f



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


0
3/2/2005 11:53:52 PM
comp.unix.sco.misc 3925 articles. 0 followers. Post Follow

9 Replies
997 Views

Similar Articles

[PageSpeed] 40

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 a customer or a
boss), just say so.  If it's performance, those who could comment would
need more info than you provided.

-- 
Tony Lawrence
http://aplawrence.com

0
pcunix (620)
3/7/2005 9:04:46 PM
"Tony Lawrence" <pcunix@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1110229486.385837.132150@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> 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 a customer or a
> boss), just say so.  If it's performance, those who could comment would
> need more info than you provided.
>
> -- 
> Tony Lawrence
> http://aplawrence.com
>

It is performance. I have an Ingres 2.0 RDBMS running under SCO 5.0.4. I
have tried to tune Ingres but customer indicates very little improvement.
When system becomes busy users have to wait tens of seconds to save to
database. I am still looking in other areas of tuning Ingres.

Thanks for reply, it confirms what I thought.
Marian


0
3/7/2005 10:22:20 PM
In article <nv4Xd.287$g4.4851@tor-nn1.netcom.ca>,
news <marian.gutica@digital-dispatch.com> wrote:
>
>"Tony Lawrence" <pcunix@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:1110229486.385837.132150@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> 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 a customer or a
>> boss), just say so.  If it's performance, those who could comment would
>> need more info than you provided.
>>
>> -- 
>> Tony Lawrence
>> http://aplawrence.com

>It is performance. I have an Ingres 2.0 RDBMS running under SCO 5.0.4. I
>have tried to tune Ingres but customer indicates very little improvement.
>When system becomes busy users have to wait tens of seconds to save to
>database. I am still looking in other areas of tuning Ingres.

>Thanks for reply, it confirms what I thought.

Tuning the data base will not help if you are limited in other
areas.

When the system is busy and it slows down - run sar [which will
temporarily slow it down] with about 10 itterations at about 15
second intervals.  Less than 15 seconds will cause sar to impact
the ratings.

You also might want to get the sources for the original Iozone 2.1.

I normally run it on a fresh system and save the results and
compare it with results later.

It does file write and read and measures the overall performance
through the file system.  I feel this is more indicative of things
in the realworld than reading and/or writing using dd to the
device.   By using this you will be opening inodes, creating new
blocks, etc.

Sar will tell you if you are running out of CPU, memory, or are
I/O bound at the disk level.

The first thing to do when looking for perfomance improvement is
to find out exactly where the performance is falling down.

I've seen people add memory because they 'thought' it would help
and found it did nothing - because they had problems elsewhere.

I think most of us who have been using systems for quite awhile
have seen people make ill-informed guesses and spend and waste
money on things they didn't need, while not addressing the real
problems.

Bill
-- 
Bill Vermillion - bv @ wjv . com
0
bv25 (549)
3/8/2005 12:05:02 AM
"Bill Vermillion" <bv@wjv.com> wrote in message news:ID0AqJ.rxL@wjv.com...
> In article <nv4Xd.287$g4.4851@tor-nn1.netcom.ca>,
> news <marian.gutica@digital-dispatch.com> wrote:
> >
> >"Tony Lawrence" <pcunix@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:1110229486.385837.132150@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> >>
> >> 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 a customer or a
> >> boss), just say so.  If it's performance, those who could comment would
> >> need more info than you provided.
> >>
> >> -- 
> >> Tony Lawrence
> >> http://aplawrence.com
>
> >It is performance. I have an Ingres 2.0 RDBMS running under SCO 5.0.4. I
> >have tried to tune Ingres but customer indicates very little improvement.
> >When system becomes busy users have to wait tens of seconds to save to
> >database. I am still looking in other areas of tuning Ingres.
>
> >Thanks for reply, it confirms what I thought.
>
> Tuning the data base will not help if you are limited in other
> areas.
>
> When the system is busy and it slows down - run sar [which will
> temporarily slow it down] with about 10 itterations at about 15
> second intervals.  Less than 15 seconds will cause sar to impact
> the ratings.
>
> You also might want to get the sources for the original Iozone 2.1.
>
> I normally run it on a fresh system and save the results and
> compare it with results later.
>
> It does file write and read and measures the overall performance
> through the file system.  I feel this is more indicative of things
> in the realworld than reading and/or writing using dd to the
> device.   By using this you will be opening inodes, creating new
> blocks, etc.
>
> Sar will tell you if you are running out of CPU, memory, or are
> I/O bound at the disk level.
>
> The first thing to do when looking for perfomance improvement is
> to find out exactly where the performance is falling down.
>
> I've seen people add memory because they 'thought' it would help
> and found it did nothing - because they had problems elsewhere.
>
> I think most of us who have been using systems for quite awhile
> have seen people make ill-informed guesses and spend and waste
> money on things they didn't need, while not addressing the real
> problems.
>
> Bill
> -- 
> Bill Vermillion - bv @ wjv . com

Totally agree with you. In this case servers have plenty of memory ( 1GB). I
have ran sar and did not see a botleneck. Here is a sample from one of the
busy mornings:
dds209.root356> sar 15 10

SCO_SV dds209 3.2v5.0.4 i80386    03/08/2005

09:06:55    %usr    %sys    %wio   %idle (-u)
09:07:10      25       5       2      67
09:07:25      45      12       4      40
09:07:40      57       9       1      34
09:07:55      38      13       8      41
09:08:10      27       6       2      65
09:08:25      50      12       1      37
09:08:40      39       9       2      49
09:08:55      35       8       8      49
09:09:10      45      19       2      34
09:09:25      35      11       5      48

Average       40      10       4      46

Thanks a lot. I will look for Iozone 2.1.

Regards,
Marian


0
3/8/2005 5:15:57 PM
 (news)  07.03.05 in /comp/unix/sco/misc:

(+)


>>> 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.

ACK.


>It is performance. 
>I have an Ingres 2.0 RDBMS running under SCO 5.0.4.
>I have tried to tune Ingres but customer indicates very little
>improvement. 
>When system becomes busy users have to wait tens of
>seconds to save to database. 

"Save the database"?
What's that?

AFAIK a database stores it values on it's own.

Are you sure your application is using the right algorithm?


>I am still looking in other areas of tuning Ingres.

As Bill states:
Do some mesurement.

For example i was astonished that SCO 5.0.6 writes only with
1MB/s(!) using a RAID5.
Worse: it is blocking(!) one entire CPU only for writing.
If you have 4 CPUs that wouldn't matter. But i have only 2 and 
sometimes OSR 5.0.6 did not like to start the second CPU...
imagine how happy the users are then;-)

One problem maybe that "now adays" there are only an very limited
number of programmers who still know how to write efficent code.
"The application is too slow? By a faster CPU get more RAM!"
But with SCO OSR 5.0.6 you are stuck at 1GHz or a little more?
Too you will not find any(?) new hardware really tested with SCO OSR.
Say a 4GHz HT Pentium IV...


Attention:

Simply coping a file from one dir to an other is really fast!
Do a "sync"  before the copy
Start your stop watch
do the copy of 10 100MB
do again a "sync"
stop the stop watch!
Calculate the time...
Only that will give the true thuput, as OSR is very good in caching
for benschmarks.

Remember:
Modern cheap IDE drives can write with 25MB/s, sustained.
In an RAID5 they slow down too, but the RAID alogrithm wil be done
by the main CPU, not a "funny" obsolete slow i960 RISC proccessor...


One reason why upgraded to 5.06, was, it told,
that the informix 7.0.2 SE database would like to have 1GB of RAM to 
run "perfomant". But whenever start "top", is see 1,7GB of 2GB free
(the old box had 256MB RAM...). is "top" broken? or that Informix 
limited to 256MB?
Every sqlexec process i'm aware takes only max. "only"(*) 32MB of RAM

BTW:
More than 2GB RAM is not supported by OSR5.0.6 AFAIK (That "feature"
SCO made not easy to find...)
Too the files size is limited to 2GB.
You are going to bet on dead/dying horse IMHO!
How big is your data base?



Rainer



(*)
Now adays that's "only"!


(+)
Hm, maybe you can configure your real name?
That would be really nice and polite :-)
0
3/8/2005 6:33:00 PM
In article <76lXd.305$g4.5265@tor-nn1.netcom.ca>,
news <marian.gutica@digital-dispatch.com> wrote:
>
>"Bill Vermillion" <bv@wjv.com> wrote in message news:ID0AqJ.rxL@wjv.com...
>> In article <nv4Xd.287$g4.4851@tor-nn1.netcom.ca>,
>> news <marian.gutica@digital-dispatch.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >"Tony Lawrence" <pcunix@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> >news:1110229486.385837.132150@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>> >>
>> >> 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 a customer or a
>> >> boss), just say so.  If it's performance, those who could comment would
>> >> need more info than you provided.
>> >>
>> >> -- 
>> >> Tony Lawrence
>> >> http://aplawrence.com
>>
>> >It is performance. I have an Ingres 2.0 RDBMS running under SCO 5.0.4. I
>> >have tried to tune Ingres but customer indicates very little improvement.
>> >When system becomes busy users have to wait tens of seconds to save to
>> >database. I am still looking in other areas of tuning Ingres.
>>
>> >Thanks for reply, it confirms what I thought.
>>
>> Tuning the data base will not help if you are limited in other
>> areas.
>>
>> When the system is busy and it slows down - run sar [which will
>> temporarily slow it down] with about 10 itterations at about 15
>> second intervals.  Less than 15 seconds will cause sar to impact
>> the ratings.
>>
>> You also might want to get the sources for the original Iozone 2.1.
>>
>> I normally run it on a fresh system and save the results and
>> compare it with results later.
>>
>> It does file write and read and measures the overall performance
>> through the file system.  I feel this is more indicative of things
>> in the realworld than reading and/or writing using dd to the
>> device.   By using this you will be opening inodes, creating new
>> blocks, etc.
>>
>> Sar will tell you if you are running out of CPU, memory, or are
>> I/O bound at the disk level.
>>
>> The first thing to do when looking for perfomance improvement is
>> to find out exactly where the performance is falling down.
>>
>> I've seen people add memory because they 'thought' it would help
>> and found it did nothing - because they had problems elsewhere.
>>
>> I think most of us who have been using systems for quite awhile
>> have seen people make ill-informed guesses and spend and waste
>> money on things they didn't need, while not addressing the real
>> problems.
>>
>> Bill
>> -- 
>> Bill Vermillion - bv @ wjv . com
>
>Totally agree with you. In this case servers have plenty of memory ( 1GB). I
>have ran sar and did not see a botleneck. Here is a sample from one of the
>busy mornings:
>dds209.root356> sar 15 10
>
>SCO_SV dds209 3.2v5.0.4 i80386    03/08/2005
>
>09:06:55    %usr    %sys    %wio   %idle (-u)
>09:07:10      25       5       2      67
>09:07:25      45      12       4      40
>09:07:40      57       9       1      34
>09:07:55      38      13       8      41
>09:08:10      27       6       2      65
>09:08:25      50      12       1      37
>09:08:40      39       9       2      49
>09:08:55      35       8       8      49
>09:09:10      45      19       2      34
>09:09:25      35      11       5      48
>
>Average       40      10       4      46
>
>Thanks a lot. I will look for Iozone 2.1.

That only shows you have enough CPU power. 

A Gig of RAM is good if someone has hasn't tuned it so it's not
being used properly.  I don't know about the current SCO version
but on older versions I'd see people putting far too much in
buffers thinking they would get more speed but wind up spending
more time flushing to disk than would presumed reasonable.

A full sar on everything will be helpful.

If it's too big you can email it to me if you'd like.

Bill

-- 
Bill Vermillion - bv @ wjv . com
0
bv25 (549)
3/8/2005 8:45:01 PM
In article <9SVpoOYbgjB@zocki.toppoint.de>,
Rainer Zocholl  <UseNet-Posting-Nospam-74308-@zocki.toppoint.de> wrote:
> (news)  07.03.05 in /comp/unix/sco/misc:
>
>(+)
>
>
>>>> 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.
>
>ACK.
>
>
>>It is performance. 
>>I have an Ingres 2.0 RDBMS running under SCO 5.0.4.
>>I have tried to tune Ingres but customer indicates very little
>>improvement. 
>>When system becomes busy users have to wait tens of
>>seconds to save to database. 
>
>"Save the database"?
>What's that?
>
>AFAIK a database stores it values on it's own.
>
>Are you sure your application is using the right algorithm?
>
>
>>I am still looking in other areas of tuning Ingres.

>As Bill states:
>Do some mesurement.

>For example i was astonished that SCO 5.0.6 writes only with
>1MB/s(!) using a RAID5.

That is horrible.   Is that under load?  

I've found that the SCO file system is a bit slower than other
filesystem extant based on only systems I've worked around - but
I've not seen 1MB/second in about 15 years.

You neglected to say much about the RAID 5.  HW?  SW?  Drives?
I've seen some people implement RAID in IDE drives but since
only the newest handle command queing properly they really don't
work too well in a server environment.  And most of the SATA drives
are just PATA drives with an SATA converter - which gains you
absolutely nothing - but it looks good in the sales brochure.

>Simply coping a file from one dir to an other is really fast!
>Do a "sync"  before the copy
>Start your stop watch
>do the copy of 10 100MB
>do again a "sync"
>stop the stop watch!
>Calculate the time...
>Only that will give the true thuput, as OSR is very good in caching
>for benschmarks.

When I want to run speed tests I typically write 1GB files to make
sure I'm not having results skewed by any caching that may be in
the system - and there surely seems to be a lot anymore.

>Remember:
>Modern cheap IDE drives can write with 25MB/s, sustained.
>In an RAID5 they slow down too, but the RAID alogrithm wil be done
>by the main CPU, not a "funny" obsolete slow i960 RISC proccessor...

I've also seen 25MB as about the maxium writes with IDEs.  Then one
day I had a system get a bit slow [not SCO].  I checked the logs
and there had been a write/retry and the system had moved from
using DMA to PIO and cut the IO to 25% of normal.

Bill

-- 
Bill Vermillion - bv @ wjv . com
0
bv25 (549)
3/8/2005 9:05:01 PM
(Bill Vermillion)  08.03.05 in /comp/unix/sco/misc:


>>For example i was astonished that SCO 5.0.6 writes only with
>>1MB/s(!) using a RAID5.

>That is horrible.   Is that under load?

No, top said: Idle: 100% Or 99,5%

>I've found that the SCO file system is a bit slower than other
>filesystem extant based on only systems I've worked around - but
>I've not seen 1MB/second in about 15 years.

>You neglected to say much about the RAID 5.  HW?  SW?  Drives?

Sorry, all i know:
3200S DPT/Adaptek with 6(1 hot spare) 18GB SCSI-Seagate 10k drives
There are no write caches enabled.
Not in the drives nor in the RAID controler because the RAID
controler has not battery backup unit (the server is because of
a design flaw of the system "architect" connected to only 
one (big) UPS ignoring is has 2 hase power supplies(and all other
servers have 2 or 3 supplies too.. ;-( shit happens...maybe we can
rewire that crap some day when the UPS batteries need an update...)
Too OSR uses a journalling FS so (AFAIK) it's not wise to allow 
the disk file caching, as the FS assumes "written" when the drive
says "written"...


What makes me wonder:
Why does the write take so much CPU load that an entire CPU is blocked?


>>Simply coping a file from one dir to an other is really fast!
>>Do a "sync"  before the copy
>>Start your stop watch
>>do the copy of 10 100MB
>>do again a "sync"
>>stop the stop watch!
>>Calculate the time...
>>Only that will give the true thuput, as OSR is very good in caching
>>for benschmarks.

>When I want to run speed tests I typically write 1GB files to make
>sure I'm not having results skewed by any caching that may be in
>the system - and there surely seems to be a lot anymore.

ACK. But with 1MB/s you will have to wait 17 minutes for a result!
And in the above server config that would mean: no user can do anything!


0
3/9/2005 12:04:00 AM
In article <9SW9lOqMgjB@zocki.toppoint.de>,
Rainer Zocholl  <UseNet-Posting-Nospam-74308-@zocki.toppoint.de> wrote:
>(Bill Vermillion)  08.03.05 in /comp/unix/sco/misc:
>

>>>For example i was astonished that SCO 5.0.6 writes only with
>>>1MB/s(!) using a RAID5.

>>That is horrible.   Is that under load?

>No, top said: Idle: 100% Or 99,5%

Even worse.

>>I've found that the SCO file system is a bit slower than other
>>filesystem extant based on only systems I've worked around - but
>>I've not seen 1MB/second in about 15 years.

>>You neglected to say much about the RAID 5.  HW?  SW?  Drives?

>Sorry, all i know:
>3200S DPT/Adaptek with 6(1 hot spare) 18GB SCSI-Seagate 10k drives
>There are no write caches enabled.
>Not in the drives nor in the RAID controler because the RAID
>controler has not battery backup unit (the server is because of
>a design flaw of the system "architect" connected to only 
>one (big) UPS ignoring is has 2 hase power supplies(and all other
>servers have 2 or 3 supplies too.. ;-( shit happens...maybe we can
>rewire that crap some day when the UPS batteries need an update...)
>Too OSR uses a journalling FS so (AFAIK) it's not wise to allow 
>the disk file caching, as the FS assumes "written" when the drive
>says "written"...

That sounds truly stupid.  It's like buying a turbo-charged
V-12 import, disconnecting 10 spark plugs, turning off the turbo,
and towing a cement mixer.

I've never heard of anyone turning off drive cache.  He's taken 
a performance SCSI system and tuned it down to the effect of
an old ST506.

By turning off all the cache you lose all the SCSI advantages.
Instead of elevator seeking the heads will be going all over the
place instead of making a pass across the drive.  Having cache in
the drive means that you can have 'zero latency' writes.

What that means is that you can start writing as soon as the head
settle instead of waiting for first sector to come around.  The
saves an average of 1/2 a rev per write because the smarts in the
drive can write to the disk out of order.

Not using the cache on the controller means you slow the data
to the drive down to the actually write speed with no cache instead
of being able to dump data at bus speeds.

I suspect perfomance would increase if the RAID 5 were removed.
RAID 5 is the slowest anyway but this makes it slower.
Re-configuring to RAID 1 would be better.  

I've wondered why the SCSI controllers don't have battery backup
on them.  The last time I saw any were about 10 years ago.

You could have a power loss, and when the system power came back,
the data in the cache on the controller would be written to disk.

A few years ago IBM had drives that made sure the writes to the
disk from the on-board cache were flushed.

These were on 10K drives, and on power loss the drive was smart
enough to use the inertial engergy of the disk, and turn the
platter motor into a generator to give enough power to the drive
electronics to flush the cache to the platters.

That drive has since been discontinued.  I've wondered if part
of this was because of the way drives are changing that with the
smaller and lighter drives there is not enough intertia to do this
effectively.

The more robust things are the more they cost - and cost seems to
be the driving factor so often.

>
>What makes me wonder:
>Why does the write take so much CPU load that an entire CPU is blocked?

Because the CPU has to do all the work.  Normally the data goes
to the RAID cache and the disk cache at disk speed.  But all the
advantage of smart controllers are lost when they are disabled.
And if writes are going to be in the order they are received
instead of re-ordering the writes in both the controller cache and
the disk cache, you are probably wasting a lot of time in seeking
back and forth writing each segment individually.   That's my take
off the top of my head.   

I suspect you need an architect who understands how things work. 
It appears that person made assumptions.   That is just speculation
based on the little information you gave.

>>>Simply coping a file from one dir to an other is really fast!
>>>Do a "sync"  before the copy
>>>Start your stop watch
>>>do the copy of 10 100MB
>>>do again a "sync"
>>>stop the stop watch!
>>>Calculate the time...
>>>Only that will give the true thuput, as OSR is very good in caching
>>>for benschmarks.

>>When I want to run speed tests I typically write 1GB files to make
>>sure I'm not having results skewed by any caching that may be in
>>the system - and there surely seems to be a lot anymore.

>ACK. But with 1MB/s you will have to wait 17 minutes for a
>result! nd in the above server config that would mean: no user
>can do anything!

With 1MB writes I can see that.   I use the larger writes
to make sure that cache is not warping the values.  But since you
have no cache that doesn't enter into it.

On systems with decent memory and drive caches I can see great
performance with 20MB writes and when I got to 100, 500 or 1GB
I get a real value.

I just checked some saved Iozone values on a machine with
256MB, 650MHz PIII, Promise add-in ATA-133 controller, [UDMA 6]
Maxtor 120 GB drive. 

I get 20MB/sec writes and 45MB/sec reads.  FreeBSD UFS file system.
8MB of cache in the drive controller which is helping the reads.

And it's in a configuration that really doesn't fit the server
model.

Bill
-- 
Bill Vermillion - bv @ wjv . com
0
bv25 (549)
3/9/2005 6:45:01 AM
Reply:

Similar Artilces:

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 ...

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...

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 ...

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 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...

Licensing question 5.0.4 - 5.0.6
We need to upgrade a backup server from 5.0.4 to 5.0.6 (same as live server). Our supplier told us that a base pack upgrade for 5.0.6 is not available and we would have to have 5.0.7. This version of Sco is not certified compatible with our server. Does anyone know if we can install 5.0.7 licences on 5.0.6? Also it feels like the supplier is telling stories to force us into buying a new server. Does anyone know if 5.0.6 base packs are available? Thanks for your help Regards BB p.s. anonymity preserved to prevent Spam. Bigbyte typed (on Tue, Sep 09, 2003 at 04:22:53PM +0100): | We need to upgrade a backup server from 5.0.4 to 5.0.6 (same as live | server). Our supplier told us that a base pack upgrade for 5.0.6 is not | available and we would have to have 5.0.7. This version of Sco is not | certified compatible with our server. Does anyone know if we can install | 5.0.7 licences on 5.0.6? No. But why would you want to? | Also it feels like the supplier is telling stories to force us into buying a | new server. Does anyone know if 5.0.6 base packs are available? What do you mean by a "base pack"? -- JP On Tue, 9 Sep 2003, Bigbyte wrote: > We need to upgrade a backup server from 5.0.4 to 5.0.6 (same as live > server). Our supplier told us that a base pack upgrade for 5.0.6 is not > available and we would have to have 5.0.7. This version of Sco is not > certified compatible with our server. Does anyone know if we can install > 5.0.7 licenc...

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...

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 ...

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 answered this query | but I do not find anything about this matter While In-Place Upgrades do now work considerably better than they did a few years ago, I *still* counsel against them. Use my savefiles script, make good backups, and then a fresh install. -- JP "Pineapple" <roberquaNO@SPAMvirgilio.it> wrote in message news:<c50pa5$vri$1@newsreader.mailgate.org>... > 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 I had same problem, and I was unable to upgrade . Only fresh reinstall was Ok. Pineapple <roberquaNO@spamvirgilio.it> wrote: >I need some help. >I need to...

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 � enlever." "Perfection is not when there is nothing to add, but when there is nothing to remove." (A. de Saint Exupery) ------------------------------------------------------ On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 10:25:06 +0000, Andre Georgel <andre.georgel@mareduspam.com> wrote: >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...

SCO OpenServe 6.0.0 Filesystem MUCH Faster Than 5.0.6
The speed of the SCO OpenServer 6.0.0 filesystem is quite noticeably faster than I enjoyed on OpenServer 5.0.6. How do I know? I donno, but it feels and seems so. I didn't expect this, so I didn't make these tests while still on 5.0.6, but I KNOW I have a lot more files and directories on 6.0.0 than I did on 5.0.6. The Verify of my Last Master Backup shows what is on my systen: 255191 files were encountered 167 files were excluded 9 files were not checked because the hard disk file had been modified by a program since it was backed up 2 files were not checked for various reasons 28870 special files (links, directories, devices, etc.) 226143 files verified successfully Master Backups using LONE-TAR(tm) to DVD+RW media ran at about 70-75 MB/min on OSR 5.0.6 but run at 175+ MB/min on 6.0.0, and if I turn off compression run at 260+ MB/min. To see how long it takes to search for a non-existant file: [trebor] ~: time find . -name XPMNYTRE real 0m58.59s user 0m1.72s sys 0m10.96s And to see how many directories had to be read: [trebor] ~: find . -type d | wc -l 23745 Bob -- Bob Stockler +-+ bob@trebor.iglou.com +-+ http://members.iglou.com/trebor Author: MENU EDIT II - The BEST Creator/Editor/Manager for filePro User Menus. Fully functional (time-limited) demos available by email request (specify OS). On Fri, Nov 25, 2005 at 11:01:36AM -0500, Bob Stockler wrote: > The speed of the SCO ...

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...

2 NICs problem in SCO Open Server 5.0.5
Hi, I had a SCO box with 1 card ( 3COM 905B ) installed with IP 10.0.1.30/24 and everything was OK. I installed second card ( the same type - 3COM 905B) and configured IP as 192.168.1.1/24. After kernel relink and boot I can not ping any machine in 192.168.1.0/24 network. I checked all physical connections, routing, etc. Strange thing is that I noticed, that both network interfaces have the same MAC address. If I run ifconfig -a, I see: net1: flags=4043<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,MULTICAST> mtu 1500 inet 10.0.1.30 netmask ffffff00 broadcast 10.0.1.255 perf. params: recv size: 24576; send size: 24576; full-size frames: 1 ether 00:50:04:07:93:d6 net0: flags=4043<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,MULTICAST> mtu 1500 inet 192.168.1.1 netmask ffffff00 broadcast 192.168.1.255 perf. params: recv size: 24576; send size: 24576; full-size frames: 1 ether 00:50:04:07:93:d6 What did I do wrong? Have you ever seen and solved this problem? Thanks for any advice. Wojtek. Wojtek Korg�l wrote: > Hi, > > I had a SCO box with 1 card ( 3COM 905B ) installed with IP 10.0.1.30/24 and > everything was OK. I installed second card ( the same type - 3COM 905B) and > configured IP as 192.168.1.1/24. After kernel relink and boot I can not ping > any machine in 192.168.1.0/24 network. I checked all physical connections, > routing, etc. Strange thing is that I noticed, that both network interfaces > have the same MAC address. If...

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...

& # 4 0 ; & # 4 4 3 0 5 ; & # 4 4 2 5 6 ; & # 4 1 ;��������� ARS���� �����ؿ�(����)
<HTML> <HEAD> <META content="text/html; charset=ks_c_5601-1987" http-equiv=Content-Type> <STYLE> p, font, span { line-height:120%; margin-top:0; margin-bottom:0; }</STYLE> </HEAD><BODY> <TABLE borderColor=#cccccc width=629 borderColorLight=#cccccc border=1> <TBODY> <TR> <TD width=619 height=67> <P align=center><FONT face=����><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt"><IMG src="http://www.ezbizi.com/ezbizi/home_img/daechul_01.gif"></SPAN></FONT></P>&l...

& # 4 0 ; & # 4 4 3 0 5 ; & # 4 4 2 5 6 ; & # 4 1 ;@��������� ARS���� �����ؿ�@(����)
<HTML> <HEAD> <META content="text/html; charset=ks_c_5601-1987" http-equiv=Content-Type> <STYLE> p, font, span { line-height:120%; margin-top:0; margin-bottom:0; }</STYLE> </HEAD><BODY> <table border="1" width="629" bordercolor="#cccccc" bordercolorlight="#cccccc"> <tr> <td width="619" height="67"> <p align="center"><font face="����"><span style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt"></span></font></p...

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...

Compiling 5.0.4 binaries on 5.0.6
I have a shiny new dual-cpu server running OpenServer 5.0.6, but I want to use it to develop software for 5.0.4 machines which are not binary compatible with 5.0.6. Does anybody know if it's possible to get a 5.0.6 machine to make 5.0.4 binaries? Thanks in advance! Ben Ben Tracy typed (on Fri, Sep 05, 2003 at 11:29:43AM -0700): | I have a shiny new dual-cpu server running OpenServer 5.0.6, but I | want to use it to develop software for 5.0.4 machines which are not | binary compatible with 5.0.6. Does anybody know if it's possible to | get a 5.0.6 machine to make 5.0.4 binaries? It's news to me that a 5.0.6 binary will not run on prior releases of OSR 5. Tell us more about this -- where you learned this, for one thing, and for another, an example of a particular binary that fails. What does 'ldd' say about such a binary? -- JP In article <ede32bcd.0309051029.6d41ecd9@posting.google.com> arthurdent42@eudoramail.com (Ben Tracy) writes: $I have a shiny new dual-cpu server running OpenServer 5.0.6, but I $want to use it to develop software for 5.0.4 machines which are not $binary compatible with 5.0.6. Does anybody know if it's possible to $get a 5.0.6 machine to make 5.0.4 binaries? Many of the SCO security updates won't run on pre-5.0.6a systems unless you install a few updates. Once you install the updates, things seem to work pretty well on all the 5.0.4 and 5.0.5 systems on which I've tried installing them. Have you t...

5.0.5: uname -a shows 5.0.6 ?!
Hello, where gets "uname -a" the 5.0.6 info ? uname -a: SCO_SV hostname 3.2 5.0.6 i386 uname -X: System = SCO_SV Node = hostname Release = 3.2v5.0.5 KernelID = 98/07/02 Machine = PentII(D) BusType = ISA Serial = 4FI018581 Users = 130-user OEM# = 0 Origin# = 1 NumCPU = 2 truss doesn't helps. Regards, S.Marquardt Stefan Marquardt wrote: > where gets "uname -a" the 5.0.6 info ? > uname -a: > > SCO_SV hostname 3.2 5.0.6 i386 > > uname -X: > > System = SCO_SV > Node = hostname > Release = 3.2v5.0.5 > KernelID = 98/07/02 > Machine = PentII(D) > BusType = ISA > Serial = 4FI018581 > Users = 130-user > OEM# = 0 > Origin# = 1 > NumCPU = 2 > > truss doesn't helps. `uname -a` uses the uname(S) system call; `uname -X` uses __scoinfo(S). You can see the respective structures by doing: # scodb scodb> d &utsname scodb> d &scoutsname scodb> q The structures are initialized in /etc/conf/pack.d/kernel/space.c. `uname -v` comes from VER, which is #defined in kernel/space.c; `uname -X` Release comes from SCORELEASE, which is #defined in /etc/conf/cf.d/version.h. You can see how the two could get out of sync. >Bela< ...

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? ...

Java 1.5 on SCO 5.0.6
Hi, I am trying to get some java programs running on my SCO systems - but they are written for java 1.5 and I can't find any files higher than java 1.3 for 5.0.6. I have tried installing the java 1.5 VOL files for OSR6, and they install through custom alright, but I am getting an error when I try to run 'java' # java -version dynamic linker : java : could not open /usr/lib/libthread.so.1 Killed Can anyone help either get the OSR6 version working on 5.0.6 or does anyone know if there is a version for 5.0.6 Any help would be much appreciated. Thanks, Keith On 13 Jul, 16:17, crym...@gmail.com wrote: > Hi, > > I am trying to get some java programs running on my SCO systems - but > they are written for java 1.5 and I can't find any files higher than > java 1.3 for 5.0.6. > > I have tried installing the java 1.5 VOL files for OSR6, and they > install through custom alright, but I am getting an error when I try > to run 'java' > > # java -version > dynamic linker : java : could not open /usr/lib/libthread.so.1 > Killed > > Can anyone help either get the OSR6 version working on 5.0.6 or does > anyone know if there is a version for 5.0.6 > > Any help would be much appreciated. > > Thanks, > > Keith Keith, Unfortunately Java 1.5 is not supported and will not run on OpenServer 5.0.6. If you want to run Java 1.5 programs you will need to upgrade to OpenServer 6.0.0. John On 17 Jul, 08:...

Access a SCO 3.0 drive from 5.0.6?
I have an old machine with SCO 3.0 and no networking. I need the data off the IDE drive. I put this drive in a 5.0.6 box that I have and ran mkdev hd, but it would never show the partitions on the drive (I have since put the drive back in the old box and it boots fine.). When the old server boots, it does show /usr mounting as S51K Any ideas on how to get this to work? Do I need to mkdev hd first or can I just access the filesystem directly somehow? I'm lost. Thanks! jf jfranks1970@gmail.com wrote: > I have an old machine with SCO 3.0 and no networking. I need the data > off the IDE drive. I put this drive in a 5.0.6 box that I have and > ran mkdev hd, but it would never show the partitions on the drive (I > have since put the drive back in the old box and it boots fine.). > > When the old server boots, it does show /usr mounting as S51K > > Any ideas on how to get this to work? Do I need to mkdev hd first or > can I just access the filesystem directly somehow? > > I'm lost. > > Thanks! > > jf Does the antique drive have *ANY* networking on its OS? Can you transfer the data over the network, via rcp or tar over an rlogin or somehting? On Fri, Feb 29, 2008, jfranks1970@gmail.com wrote: >I have an old machine with SCO 3.0 and no networking. I need the data >off the IDE drive. I put this drive in a 5.0.6 box that I have and >ran mkdev hd, but it would never show the partitions on the drive (I >...

FAXing from SCO Unix 5.0.6
I'm supporting a SCO Unix 5.0.6 machine. I don't want to spend $1700 on a "fax server solution". Instead, I'm looking for a fax modem for which there are drivers for SCO or generic enough for Unix in general. I also need "fax software" to enable the whole endeavor. All I'm attempting is what is done quite readily in Windows: print to a psuedo-driver which, in turn, invokes the fax s/w that solicits the phone number to fax to and any other required info. I don't need all kinds of fancy options like choices for cover pages, etc. The application used by my client is strictly text-based - no GUI. Any advice for public-domain - or inexpensive - software to accomplish this is much appreciated. Regards, David On Fri, Apr 18, 2008, David wrote: >I'm supporting a SCO Unix 5.0.6 machine. I don't want to spend $1700 on >a "fax server solution". Instead, I'm looking for a fax modem for which >there are drivers for SCO or generic enough for Unix in general. I also >need "fax software" to enable the whole endeavor. > >All I'm attempting is what is done quite readily in Windows: print to a >psuedo-driver which, in turn, invokes the fax s/w that solicits the >phone number to fax to and any other required info. I don't need all >kinds of fancy options like choices for cover pages, etc. The >application used by my client is strictly text-based - no GUI. &g...

SCO Unix 5.0.6, errors
Hi, I am getting the error(s); HTFS: Inode 11915 on HTFS dev hd (1/43) has bad type 000000000000 HTFS: I/O failure occured accessing logical block 477364230 on HTFS dev hd (1/43) and then the system shuts down. Is there any way to fix these? We have done the command 'unix auto' at the Boot: prompt and it goes through its file system checks and appears to correct some problems. We have had some corruption on the database but were able to fix the problems. Our next plan of action is to clone the drive, but if anyone has any other suggestions for a way to fix this issue I would appreciate it. Lori Calkins It would help if you'd provided disk information, such as how many partitions. I'm guessing from what you provided that the problem is on the root partition. By default 5.0.6 doesn't check the root file system on an auto boot. What you're seeing is the file system checks on the rest of the partitions. When you get the Boot: prompt just press enter. Eventually you'll be prompted for the root password to enter maintenance mode. Do that. Then type fsck / Ray Robert Three Star Software Lori wrote: > Hi, > I am getting the error(s); > > HTFS: Inode 11915 on HTFS dev hd (1/43) has bad type 000000000000 > HTFS: I/O failure occured accessing logical block 477364230 on HTFS dev > hd (1/43) > > and then the system shuts down. > > Is there any way to fix these? We have done the command 'unix auto' at >...

Web resources about - SCO Open Server 5.0.6 versus 5.0.4 - comp.unix.sco.misc

X.Org Server - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
X.Org Server refers to the X server release packages stewarded by the X.Org Foundation , which is hosted by freedesktop.org , and grants public ...

Report: Apple developing at least 6 cloud infrastructure projects incl. servers to prevent snooping
... The Information reports that Project McQueen is actually just one of at least six internal efforts at Apple including building its own servers, ...

Report: Apple designing its own servers to avoid snooping
One of Facebook's data centers filled with custom-designed servers. (credit: Facebook ) Apple has begun designing its own servers partly because ...

Apple worries that spy technology has been secretly added to the computer servers it buys
... its own hardware, the same as Google and Amazon does, and run it on its own for one pretty scary reason: security. It suspects that the servers ...

PC rivalry extends to servers: Lenovo aims to topple HPE, Dell
A few years ago, Lenovo toppled rivals HP and Dell to become the world's top PC maker. It now wants to do the same in servers. Lenovo hopes ...

Please Be Nice To Restaurant Servers, Even If They Have Pink Hair
Among the many odd jobs I’ve done during my rise to the very middle of the pseudonymous blogging game, I once spent a summer in college waiting ...

EMEA x86 server spending grows 5% on year in 4Q15, says IDC
As reported in IDC's EMEA Server Tracker, in the fourth quarter of 2015 the EMEA server market continued to show moderate growth, reporting US$3.9 ...

Apple reportedly designing its own secure servers
Apple's track record for online services like iCloud has been shaky at best. According to The Information, the iPhone maker has spent years trying ...

Microsoft Gives SQL Server R Analytics a Machine-Learning Push
New machine-learning templates help give SQL Server 2016 customers a get a head start with advanced analytics applications based on the R language. ...

Apple may design its own servers to avoid government snooping
Apple is reportedly considering building its own servers to keep the government from intercepting and infecting them with various kinds of malware. ...

Resources last updated: 3/26/2016 12:36:59 PM