Well, yea...
We have all done that.
As well as fax some pages.
Back in VM/IS days, the dumpscan tool (I think that was it) had a set
of panels around it. Made things a lot easier. We would give IBM the
dial up sequence for them to shoot problems. We also started the
process to send the tape, ju
l#17 bandwidth of a swallow (was:
real core)
we had done hsdt (high speed data transport) project
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subnetwork.html#hsdt
in the 80s ... with high-speed backbone connected to the internal
network.
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subnetwork.html#internalnet
in the late 80s,
On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 10:28:07 -0500, Tom Duerbusch
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>So I guess the question I'm wondering...
>
>How many others have shipped dumps, online, back before high speed
>Internet connections?
Why send the entire dump when they're only going to look at a tiny
fraction of it?
Paul B. Nieman wrote:
> In the early 1990's we consolidated a data center from Sydney into
> Philadelphia. We used SYBACK to do a full dump of specific (most)
> minidisks to tape and shipped the tapes. We then performed daily
> incrementals to disk, and sent the incrementals via RSCS, via a 9600
Continuing a discussion started on VMESA and now cross posted on VSE-L.
I remember sending a printed dump of the DOS Release 18 Supervisor
back in 1968 via Greyhound Bus.
And that reminds me of the User Manual for the original Westinghouse Disk
Backup/Restore Utility. It had a very large and hum
Tom Duerbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>How many others have shipped dumps, online, back before high speed
>Internet connections?
This is the inverse, or maybe the perverse:
In 1990 or so, we had a distributor in Europe. A customer took a database
ABEND and was very unhappy. I was in Manha
On Oct 11, 2006, at 8:28 AM, Tom Duerbusch wrote:
How many others have shipped dumps, online, back before high speed
Internet connections?
Hell, I've done it with DVDs in the last year.
Adam
Toronto, but I think we had to put in a
second
9600 baud line, or bump the line up. (Or maybe it was a higher speed
line
to begin with.)
- Original Message -
From: "Rich Greenberg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2006 11:12 AM
Subject: Re: Real core
went well so it was used for Toronto, but I think we had to put in a second
9600 baud line, or bump the line up. (Or maybe it was a higher speed line
to begin with.)
- Original Message -
From: "Rich Greenberg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, October 11,
of the MIT TX-0 MIDAS assembler.
http://www.typewritten.org/Articles/Saunders-20030405.html
ok
r.
From: Richard Troth
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2006 7:07
AMTo: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDUSubject: bandwidth of a
swallow [was: Real core]
Sir
Dave the Generous spake
ting System [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Behalf Of Tom Duerbusch
> Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2006 8:28 AM
> To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
> Subject: Re: Real core
>
>
> Other than PNET or RJE, I can't imagine anyone ever shipping a dump
> prior to the '90s
At 10:28 AM 10/11/2006, you wrote:
If we were ever in a real hurry, where FEDEX was too slow, we would
take the tape to Lambert International Airport (St. Louis), and put it
on the next flight out to where ever it needed to go.
So I guess the question I'm wondering...
How many others have ship
Other than PNET or RJE, I can't imagine anyone ever shipping a dump
prior to the '90s. It is only since I had high speed Internet
connections that I have ever shipped a dump online. It seems like only
4-5 years ago, I was still shipping tapes.
If we were ever in a real hurry, where FEDEX was too
Yeah, and the connectivity to that data while in transit was pretty bad,
too. ;-)
DJ
Phil Smith III wrote:
Richard Troth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Never underestimate the bandwidth of a station-wagon.
(or of airliner, or of an Amish buggy, or of the QE2, or of a Camry, ...)
Yeah, we had
On: Wed, Oct 11, 2006 at 05:35:50AM -0400,Phil Smith III Wrote:
} Yeah, we had a customer who wanted to move 100TB from Japan to New Jersey; my
recommendation was "Crate the Shark and fly it there". I calculated that if it
took 24 hours door-to-door, that was about 1GB/second throughput. Laten
Richard Troth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Never underestimate the bandwidth of a station-wagon.
>(or of airliner, or of an Amish buggy, or of the QE2, or of a Camry, ...)
Yeah, we had a customer who wanted to move 100TB from Japan to New Jersey; my
recommendation was "Crate the Shark and fly it t
--- Dave Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You don't seriously expect us to believe that a
> swallow (African or any
> other kind...) can grasp a 3592 tape cartridge, do
> you? They have no
> husks, as you know..;-)
>
I don't think 3592's are covered by relevant RFCs
(1149 I think for swa
Jim Elliott wrote:
> There was a very expensive option to
> upgrade the 155 to a 155-II and the 165 to a 165-II which
> basically added DAT. Very few customers took up this option as
> the more attractive ($) option were the S/370 158 and S/370 168
> which had DAT and VS built-in.
Unless you had r
se respond to The IBM z/VM Operating
System
From
Dave Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To
IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
cc
Subject
Re: bandwidth of a swallow
[was: Real core]
Well, yea, I suppose if you could get *two* swallows
to cooperate, they
could carry a 3592 tape cartridge between th
Well, yea, I suppose if you could get *two* swallows to cooperate, they
could carry a 3592 tape cartridge between them. Even a 3592 cartridge
fully laden with 300 GB of data weighs less than a coconut, but I still
say the air speed of two such swallows would be somewhat less than, say,
a 747...
cc:
Subject: bandwidth of a swallow [was: Real core]
Sir Dave the Generous spake:
> You don't seriously expect us to believe that a swallow
> (African or any other kind...) can grasp a 3592 tape cartridge,
> do you? They have no husks, as you know
2361 Core Storage
Purpose: Large capacity direct access core storage for a S/360 mdl 50,
65, or 75 (not a 2065 mdl MP)
PurchaseMMMC
Model 11,048,576 bytes $188,200$449
Model 22,097,152 bytes $314,050$689
Jim Elliott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
Sir Dave the Generous spake:
> You don't seriously expect us to believe that
a swallow
> (African or any other kind...) can grasp a 3592
tape cartridge,
> do you? They have no husks, as you know..;-)
Perhaps he's suggesting that cores migrate?
(cat herders ... they've seen it all, you kno
You don't seriously expect us to believe that a swallow (African or any
other kind...) can grasp a 3592 tape cartridge, do you? They have no
husks, as you know..;-)
DJ
Jim Vincent wrote:
Never underestimate the bandwidth of a station-wagon.
(or of airliner, or of an Amish buggy, or of the
> Never underestimate the bandwidth of a station-wagon.
> (or of airliner, or of an Amish buggy, or of the QE2, or of a Camry, ...)
> -- R;
...or the Swallow (African, not European of course!)
> One of my co-workers found that instead of sending data to a remote site
in China,
> it was cheaper to to take a return flight to China with the tape. This
was in the days
Never underestimate the bandwidth of a station-wagon.
(or of airliner, or of an Amish buggy, or of the QE2, or of a Camry, .
On 10/8/06, Dave Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
a megabyte of 3090 memory cost $19,200. That works out to $0.018311/byte
(1 MB = 1024 * 1024 bytes).
Ouch, that hurts. Around that time I was charged about the same for
my VMSHARE usage to transport that amount of data through my public
X.25
> I believe the 370/155 and 370/165 had core memory, and later in
> their lives DAT was available as an RPQ or a field upgrade on
> those processors. I think the 370/168 and certainly the 370/158
> came with DAT and solid state memory on the base model.
OK, here is a little correct history of the
Time permitting, I may be able to provide some of that history. I was
an IBM branch office Systems Engineer in the late 60's until the late
70's and fairly early on, it occurred to me that as I was updating my
sales manual and the update instructions said to throw away certain
pages, I was thr
always thought the converted ones became 8's. 148, 158, 168
>
>-Original Message-
>From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Behalf Of Rich Greenberg
>Sent: Monday, October 09, 2006 3:47 PM
>To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
>Subject: Re: Real core
I always thought the converted ones became 8's. 148, 158, 168
-Original Message-
From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Behalf Of Rich Greenberg
Sent: Monday, October 09, 2006 3:47 PM
To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
Subject: Re: Real core
On: Mon, Oct 09, 20
System [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Behalf Of Jim Bohnsack
> Sent: Monday, October 09, 2006 12:17 PM
> To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
> Subject: Re: Real core
>
>
> No, I *think* that the upgraded 155 or 165 would have been a 155-2 or
> 155-II. The 158 or 168 designation would
On: Mon, Oct 09, 2006 at 01:40:36PM -0500,Tom Duerbusch Wrote:
} Yep, it was an IBM 370-165 that was field upgraded to a 370-168 by
} including a DAT box. I never heard of them being a "7s", like a 167.
} But I do recall there was a distinction between a factory delivered 168
} and a field upgra
hat the $1 million per MB also included all the extra
> hardware that may or may not be necessary, depending on which megabyte
> increment it was.
>
> Tom Duerbusch
> THD Consulting
>
> >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 10/7/2006 11:07 PM >>>
> Ok, this is obscure
No, I *think* that the upgraded 155 or 165 would have been a 155-2 or
155-II. The 158 or 168 designation would have been ordered as a 158 or
168. I agree that there were no 157's or 167's.
Jim
Tom Duerbusch wrote:
Yep, it was an IBM 370-165 that was field upgraded to a 370-168 by
including
ith the DAT. The non-DAT boxes were
5s (145, 155, 165). When they were upgraded to DAT, they became 7s.
Regards,
Richard Schuh
> -Original Message-
> From: The IBM z/VM Operating System
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Behalf Of Tom Duerbusch
> Sent: Monday, October 09, 2006
M Operating System [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Behalf Of Tom Duerbusch
> Sent: Monday, October 09, 2006 10:31 AM
> To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
> Subject: Re: Real core
>
>
> The number I remember, but, if pressed, I wouldn't know all the
> specifics on what it ment was
t seemed to take over a month to
finally spec out what you wanted to order.
So I assume that the $1 million per MB also included all the extra
hardware that may or may not be necessary, depending on which megabyte
increment it was.
Tom Duerbusch
THD Consulting
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 10/7/2006 11
r and more reliable. I wasn't privy to the bean-counting
specifics, but the rumored cost of the LCS storage on our 360 class
machines was in the neighborhood or $2.5-3M per 2MB unit. And they
were real core - you could look through the glass panels and see the
individual planes of wires and doug
Yeah, but 3090 memory was not ferrite core, was it? IIRC, it was much cheaper
and more reliable. I wasn't privy to the bean-counting specifics, but the
rumored cost of the LCS storage on our 360 class machines was in the
neighborhood or $2.5-3M per 2MB unit. And they were real core - you
eptember, 1969. At
20-60 cents/bit, it was 5x to 12x more expensive than core memory per bit.
http://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/univac/config1108.html1968
.05/bit
Univac 7005-72 131 K word Core Memory $823,500
Phil Smith III said:
Ok, this is obscure to the max, but: ISTR
ilab.ch/documents/univac/config1108.html
1968
.05/bit
Univac 7005-72 131 K word Core Memory
$823,500
Phil Smith III said:
Ok, this is obscure to the max, but: ISTR real core costing
$1/byte.
Someone else says:
"$1 a byte was extrordinarily cheap for 1971. Ferrite core was go
teresting engineering process in itself.
So non-core 145 memory cost $0.11444/byte and 148 memory cost
$0.02861/byte.
Phil Smith III said:
Ok, this is obscure to the max, but: ISTR real core costing $1/byte.
Someone else says:
"$1 a byte was extrordinarily cheap for 1971. Ferrite co
re to the max, but: ISTR real core costing $1/byte.
Someone else says:
"$1 a byte was extrordinarily cheap for 1971. Ferrite core was going for
up to $2 per BIT."
Of course, he then goes on to talk about PDPs, so maybe he's talking
about core made in Maynard instead of Mexico...
08 AM
> To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
> Subject: Real core
>
> Ok, this is obscure to the max, but: ISTR real core costing
> $1/byte. Someone else says:
> "$1 a byte was extrordinarily cheap for 1971. Ferrite core
> was going for up to $2 per BIT."
>
> Of cou
I think I'd agree with the other lad. At least in the DEC world, even
the foreign-made core never dipped much below the $2/bit range just
because of labor costs.
> Ok, this is obscure to the max, but: ISTR real core costing $1/byte.
> Someone else says:
> "$1 a byte was extro
Ok, this is obscure to the max, but: ISTR real core costing $1/byte. Someone
else says:
"$1 a byte was extrordinarily cheap for 1971. Ferrite core was going for up to
$2 per BIT."
Of course, he then goes on to talk about PDPs, so maybe he's talking about core
made in Maynard in
47 matches
Mail list logo
