware ...

Building a (sub-$1000) Hackintosh that meets the Oculus Rift hardware requirements – Part I
Back at the beginning of March, Oculus CEO Palmer Luckey made controversial statements about Apple’s hardware, specifically the inability of ...

Ace Hardware Debuts First Work from O'Keefe Reinhard & Paul
The new campaign features its friendly, stick-in-your-head jingle "Ace is the place with the helpful hardware folks," and includes real Ace store ...

DARPA to host killer “Improv” performances with hacked hardware
... Defense Science Office is preparing for an alternative sort of "improv" performance. DARPA is inviting researchers, developers, and hardware-hacking ...

Google joins Facebook's game-changing project that's eating the $140 billion hardware market
If the hardware industry was nervous about Facebook's game-changing Open Compute Project before, it should now be downright terrified now: Google ...

How to use Apple Diagnostics to identify Mac hardware problems
... are usually pretty reliable, but when they do go wrong the Apple Diagnostics tool should help you figure out if you have a software or a hardware ...

Hyrule Warriors Legends is a grim warning against revised hardware
When Microsoft first announced that it was considering modular revisions for Xbox One hardware, I was actually somewhat on board with the idea. ...

Resources last updated: 3/26/2016 12:03:56 PM