From: Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> Subject: misc. old benchmarks (4331 & 11/750) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Date: Thu, 08 Aug 2002 21:52:53 GMTa random bencharmk done in early 80s both running some flavor of C under some flavor of unix
4331 vax 11/750 add LONG 1 msec/add 1 msec/add add SHORT 2 msec/add 4 msec/add add FLOAT 7 msec/add 19 msec/add ram read SHORT 7 msec/byte 4 msec/byte ram read LONG 9 msec/byte 2 msec/byte ram read CHAR 19 msec/byte 8 msec/byte ram write SHORT 8 msec/byte 3 msec/byte ram write LONG 4 msec/byte 2 msec/byte ram write CHAR 11 msec/byte 7 msec/byte ram copy SHORT 8 msec/byte 4 msec/byte ram copy LONG 4 msec/byte 2 msec/byte ram copy CHAR 16 msec/byte 7 msec/byte multiply SHORT 16 msec/mult 13 msec/mult multiply LONG 16 msec/mult 9 msec/mult multiply FLOAT 21 msec/mult 42 msec/mult divide SHORT 20 msec/div 12 msec/div divide LONG 20 msec/div 9 msec/div divide FLOAT 21 msec/div 74 msec/div--
From: Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> Subject: Re: misc. old benchmarks (4331 & 11/750) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Date: Fri, 09 Aug 2002 12:39:14 GMT"Rupert Pigott" writes:
from same source as
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002i.html#12 CDC6600 - just how powerful a machine was it?
linpack numbers ... what i don't know from the previous is which model 750 was actually used for the comparion ... compared to the following linpack numbers. The 4331 and 4341 started shipping spring of 1979.
VAX 11/785 FPA .20 IBM 4341 .19 VAX 11/785 FPA .18 VAX 11/780 FPA .14 VAX 11/750 FPA .12 VAX 11/780 FPA .11 VAX 11/750 FPA .096 VAX 11/750 .057 IBM 4331 .038 VAX 11/725 FPA .037 VAX 11/730 FPA .036 VAX 11/750 .029--
From: Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> Subject: Re: IBM 327x terminals and controllers (was Re: Itanium2 power limited?) Newsgroups: comp.arch Date: Fri, 09 Aug 2002 13:00:15 GMTdale@edgehp.invalid (Dale Pontius) writes:
original 3272/3277 ... had keyboard logic in the keyboard. it was possible to modify the 3277 keyboard to do different things.
3274/3278/etc moved that logic back to the control unit. a 3274 had special logic that you could attach 3277 to 3274 ... but it was no longer possible to modify 3278 keyboard to do keystroke stuff. the 3274/3278 did have a key that was something like ">>" & "<<" which was double fast cursor motion ... supported by microcode logic in the 3274 controller.
3278s weren't supported on 3272 controllers. 3278 terminals & 3274 controllers were initially introduced together.
it was possible to take apart the 3277 keyboard ... and little wirewrap change the initial character repeat delay as well as the character repeat rate. this could be used to speed up the cursor motion on the screen. It was also possible to install a FIFO box that handled the interlock between keystrokes and screen write (i.e. the box would hold the keystroke(s) if the screen was being written instead of locking the keyboard). The repeat delay/rate & FIFO box for the 3277 keyboard was not possible on the later 327x ... because the keyboard logic had moved back to the controller (3274).
--
Anne & Lynn Wheeler | lynn@garlic.com - https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/
From: Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> Subject: Re: misc. old benchmarks (4331 & 11/750) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Date: Fri, 09 Aug 2002 13:29:28 GMTother data from
some vax-11/7xx
Computer VAX-11/730 Gebaut ab/Build from 1982.04 Anfangspreis/Price at start DM 150.000,00 Hauptspeicher RAM KB 1.024,00 Max. RAM KB 2.048,00 Betriebssystem/OS VMS HDD 2 x 10 MB Computer VAX-11/750 Gebaut ab/Build from 1980.10 Anfangspreis/Price at start DM 230.000,00 Max. RAM KB 512,00 HDD 250 MB - Computer VAX-11/780 Angekündigt/Announced 1975 Gebaut ab/Build from 1977.10 Anfangspreis/Price at start DM 450.000,00 Hauptspeicher RAM KB 128,00 Max. RAM KB 16.000,00 Cache 8 KB HDD 14 MB - 1 GBsome ibm 43xx
Computer 4331 Gebaut ab/Build from 1979 Hauptspeicher RAM KB 512,00 Max. RAM KB 1.024,00 Computer 4341 Gebaut ab/Build from 1979 Hauptspeicher RAM KB 2.048,00 Max. RAM KB 8.000,00 Computer 4361 Angekündigt/Announced 1983.09 Gebaut ab/Build from 1983.IV Hauptspeicher RAM KB 2.048,00 Max. RAM KB 4.096,00 Computer 4381 Angekündigt/Announced 1983.09 Gebaut ab/Build from 1984.04 Max. RAM KB 16.000,00--
From: Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> Subject: Re: misc. old benchmarks (4331 & 11/750) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Date: Fri, 09 Aug 2002 17:18:46 GMT"GerardS" writes:
| 4341-1 370/4341 | .88 | | 4341-2 370/4341 | 1.50 | | 4341-9 370/4341 | .52 | | 4341-10 370/4341 | .75 | | 4341-11 370/4341 | 1.10 | | 4341-12 370/4341 | 1.65 |
note engineering, pre customer ship 4341-1 on rain/rain4 from
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2000d.html#0 Is a VAX a mainframe
158 3031 4341
Rain 45.64 secs 37.03 secs 36.21 secs
Rain4 43.90 secs 36.61 secs 36.13 secs
also times approx;
145 168-3 91
145 secs. 9.1 secs 6.77 secs
===================
and linpack
IBM 370/158 .22 IBM 4341 MG10 .19--
From: Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> Subject: Re: PKI, Smart Card, Certificate Verification Newsgroups: alt.technology.smartcards Date: Fri, 09 Aug 2002 17:37:30 GMTm.lyubich@computer.org (Mykhailo Lyubich) writes:
if you have a certificate & a public key of the CA ... you could call a subroutine and verify the certificate with the CA's public key ... and then on return branch to successful or non-successful.
are you talking about the code that you are running ... and the instructions in memory that might have vulnerabilities?
would things improve if the subroutine ... instead of doing the actual crypto operations to verify the certificate signature with the CA's public key ... call another subroutine that past the data to a smartcard and got back an answer???
if the point of vulnerability is the executing code in memory ... then the decision code on return from calling the subroutine to do the verification is as vulnerable as the code doing the verification (aka rather than try and mess around with all the gorpy crypto code involved in verify a signature ... just zap the branch instruction that implements the branch between "correct" or "incorrect" verification)
moving a very small piece of a systemic whole operation to a smartcard doesn't do much if you leave everything else vulnerable ... the code that evaluates the decision based on verified or not-verified results is still vulnerable, the code that implements some policy based on the code the evaluates the decision is still vulnerable.
at the very simplest .... validating a signature is a very complex compare instruction (a signature verification consists of calculating a hash of the certificate ... and essentially decrypting the digital signature with the public key to arrive at a hash and then compare the two hashs).
COMPARE HASH1,HASH2 BRANCH EQUAL to GOOD BRANCH NOT EQUAL to BADLets say you move the COMPARE instruction into a smartcard (effectively what the certificate verification amounts to). The branch instructions and the code at "good" and "bad" are still vulnerable unless they are moved too.
--
Anne & Lynn Wheeler | lynn@garlic.com - https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/
From: Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> Subject: Re: IBM 327x terminals and controllers (was Re: Itanium2 power limited?) Newsgroups: comp.arch Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2002 03:32:41 GMTAnne & Lynn Wheeler writes:
ok ... here is reference to 3272/3277 "ANR" protocol
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001m.html#17 3270 Protocol
here is some timing numbers vis-a-vis ANR & DFT ... where a lot of
the logic had been moved out of the head & keyboard and back into
the microprogramming in the 3274 controller
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001m.html#19 3270 Protocol
in the above ... lots of CMS systems had quarter second avg. system response and numerous (like SJR) had .11 second trivial system response for the 90th percentile (i.e. not avg, 90 percent of trivial responses were .11 second or less).
aka ... 3272 hardware time avg. .086 seconds ... while 3274 hardware time normal processing was .530 seconds.
in addition to not being able to fix some of the human factors by hacking the keyboard ... it was not possible to achieve under .5 second response time ... no matter how you cut it (the controller hardware time was over & above system response ... and there could also possible queuing contention from other terminals keeping the 3274 busy).
3274s had to carry along ANR support .... to accommodate legacy 3277s laying around. Even tho 3274s exhibited all the additional controller overhead ... early PC cards could be found that were ANR because even on 3274s with the additional controller overhead ... ANR got something like three times the thruput of DFT.
--
Anne & Lynn Wheeler | lynn@garlic.com - https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/
From: Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> Subject: Re: computers and stuff. Newsgroups: comp.lang.asm370 Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2002 19:48:19 GMT"John Hastings" writes:
there are a broad range of vehicles .... some very specialized and others that are less so .... and a large variety that are targeted at the consumer market (or at least a market that may not have 20-30 years of detailed experience in designing and implementing vehicles).
lots of people may choose less than optimal vehicle for their purposes ... it doesn't necessarily make it wrong ... it just makes it less than optimal (at least for some set of metrics associated with optimal). in some cases, the cost of making a more informed decision may be higher than any improvement in the decision.
--
Anne & Lynn Wheeler | lynn@garlic.com - https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/
From: Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> Subject: Re: Avoiding JCL Space Abends Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ibm-main Date: Sun, 11 Aug 2002 15:06:56 GMTedgould@AMERITECH.NET (Edward Gould) writes:
then there is separate issues for no-single-point-of-failure ... aka some form of replicated data. replicated data may include things like journal (aka effectively long-lived log entries).
some of the DBMS backups are actually fuzzy plus a backup of the sequential journal (starting at least as far back in time in the journal when the fuzzy backup started and continuing thru when the fuzzy backup ended). recovery consists of restoring the fuzzy backup and then reruning the transactions from the journal backup. ADSM (now tivoll) has provided this kind of backup across a wide-range of platforms.
at least at the time when we were doing ha/cmp ... one of the issues with unix platfrom DBMS in parallel environment was distributed lock manager and fast commit. fast commit is basically write ahead log (i.e. rather than logging "before" image entries in the log, "after" images went into the log ... as soon as an "after" image was on disk in the log, the transaction was considered committed). As part of some of the distributed lock manager work ... I had worked on being able to pass cached images with the log. The approach at the time was to always flush modified cached images to "home" location in the database prior to letting a lock float to another location. The issue was allowing the "home" DBMS location to become really stale with the current state of the record possibly distributed across the write-ahead logs of several distributed processors. The issue after an outage was to correctly merge all the write-ahead logs during recovery in the correct original transaction order.
random acid properaties
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/aadsm8.htm#softpki19 DNSSEC (RE: Software for PKI)
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/aepay10.htm#27 [dgc.chat] XML/X - part I
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001.html#6 Disk drive behavior
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002d.html#5 IBM Mainframe at home
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002e.html#44 SQL wildcard origins?
random lock manager refs
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001c.html#66 KI-10 vs. IBM at Rutgers
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001e.html#2 Block oriented I/O over IP
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001e.html#4 Block oriented I/O over IP
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001j.html#47 OT - Internet Explorer V6.0
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001k.html#5 OT - Internet Explorer V6.0
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002e.html#67 Blade architectures
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002e.html#71 Blade architectures
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002f.html#1 Blade architectures
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002f.html#4 Blade architectures
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002f.html#5 Blade architectures
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002f.html#6 Blade architectures
random no single point of failure refs:
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/93.html#28 Log Structured filesystems -- think twice
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/94.html#16 Dual-ported disks?
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/94.html#33a High Speed Data Transport (HSDT)
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/96.html#31 Mainframes & Unix
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/99.html#67 System/1 ?
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/aadsm2.htm#availability A different architecture? (was Re: certificate path
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/aadsm9.htm#pkcs12 A PKI Question: PKCS11-> PKCS12
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001.html#34 Competitors to SABRE?
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001i.html#31 3745 and SNI
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002h.html#40 [survey] Possestional Security
& ha/cmp
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subtopic.html#hacmp
random adsm refs:
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001n.html#66 Holy Satanism! Re: Hyper-Threading Technology - Intel information.
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002e.html#3 IBM's "old" boss speaks (was "new")
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002h.html#29 Computers in Science Fiction
--
Anne & Lynn Wheeler | lynn@garlic.com - https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/
From: Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> Subject: Re: Avoiding JCL Space Abends Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ibm-main Date: Sun, 11 Aug 2002 22:33:45 GMTedgould@AMERITECH.NET (Edward Gould) writes:
random system/r stuff
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2000.html#18 Computer of the century
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2000b.html#29 20th March 2000
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2000b.html#55 Multics dual-page-size scheme
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2000d.html#11 4341 was "Is a VAX a mainframe?"
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2000e.html#49 How did Oracle get started?
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2000f.html#16 [OT] FS - IBM Future System
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001d.html#44 IBM was/is: Imitation...
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001i.html#32 IBM OS Timeline?
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002e.html#26 Crazy idea: has it been done?
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002e.html#44 SQL wildcard origins?
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002g.html#58 Amiga Rexx
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002g.html#59 Amiga Rexx
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002g.html#60 Amiga Rexx
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002g.html#76 Pipelining in the past
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002h.html#17 disk write caching (was: ibm icecube -- return of
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002h.html#76 time again
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002i.html#69 Hercules and System/390 - do we need it?
--
Anne & Lynn Wheeler | lynn@garlic.com - https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/
From: Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> Subject: Re: PKI, Smartcard, Certificate Chain Verification Newsgroups: sci.crypt Date: Sun, 11 Aug 2002 22:17:26 GMTumardikar@yahoo.com (Upendra) writes:
the only other partial domain processing .... (aka 90percent of the processing was on a general purpose computer and the rest was on a custom chip involved secret algorithms).
this other stuff is more akin to wearing a flak vest that only covers the belly button. sometimes there is confusion that because public keys and asymmetric algorithms are somehow related to private keys .... that if hardware tokens are used to protect private keys and private key operations .... then there is some magic property conveyed with regard to doing something for public key operations.
thread drift from alt.technology.smartcards
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002k.html#5 PKI, Smart Card, Certificate Verification
--
Anne & Lynn Wheeler | lynn@garlic.com - https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/
From: Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> Subject: Re: Serious vulnerablity in several common SSL implementations? Newsgroups: sci.crypt Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2002 14:00:58 -0600fgrieu@micronet.fr (Francois Grieu) writes:
going to SSL isn't so much the technical pieces .... it is the large explosion in the number of dependent (business) processes and the introduction or a huge number of additional points of exploit/vulnerability.
it isn't so much it has outgrown the software technology ... it is somewhat pushing the limits of the number of interconnected processes that are all points of vulnerability/exploits; lots of processes, lots of steps, lots of interconnected steps, lots of places where things can go wrong.
it is the opposite of KISS.
frequently one of the security tenets tend to be simplicity and one of the non-security (or unsecurity) tenets is complexity (aka the more complexity and the more steps and the more interconnections ... the higher the probability that there will be at least one lapse).
Common Criteria EALs still have a way to go in this area. One view of protection profiles, common criteria, etc .... is that the orange book was a generic set of evaluation/certification critera for general purpose computers in non-networked environment.
As things got more & more complex (and networked) .... it became harder and harder to get a general purpose certification. in some sense, protection profile defines a restricted domain .... including possibly the application .... which does a very focused evaluation. It doesn't try and certify a general purpose computer for all possible applications running on that computer in all possible environments ... it frequently just certifies a specific piece in a very specific environment and set of conditions.
I'm looking at something of an interesting example now of getting a higher EAL evaluation/certification that includes a FIPS186-2/X9.62/ecdsa application. It is not clear if there have actually been any crypto evaluations. There are crypto device standards in FIPS140. However, if i look at various other higher level evaluations .... they don't actually include a crypto application ... but possibly just the hardware and some small piece of software running on that hardware. Any crypto app that is deployed on that platform isn't actually part of the evaluation/certification.
So the current state of the art .... is somewhat the technology of some subportion of the individual componets ... rarely looking at the completely deployed component and even less looking at the complex interaction of a large set of different components. And that is just the technology .... in a complex CA environment there are potentially a large number of non-technology vulnerabilities.
one might compare the current environment more to civil engineering rather than science. you have large number of complex bridges and complex skyscrapers. some fail and some don't. analysis of the ones that fail ... result in updating design methodologies. After a few thousand years ... the body of engineering knowledge improves and there tends to be fewer failures.
for any design that is subject to vulnerabilities, exploits, or failures, KISS is better than complex. KISS implies that some number of people can examine it and understand it. Somewhat related to KISS is the actual ability to have people examine it. Understanding is an issue. Complexity or simplicity is an issue in understanding. Ability to examine and study is also an issue in understanding.=20
KISS also tends to reduce the number of components .... the larger the number of components (technical or business processes or other kinds) and the larger the number of interactions between the components the large the number of points of failure.
So good design might be then restated as a) understanding and b) points-of-failue. KISS frequently improves both the ability to understand and reduce the number of failure points.
I just had to put in the above paragraph ... it is sort of a
paraphrase from Boyd
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subboyd.html#boyd
random eal refs:
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/aadsm12.htm#13 anybody seen (EAL5) semi-formal specification for FIPS186-2/x9.62 ecdsa?
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/aadsm12.htm#14 Challenge to TCPA/Palladium detractors
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002c.html#21 Opinion on smartcard security requested
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002h.html#71 history of CMS
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002h.html#84 history of CMS
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002j.html#82 formal fips186-2/x9.62 definition for eal 5/6 evaluation
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002j.html#84 formal fips186-2/x9.62 definition for eal 5/6 evaluation
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002j.html#86 formal fips186-2/x9.62 definition for eal 5/6 evaluation
some generic ssl, vulnerability, and assurance comments
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subpubkey.html#sslcerts
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subintegrity.html#fraud
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subintegrity.html#assurance
the ssl cert threads imply a much simpler design with nearly all of
the CA-related components eliminated aka CAs for ssl domain name
certificates have critical dependency on the domain name
infrastructure ... tweaking the domain name infrastructure directly
can provide a simpler and higher level of integrity while totally
eliminating CAs and certificates for SSL operation.
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/x959.html#aads
some specifc MITM discussions:
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/aadsm11.htm#39 ALARMED ... Only Mostly Dead ... RIP PKI .. addenda
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/aadsmail.htm#variations variations on your account-authority model (small clarification)
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/aepay3.htm#riskm The Thread Between Risk Management and Information Security
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2000f.html#78 TSS ancient history, was X86 ultimate CISC? designs)
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001.html#68 California DMV
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001b.html#0 Java as a first programming language for cs students
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001e.html#83 The Mind of War: John Boyd and American Security
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001h.html#10 VM: checking some myths.
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001i.html#28 Proper ISA lifespan?
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001k.html#1 Are client certificates really secure?
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001m.html#41 Solutions to Man in the Middle attacks?
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002c.html#4 Did Intel Bite Off More Than It Can Chew?
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002c.html#5 Did Intel Bite Off More Than It Can Chew?
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002d.html#4 IBM Mainframe at home
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002d.html#43 Mainframers: Take back the light (spotlight, that is)
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002d.html#47 SSL MITM Attacks
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002d.html#50 SSL MITM Attacks
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002h.html#11 Why did OSI fail compared with TCP-IP?
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002h.html#12 Why did OSI fail compared with TCP-IP?
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002j.html#38 MITM solved by AES/CFB - am I missing something?!
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002j.html#58 SSL integrity guarantees in abscense of client certificates
--=20 Anne & Lynn Wheeler | lynn@garlic.com - https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/=20
From: Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> Subject: old/long NSFNET ref. Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2002 05:41:12 GMT
Preliminary Announcement: 3/28/86
_________________________
PROGRAM ANNOUNCEMENT
CONNECTIONS TO NSF'S NATIONAL SUPERCOMPUTER ACCESS NETWORK - (NSFnet)
NETWORKING PROGRAM
INTRODUCTION
____________
The National Science Foundation established the Office of Advanced
Scientific Computing (OASC) in response to the concern that academic
research has been severely constrained by the lack of access to
advanced computing facilites. Several reports found that advanced
computers have become an important resource in making new discoveries;
that there is an immediate need to make supercomputers available to US
researchers; and that computer networks are required to link
researchers to supercomputers and to each other.
The OASC has initiated three programs: The Supercomputer Centers
Program to provide Supercomputer cycles; the New Technologies Program
to foster new supercomputer software and hardware developments; and
the Networking Program to build a National Supercomputer Access
Network - NSFnet.
The Centers Program has been providing advanced scientific computing
cycles since 1984 through its six resources centers at Purdue
University, University of Minnesota, Colorado State University, Boeing
Computer Services, AT&T Bell Labs, and at Digital Productions. In
addition, five new national supercomputer centers were funded in
1985. These new centers, at the University of Illinois, Cornell
University, the San Diego Supercomputer Center located at the
University of California San Diego campus, the John Von Neumann Center
located near Princeton University, and the Pittsburgh Center, will
begin full operation in the first half of 1986.
The OASC Networking Program will provide remote access to these NSF
supercomputer centers. During calendar year 1986 the first steps will
be taken to establish NSFnet to connect the NSF-funded supercomputer
centers to a large number of researchers with high bandwidth
communications. NSFnet will greatly enhance the ability of scientists
and engineers to access the centers and to communicate with each
other. Eventually NSFnet is expected to support the whole academic
research community as a general-purpose communications network.
Current networks comprising the initial phase of NSFnet include: the
ARPANET, the Supercomputer Centers' Consortia Networks at the John Von
Neumann Consortium (Princeton) and the San Diego Supercomputer Center
(San Diego), the Illinois Supercomputer center network, a
Supercomputer Center Backbone Network linking all the NSF
supercomputer centers together, the various state research networks
(such as the Merit Computer network in Michigan and the planned New
York State Education and Research Network (NYSERnet)), and, most
importantly, the local campus-wide networks. NSFnet will be built as
an Internet, or "network of networks", rather than as a separate, new
network.
Because NSFnet is a network of networks, a common set of networking
protocol standards are required for NSFnet, and the OASC has
determined that the DARPA/DOD protocol suite (TCP/IP and associated
application protocols) shall be the initial NSFnet standard.
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
______________________
The purpose of this announcement is to encourage proposals to connect
to NSFnet from all U.S. academic research institutions that support or
plan to support NSF supercomputer users. In general, it is expected
that institutions will propose to connect to NSFnet by installing an
IP Router/Gateway, or a gateway computer system supporting the TCP/IP
communications protocols. This gateway will link the campus-wide
network to NSFnet by means of medium speed communication circuits
(56,000 bits per second) connected to one of the component networks of
the NSFnet: the NSF Supercomputer Center Networks, Consortia
Networks, the NSFnet Backbone Network, or a State or Regional network
connected to NSFnet. Connections to the ARPAnet may also be proposed,
but it should be noted that the number of available connections is
limited, and that the network configuration is determined by the
Defense Communications Agency. The gateway systems proposed must be
available to all researchers at the institution. Ideally, the
institution will have installed a high-speed campus network, and have
adopted the TCP/IP protocols as standard. Where other networking
protocols are used on the campus, the institution will be responsible
for the installation of any additional network gateway/relay systems
required to resolve the protocol conversion issues.
NSF is also interested in receiving proposals from academic research
institutions for the installation of network gateway systems and
communications services which would connect Regional and State-wide
networks to NSFnet, where such networks support NSF supercomputer
users at several research institutions or consortia. Ideally, the
regional network and the connected campus networks, will have adopted
the TCP/IP protocols as standard, but where other networking protocols
are used, the regional network will be responsible for ensuring that
all researchers have transparent access to the NSFnet.
In the case of campus gateway systems, one year grants of up to
$50,000 may be provided to support the purchase and installation of
the gateway system and to fund communications circuits to connect to
NSFnet. Typically the NSF grants for the IP router/gateway or gateway
computers will be between $10,000 and $30,000, with $20,000 - $30,000
per year for communication circuits Campuses will be expected to
fund the campus network, the support costs of the campus
gateway system (space, air-conditioning, maintenance, local
supercomputer user support, manpower, etc.), and the cost of the
networking connections after the initial funding period has ended.
Funding for communications circuits for up to two additional years may
be available.
In the case of regional or state-wide networks, additional funding may
be provided, on a case by case basis, for a period of up to three
years, to support the development and/or enhancement of the network.
A total of up to 40 awards are planned for the two years 1986 and
1987. Support for this program is contingent on the availability of
funds. This announcement does not obligate the NSF to make any awards
if such funding is not available.
PROPOSAL SUBMISSION INFORMATION
_______________________________
A. Who May Submit
U.S. academic institutions with scientific and engineering graduate
research and education programs are invited to submit proposals.
Proposals involving multi-institutional arrangements for regional
networks should be made through a single, lead institution. Proposed
participants must endorse the proposal as submitted.
The Foundation welcomes proposals on behalf of all qualified engineers
and scientists. NSF strongly encourages women, minorities, and the
physically handicapped to particpate fully in the program described in
this announcement, both as investigators and as students.
B. Principal Investigator
The individual designated as principal investigator will be
responsible for management and staffing and procurement, use, and
maintenance of equipment.
C. Timing of Submission
To be considered for funding in FY1986, proposals should be submitted
to the Foundation on or before June 1, 1986; proposals received after
this date will be considered for funding in FY1987.
D. Rights to Proposal Information
A proposal that results in an NSF award will become part of the record
of the transaction and will be available to the public on specific
request. Information or material that the Foundation and the awardee
organization mutually agree to be of a privileged nature will be held
in confidence to the extent permitted by law, including the Freedom of
Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552). Without assuming any liability for
inadvertent disclosure, NSF will seek to limit dissemination of such
information to its employees and, when necessary for evaluation of the
proposal, to outside reviewers. Accordingly, any privileged
information should be in a separate, accompanying statement bearing a
legend similar to the following: "Following is (proprietary) (specify)
information that (name of proposing organization) requests not be
released to persons outside the Government, except for purposes of
evaluation."
E. Unsuccessful Proposals
An applicant whose proposal for NSF support has been declined may
request and receive from the cognizant program officer the reasons for
the action. In addition, the principal investigator/project director
will obtain verbatim copies of reviews, although not the names of
reviewers.
F. Participation in Research and Research-related Activities
o The Foundation provides awards for research in the sciences and
engineering. The awardee is wholly responsible for the conduct
of such research and preparation of the results for
publication. The Foundation, therefore, does not assume
responsiblitiy for such findings or their interpretation.
o The Foundation welcomes proposals on behalf of all qualified
scientists and engineers, and strongly encourages women and
minorities to compete fully in any of the research and
research-related Programs described in this document.
o In accordance with Federal statutes and regulations and NSF
policies, no person on grounds of race, color, age, sex,
national origin, or physical handicap shall be excluded from
participation in, denied the benefits of, or be subject to
discrimination under any program or activity receiving financial
assistance from the National Science Foundation.
o The National Science Foundation has TDD (Telephonic Device for
the Deaf) capability which enables individuals with hearing
impairment to communicate with the Division of Personnel and
Management for information relating to NSF programs, employment,
or general information. This number is (202) 357-7492.
G. Proposal Contents
The proposal should be prepared in accordance with the enclosed NSF
Form 83-57, Grants for Scientific and Engineering Research, which is
available from the Forms and Publications unit, Room 233, National
Science Foundation, Washington, DC 20550. Note in particular the
standard cover page, executive summary, and budget formats. Each
proposal should reflect the unique combination of the proposing
institution's interests and capabilities and should discuss the
features of the gateway system in sufficient detail to be evaluated in
accordance with the criteria listed in this announcement. In order to
facilitate review, the proposals should contain only material
essential for the review. Since reviewers will be asked to review
more than one proposal, lengthy proposals are not recommended.
Proposals should be securely fastened together but not placed in ring
binders. A total proposed budget should be submitted for the project
including all cost sharing committments. The proposal must describe:
o Major existing and/or planned research and education projects
that need access to advanced computer systems, and the
benefits that such access is expected to provide;
o Current connections to wide area networks available on campus,
and current methods of supercomputer access. eg., 1200 baud
dial-up, travel to supercomputer site, BITNET, ARPANET, etc.;
o The proposed NSFnet Gateway system, including the campus
network connections and the Gateway System hardware and
software capabilities;
o The user support services to be provided to NSF supercomputer
users on campus;
o The expertise of the implementing personnel and their
experience with the TCP/IP protocols;
o In the case of regional or state-wide networks, existing or
potential connection to other campuses or research
institutions, and the network connections and communications
protocols supported;
o Campus Network plans to integrate all networks currently
available to the institution and description of the campus
computers to be connected;
o The budget requested including cost sharing by the
Institution, by local and state government, as well as
industry discounts.
H. Proposal Evaluation
Evaluation of proposals in response to this Solicitation will be
administered by the Office of Advanced Scientific Computing.
Evaluations of the proposals received prior to June 1 are expected to
be completed by August 1, 1986, with awards to follow shortly
thereafter.
The primary criterion for evaluation will key on the effect of the
proposed arrangement on the advancement of science and engineering
research using supercomputers.
Other Evaluation criteria are listed below:
o Quality of the plan to provide institution-wide (state or
region-wide) access to the NSFnet gateway;
o Quality of plans to develop campus wide high speed networks to
connect research departments to the NSFnet gateway;
o Technical expertise in computer networking (especially TCP/IP
based networking) or plans to develop such expertise;
o Quality and cost-effectiveness of gateway hardware and
software configuration proposed (including cost sharing);
o Quality of the supercomputer user support services and support
staff planned.
WHERE AND HOW TO SUBMIT PROPOSALS
_________________________________
Twenty copies of the proposal should be submitted to:
Data Support Services Section
Attn: Office of Advanced Scientific Computing
National Science Foundation
Washington, DC 20550
One copy of the proposal must be signed by the principal investigator
and an official authorized to commit the institution in business and
government affairs.
For inquiries, contact the Office of Advanced Scientific Computing
(202) 357-9776.
==================================================
HSDT posts
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subnetwork.html#hsdt
NSFNET posts
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subnetwork.html#nsfnet
announcement of award:
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2000e.html#10 Is Al Gore The Father of the Internet
random other nsfnet refs:
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/internet.htm
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/98.html#49 Edsger Dijkstra: the blackest week of his professional life
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/98.html#59 Ok Computer
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/99.html#33 why is there an "@" key?
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/99.html#37a Internet and/or ARPANET?
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/99.html#37b Internet and/or ARPANET?
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/99.html#38c Internet and/or ARPANET?
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/99.html#40 [netz] History and vision for the future of Internet - Public Question
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/99.html#138 Dispute about Internet's origins
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/99.html#146 Dispute about Internet's origins
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2000.html#49 IBM RT PC (was Re: What does AT stand for ?)
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2000c.html#26 The first "internet" companies?
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2000c.html#59 Does the word "mainframe" still have a meaning?
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2000c.html#78 Free RT monitors/keyboards
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2000d.html#16 The author Ronda Hauben fights for our freedom.
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2000d.html#19 Comrade Ronda vs. the Capitalist Netmongers
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2000d.html#43 Al Gore: Inventing the Internet...
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2000d.html#56 Is Al Gore The Father of the Internet?
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2000d.html#58 Is Al Gore The Father of the Internet?
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2000d.html#59 Is Al Gore The Father of the Internet?
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2000d.html#63 Is Al Gore The Father of the Internet?
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2000d.html#70 When the Internet went private
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2000d.html#71 When the Internet went private
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2000d.html#72 When the Internet went private
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2000d.html#73 When the Internet went private
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2000d.html#74 When the Internet went private
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2000d.html#77 Is Al Gore The Father of the Internet?^
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2000e.html#5 Is Al Gore The Father of the Internet?^
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2000e.html#10 Is Al Gore The Father of the Internet?^
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2000e.html#11 Is Al Gore The Father of the Internet?^
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2000e.html#19 Is Al Gore The Father of the Internet?^
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2000e.html#28 Is Al Gore The Father of the Internet?^
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2000e.html#29 Vint Cerf and Robert Kahn and their political opinions
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2000e.html#31 Cerf et.al. didn't agree with Gore's claim of initiative.
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2000f.html#44 Al Gore and the Internet (Part 2 of 2)
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2000f.html#47 Al Gore and the Internet (Part 2 of 2)
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2000f.html#50 Al Gore and the Internet (Part 2 of 2)
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2000f.html#51 Al Gore and the Internet (Part 2 of 2)
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001.html#4 Sv: First video terminal?
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001d.html#42 IBM was/is: Imitation...
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001e.html#76 Stoopidest Hardware Repair Call?
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001h.html#44 Wired News :The Grid: The Next-Gen Internet?
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001i.html#6 YKYGOW...
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002g.html#40 Why did OSI fail compared with TCP-IP?
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002g.html#45 Why did OSI fail compared with TCP-IP?
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002h.html#5 Coulda, Woulda, Shoudda moments?
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002h.html#79 Al Gore and the Internet
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002h.html#80 Al Gore and the Internet
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002h.html#82 Al Gore and the Internet
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002h.html#85 Al Gore and the Internet
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002h.html#86 Al Gore and the Internet
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002i.html#15 Al Gore and the Internet
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002i.html#45 CDC6600 - just how powerful a machine was it?
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002j.html#45 M$ SMP and old time IBM's LCMP
--
Anne & Lynn Wheeler | lynn@garlic.com - https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/
From: Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> Subject: Re: Difference between Unix and Linux? Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2002 13:50:17 GMTjmfbahciv writes:
one of the primary kernel components for the resource manager was xxxSTP from the '60s tv advertisement "the racer's edge".
random ref:
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001e.html#45 VM/370 Resource Manager
--
Anne & Lynn Wheeler | lynn@garlic.com - https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/
From: Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> Subject: Re: NASA MOC (mainframe mission operations computer) being powere d down for the last time. Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ibm-main Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2002 20:57:33 GMTDennis.Roach@USAHQ.UNITEDSPACEALLIANCE.COM (Roach, Dennis) writes:
--
Anne & Lynn Wheeler | lynn@garlic.com - https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/
From: Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> Subject: Re: Okay, we get it. Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2002 13:43:26 GMTjmfbahciv writes:
I had ISDN for a couple years before 56kbit hardware compression modems ... and two-channel ISDN was frequently not any better than 56kbit hardware compressed (maybe slightly worse) ... at significantly higher cost.
--
Anne & Lynn Wheeler | lynn@garlic.com - https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/
From: Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> Subject: Re: s/w was: How will current AI/robot stories play when AIs are real? Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2002 14:21:56 GMT"Rupert Pigott" writes:
1) a reaction to FS ... which was about as far in the opposite direction as possible ... somewhat object oriented but in the hardware/microcode, claim was that worse case was that hardware would go thru five levels of indirection for a simple load or store instruction. there was claim that if FS was implementated using the fastest current 370 hardware technology (195) that FS applications would have thruput comparable to equivalent 370 application running on a 145 (one of the lower-end 370 implementations), aka about a 10:1 slowdown.
2) attempt to design a processor that would fit on a single chip.
i believe that the term RISC actually came out of some educational institution.
Later on there was various comments out of 801 group about hardware/software trade-offs ... and lack of feature/function in the hardware could be compensated by better compiler technology ... aka given the state-of-the-art at a specific point in time .... a) the range of things that were possible and not possible in hardare and b) the range of things that were possible and not possible in software ... having the hardware do slightly less and making the compiler smarter was claimed to have been a better solution.
25 years ago ... 801 was going to have a totally closed operating system environment ... with large amounts of stuff being done at compile time. basically everything that might currently be classified as priviledges would be done at compile time and be validated at bind time. actual application execution didn't involve any "system calls" (in the sense that there might be state & priviledge change involved) because everything executed at the same priviledge level. One thing this impacted was that there were only going to be 16 virtual memory registers ... restricting the number of concurrent, unique "memory" objects to 16. The justification was that inline application code would change virtual memory registeres as easily as it could change values in any other register (there were no runtime issues of checking access privileges/rules when changing addressing). This continued up thru ROMP and RIOS ... even tho the operating system platform had changed to unix ... and change of access to memory objects required system calls as part of enforcing access rules.
Those trade-offs have changed over time ... the range of possible/not-possible for hardware chips has significantly changed in the last 25-30 years.
I would contend that the original propagation of the terms of RISC and CISC might have been more do to the academic community simplifying descriptions for their constituency (students) than possibly the commercial world (in part because i believe the term RISC originated in the academic community). so a totally off-the-wall question is do college students and PHBs fall into similar classification?
and lots of random stuff:
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/95.html#5 Who started RISC? (was: 64 bit Linux?)
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/95.html#6 801
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/95.html#9 Cache and Memory Bandwidth (was Re: A Series Compilers)
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/95.html#11 801 & power/pc
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/96.html#4a John Hartmann's Birthday Party
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/96.html#24 old manuals
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/97.html#5 360/44 (was Re: IBM 1130 (was Re: IBM 7090--used for business or
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/98.html#25 Merced & compilers (was Re: Effect of speed ... )
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/98.html#26 Merced & compilers (was Re: Effect of speed ... )
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/98.html#27 Merced & compilers (was Re: Effect of speed ... )
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/99.html#66 System/1 ?
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/99.html#67 System/1 ?
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/99.html#100 Why won't the AS/400 die? Or, It's 1999 why do I have to learn how to use
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/99.html#129 High Performance PowerPC
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/99.html#237 I can't believe this newsgroup still exists
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2000.html#3 Computer of the century
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2000.html#16 Computer of the century
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2000.html#59 Multithreading underlies new development paradigm
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2000b.html#54 Multics dual-page-size scheme
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2000c.html#3 RISC Reference?
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2000c.html#4 TF-1
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2000c.html#9 Cache coherence [was Re: TF-1]
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2000c.html#12 Cache coherence [was Re: TF-1]
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2000d.html#28 RS/6000 vs. System/390 architecture?
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2000d.html#31 RS/6000 vs. System/390 architecture?
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2000d.html#60 "all-out" vs less aggressive designs (was: Re: 36 to 32 bit transition)
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2000f.html#16 [OT] FS - IBM Future System
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2000f.html#17 [OT] FS - IBM Future System
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2000f.html#18 OT?
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2000f.html#21 OT?
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2000f.html#27 OT?
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2000f.html#28 OT?
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2000f.html#30 OT?
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2000f.html#37 OT?
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2000f.html#40 Famous Machines and Software that didn't
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2000f.html#56 TSS ancient history, was X86 ultimate CISC? designs)
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2000g.html#18 360/370 instruction cycle time
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001b.html#37 John Mashey's greatest hits
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001c.html#84 database (or b-tree) page sizes
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001d.html#12 database (or b-tree) page sizes
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001d.html#44 IBM was/is: Imitation...
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001e.html#4 Block oriented I/O over IP
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001f.html#30 IBM's "VM for the PC" c.1984??
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001f.html#33 IBM's "VM for the PC" c.1984??
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001f.html#43 Golden Era of Compilers
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001f.html#45 Golden Era of Compilers
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001g.html#23 IA64 Rocks My World
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001g.html#36 What was object oriented in iAPX432?
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001h.html#69 Very CISC Instuctions (Was: why the machine word size ...)
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001i.html#7 YKYGOW...
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001l.html#50 What makes a mainframe?
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001n.html#42 Cache coherence [was Re: IBM POWER4 ...]
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001n.html#46 Blinking lights
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001n.html#65 Holy Satanism! Re: Hyper-Threading Technology - Intel information.
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002.html#36 a.f.c history checkup... (was What specifications will the standard year 2001 PC have?)
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002.html#43 hollow files in unix filesystems?
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002b.html#23 Infiniband's impact was Re: Intel's 64-bit strategy
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002b.html#29 windows XP and HAL: The CP/M way still works in 2002
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002c.html#1 Gerstner moves over as planned
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002c.html#19 Did Intel Bite Off More Than It Can Chew?
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002c.html#40 using >=4GB of memory on a 32-bit processor
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002d.html#10 IBM Mainframe at home
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002d.html#27 iAPX432 today?
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002e.html#44 SQL wildcard origins?
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002f.html#42 Blade architectures
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002g.html#5 Black magic in POWER5
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002g.html#14 "Soul of a New Machine" Computer?
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002g.html#17 Black magic in POWER5
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002g.html#39 "Soul of a New Machine" Computer?
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002g.html#55 Multics hardware (was Re: "Soul of a New Machine" Computer?)
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002g.html#70 Pipelining in the past
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002g.html#76 Pipelining in the past
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002g.html#77 Pipelining in the past
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002h.html#19 PowerPC Mainframe?
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002h.html#23 System/360 shortcuts
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002h.html#63 Sizing the application
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002i.html#60 Unisys A11 worth keeping?
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002i.html#81 McKinley Cometh
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002i.html#83 HONE
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002j.html#8 "Clean" CISC (was Re: McKinley Cometh...)
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002j.html#20 MVS on Power (was Re: McKinley Cometh...)
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002j.html#45 M$ SMP and old time IBM's LCMP
--
Anne & Lynn Wheeler | lynn@garlic.com - https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/
From: Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> Subject: Re: s/w was: How will current AI/robot stories play when AIs are real? Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2002 18:39:10 GMT"Rupert Pigott" writes:
--
Anne & Lynn Wheeler | lynn@garlic.com - https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/
From: Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> Subject: Re: Unbelievable. Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2002 18:50:56 GMTab528@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Heinz W. Wiggeshoff) writes:
and 2000 nodes in 85 (given publishing times ... there would have been latency between the time the words were written and the time the book was actually published).
some random datapoints:
1) sometime in the late '90s i saw diagram of several "mail" centers spread around the world that were on the internal network and also gatewayed to the internet
2) a communication in the mid '90s from a CSC-alumni about their work on lotus note scaling issues supporting 512-node SP system
3) Yahoo news a couple days ago mentions 320,000 employees
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20020814/tc_nm/tech_ibm_jobcuts_dc_9
so assuming there was some number of 512-node machines in these centers would the "ten big ones" represent closer to a two percent savings or a fifty percent savings? At 320,000 employees, $10m works out to a savings of about $31/employee (not very much especially if it is a one time capital cost savings amortized over 3-5 years .... works out to possibly as little as $6/person/annum).
As an aside, I remember some statement in the 80s about there being 485,000 employees world-wide and for all I know it might have peaked higher.
slightly related to some of the "mainframe" growth issues during the period:
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001m.html#15 departmental servers
misc. old refs to 1985 internal network
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2000e.html#13 internet preceeds Gore in office.
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2000f.html#60 360 Architecture, Multics, ... was (Re: X86 ultimate CISC? No.)
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2000g.html#14 IBM's mess (was: Re: What the hell is an MSX?)
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2000g.html#24 A question for you old guys -- IBM 1130 information
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001c.html#4 what makes a cpu fast
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001e.html#32 Blame it all on Microsoft
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001h.html#9 VM: checking some myths.
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001j.html#50 Title Inflation
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001l.html#34 Processor Modes
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001l.html#35 Processor Modes
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001l.html#45 Processor Modes
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002e.html#47 Multics_Security
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002h.html#48 Why did OSI fail compared with TCP-IP?
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002j.html#64 vm marketing (cross post)
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002k.html#12 old/long NSFNET ref
--
Anne & Lynn Wheeler | lynn@garlic.com - https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/
From: Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> Subject: Re: Vnet : Unbelievable. Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2002 21:09:37 GMTeugene@cse.ucsc.edu (Eugene Miya) writes:
the core vnet technology effectively had a layered approach effectively with gateway function in every node and the ability of supporting a wide variety of different kinds of protocols and types of systems from the start (also the core vnet technology had no SNA content). arpanet didn't get heterogeneous internet and gateway support until 1/1/83 change-over. One of my claims that the internal network was larger than arpanet was the ease of being able to add nodes becuase it effectively had heterogeneous and gateway support from the start. The other claim is that one of the main reasons that the internet started an explosive growth and eventually overtook the internal network in size was the introduction of heterogenous network and gateway support on 1/1/83.
A secondary claim regarding the internet exceeding the size of the internal network by '85 (within three years of the introduction of heterogeneous and gateway support for the internet) was the explosion of PCs and workstations as nodes.
PCs saw an intitial huge uptake because of the availability of terminal emulation (merket penetration). Basically a single keyboard/display on the desk could both do 3270 mainframe operation as well a switch to emerging applications that ran only local on the PC or workstation (everybody 3270 could be replaced with PC).
By the mid-80s there was effectively a huge organizational and revenue inertia to not allow those installed machines to be converted from terminal emulation paradigm to full network node paradigm. There is some folklore that the initial implementation of TCP/IP in VTAM ran so much faster than LU6.2 that it was set back with specific directions that the implementation is obviously faulty and the only way that there could possibly be a correct TCP/IP implementation if the result had lower thruput than LU6.2.
prior homogeneous/heterogeneous mentions
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/99.html#44 Internet and/or ARPANET?
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2000.html#74 Difference between NCP and TCP/IP protocols
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2000e.html#13 internet preceeds Gore in office.
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2000e.html#14 internet preceeds Gore in office.
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2000e.html#30 Is Tim Berners-Lee the inventor of the web?
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001b.html#85 what makes a cpu fast
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001e.html#16 Pre ARPAnet email?
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001j.html#45 OT - Internet Explorer V6.0
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002h.html#79 Al Gore and the Internet
--
Anne & Lynn Wheeler | lynn@garlic.com - https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/
From: Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> Subject: Re: Vnet : Unbelievable. Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2002 01:32:28 GMTeugene@cse.ucsc.edu (Eugene Miya) writes:
SNA started with VTAM & NCP ... what 74? .... loosing memory cells too. Prior to VTAM there was TCAM running on the 370 and ???? (something else) running in the 3705. Melinda's paper mentions VM/370 adding native support for NCP in january, 1975.
there is also some folklore that the design of VTAM & NCP was
significantly motivated by a project that I was involved in as an
undergraduate which did the original plug-compatible 360 control unit
and supposedly originated the 360 PCM controller business.
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/submain.html#360pcm
There have been jokes that SNA is not a system, not a network, and not an architecture .... it was a terminal control infrastructure designed to manage tens of thousands of terminals and possibly also to have a really, really complex interface between SSCP/PU5 (vtam) and NCP/PU4 (running in the 3705). The first instance of a network layer supposedly within the SNA camp was APPN. The SNA group non-concurred with the announcement of APPN ... and the announcement was held up for six weeks while the issue was escalated. The announcement letter for APPN was finally carefully crafted to make sure there were no statements that indicated that APPN and SNA were in any way related.
VNET was announced as RSCS in January 1975 (also referenced in
Melinda's paper):
https://www.leeandmelindavarian.com/Melinda#VMHist
re: attached from Melinda's paper
1) much of the early "SUN" network referenced below was derived from networking code written by TUCC for HASP; in fact much of the source code still carried the characters "TUCC" in cols. 68-71.
2) I have hardcopy of the internal network dated 4/15/77
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002j.html#4 HONE
from the melinda's paper.
J. The birth of VNET
VNET, IBM's internal network, united and strengthened the VM community
inside IBM in the same way that VMSHARE united and strengthened the VM
community in SHARE and SHARE Europe. The VNET network, like many of
the other good things we have today, was put together ''without a lot
of management approval'', to quote Tim Hartmann, one of the two
authors of RSCS. VNET arose because people throughout IBM wanted to
exchange files. It all started with Hartmann, a system programmer in
Poughkeepsie, and Ed Hendricks, at the Cambridge Scientific Center.
They worked together remotely for about ten years, during which they
produced the SCP version of RSCS (which came out in 1975), and the
VNET PRPQ (which came out in 1977). After that, RSCS was turned over
to official developers.
The starting point for RSCS was a package called CPREMOTE, which
allowed two CP-67 systems to communicate via a symmetrical
protocol. Early in 1969, Norm Rasmussen had asked Ed Hendricks to find
a way for the CSC machine to communicate with machines at the other
Scientific Centers. Ed's solution was CPREMOTE, which he had completed
by mid-1969. CPREMOTE was one of the earliest examples of a service
virtual machine and was motivated partly by the desire to prove the
usefulness of that concept. CPREMOTE was experimental and had limited
function, but it spread rapidly within IBM with the spread of
CP-67. As it spread, its "operational shortcomings were removed
through independent development work by system programmers at the
locations where [new] functions were needed." 116 Derivatives of
CPREMOTE were created to perform other functions, such as driving bulk
communications terminals. One derivative, CP2780, was released with
VM/370 shortly after the original release of the system.
By 1971, CPREMOTE had taught Hendricks so much about how a
communications facility would be used and what function was needed in
such a facility, that he decided to discard it and begin again with a
new design. After additional iterations, based on feedback from real
users and contributions of suggestions and code from around the
company, Hendricks and Hartmann produced the Remote Spooling
Communications Subsystem (RSCS). When the first version of RSCS went
out the door in 1975, Hendricks and Hartmann were still writing code
and, in fact, the original RSCS included uncalled subroutines for
functions, such as store-and-forward, that weren't yet part of the
system. The store-and-forward function was added in the VNET PRPQ,
first for files, and then for messages and commands. Once that
capability existed, there was nothing to stop a network from
forming. Although at first the IBM network depended on people going to
their computer room and dialing a phone, it soon began to acquire
leased lines. The parts of IBM that were paying for these lines were
not always aware of what they were paying for. Since the network grew
primarily because the system programmers wanted to talk to one
another, a common way of acquiring leased lines for the network was to
go to one's teleprocessing area and find a phone circuit with nothing
plugged into it.
The network was originally called SUN, which stood for ''Subsystem
Unified Network'', but at first it wasn't actually unified. It was two
separate networks that needed only a wire across a parking lot in
California and a piece of software (which became the RSCS NJI line
driver) to make them one. Hartmann spent some time in California
reverse-engineering the HASP NJI protocol, which hadn't really been
written down yet, and finally got that last link up late one
evening. Wishing to commemorate the occasion, he transferred some
output from a banner printing program running on his system in
Poughkeepsie through the network to a printer in San Jose. His
co-worker in San Jose, Ken Field, the author of the original HASP NJI
code, thought Tim's output was pretty nifty, so he asked for more
copies and taped them up on the walls before finally going home to get
some sleep. When Field got back to work late the next morning, he
found the place in an uproar over the apparent unionization
attempt. The banners had read: Machines of the world unite! Rise to
the SUN! After that got quieted down, the network began to grow like
crazy. At SHARE XLVI, in February, 1976, Hendricks and Hartmann
reported that the network, which was now beginning to be called VNET,
spanned the continent and connected 50 systems. At SHARE 48, a year
later, they showed this map of the network. By SHARE 52, in March,
1979, they reported that VNET connected 239 systems, in 38 U.S. cities
and 10 other countries. In August, 1982, VMers celebrating VM's tenth
birthday imprudently attempted to hang the current VNET network map up
at SCIDS. By that time, a circuit analysis program was being used to
generate the network
--
Anne & Lynn Wheeler | lynn@garlic.com - https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/
From: Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> Subject: Re: Vnet : Unbelievable. Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2002 02:29:02 GMTeugene@cse.ucsc.edu (Eugene Miya) writes:
--
Anne & Lynn Wheeler | lynn@garlic.com - https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/
From: Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> Subject: Re: Vnet : Unbelievable. Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2002 03:20:54 GMTTom Van Vleck writes:
share is having the 30th anv. announcement of VM/370 in san fran next week. As an undergraduate, I got to be part of the announcement of its predecessor, cp/67 at the spring '68 share meeting in houston (i.e. 35 years next spring).
jim and I used to have "fridays" (before he left for tandem ... they did continue after he left) and we would get people from research and GPD software ... and even sometimes disk engineers.
there is an attempt to have a fridays next week somewhere in the south san jose area (few of us can stay up to nearly daybreak drinking beer anymore tho).
--
Anne & Lynn Wheeler | lynn@garlic.com - https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/
From: Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> Subject: Re: Vnet : Unbelievable. Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2002 14:20:00 GMTjmfbahciv writes:
the vm/370 rscs/vnet implementations never had such a restriction. it was one of the reasons that real NJI nodes could never be anything but boundary/end nodes on the internal network ... since they had a feature that if any network transmission they saw would be tossed if either the source of the destination weren't defined in their local table (even if the destination was for them ... and just the source was unknown ... they would still toss it).
At no time did the NJI implementation support the size of the internal network. NJI eventually was enhanced to raise the psuedo device table from 255 to 999 ... but that was after the internal network was larger than 999.
--
Anne & Lynn Wheeler | lynn@garlic.com - https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/
From: Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> Subject: Re: computers and stuff. Newsgroups: comp.lang.asm370,alt.folklore.computers Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2002 14:37:52 GMTLiam Devlin writes:
basically the "cost" of the PC could be nearly covered by it being a mainframe terminal placed on the desk .... and the local program execution then was frosting on the cake ... almost for free. The human factors of not having two keyboards and two displays on the desk was significant ... but as significant, or more so was not having duplicate costs. Selling into the significant business mainframe terminal market allowed a critical mass install base to be reached very quickly ... that would have never happened if it had just been targeted at the home hobbiest market.
My brother at one time was regional apple marketing rep (largest region in continental us ... at least in sq. miles) ... and when he would come into town there sometimes were dinners with the some of the people developing mac (before announce) and I would get to argue with them about taking advantage of the business market to reach critical mass.
--
Anne & Lynn Wheeler | lynn@garlic.com - https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/
From: Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> Subject: Re: miscompares per read error Newsgroups: comp.arch.storage,alt.folklore.computers Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2002 21:09:23 GMT"Bill Todd" writes:
In the mid-80s, I did somewhat of a software implemention using the vm/370 "spool" file system where things were much more tightly regulated/constrained (i.e. closed environment with no direct access to physical characteristics). This had both additional information before the start of actual data as well as a logical sequence number and other stuff in the trailer (time-stamp sort of implies ordering with the rest of the world ... careful sequence number can be sufficient to provide necessary ordering within a constrained environment ... some papers have descriptions of this as virtual time).
was able to demonstrate that in worst case scenario ... it was possible to physically read every track and reconstruct whatever recoverable information that might exist (i.e. every record effectively contained "self-describing" information).
I also took the opportunity to implement various added functions and
performance improvements .... so the additional overhead was effectively
the space on disk:
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2000b.html#43 Migrating pages from a paging device (was Re: removal of paging device)
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001n.html#7 More newbie stop the war here!
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002b.html#44 PDP-10 Archive migration plan
--
Anne & Lynn Wheeler | lynn@garlic.com - https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/
From: Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> Subject: Re: DEC eNet: was Vnet : Unbelievable. Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2002 21:23:27 GMTjcmorris@mitre.org (Joe Morris) writes:
BITNET 435 ARPAnet 1155 CSnet 104 (excluding ARPAnet overlap) VNET 1650 EasyNet 4200 UUCP 6000 USENET 1150 (excluding UUCP nodes)there were desk things given out for passing 1000 nodes in '83 and 2000 nodes in '85. i've got the specific announcement for what was the 1000th node and the date ....
but don't have the same for the 2000th node.
the '83 one is clear plexiglass tripod that a clear plexiglass ball sits in. Embedded in the ball (sitting here on my desk) is 1000 nodes at the top and "vnet 1983" & IBM at the botto. In the middle is a stylized flat map of the world with 31 little red dots and red lines connecting the dots.
I don't know where the '85 one is ... I seem to remember it more like a wall plaque and is some box someplace.
Note also that EARN had started in late '83 which may or may not be
included int the VNET list:
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001h.html#65
--
Anne & Lynn Wheeler | lynn@garlic.com - https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/
From: Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> Subject: Re: computers and stuff. Newsgroups: comp.lang.asm370,alt.folklore.computers Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2002 00:17:49 GMTLiam Devlin writes:
random refs:
http://www.bricklin.com/history/vcexecutable.htm
http://www.bricklin.com/visicalc.htm
http://www.bricklin.com/history/othersites.htm
other history sites from above
http://www.bricklin.com/history/othersites.htm
--
Anne & Lynn Wheeler | lynn@garlic.com - https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/
From: Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> Subject: Re: computers and stuff. Newsgroups: comp.lang.asm370,alt.folklore.computers Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2002 15:27:34 GMTJ. Clarke writes:
Nomainally a single killer app or silver bullit has to justify the expense and operation nearly by itself.
The assertion that I made was that given that the PC costs and function could be nearly covered by its use as a mainframe terminal ... and that any use for local processing was gravy. Given that assertion ... visicalc on the PC didn't have to do more than on the apple II .... it just had to do as much as the apple II and not require both a mainframe terminal and an apple II to sit both side by side on the same desk.
The killer app in that sense was not so much the individual applications ... it was the ability to have a number of different kinds of things that previously required multiple keyboards and displays on the desk ... all packaged in a single keyboard/display (aka a human engineering scenario with regard to the size of the footprint on the desk and having to physically switch keyboards/displays).
For a long time ... I got by with PC as a mainframe terminal and turbo pascal's tinycalc ... even tho i had visicalc (and eventually had access to lotus).
The marketing issue based on this assertion wasn't claiming that an IBM/PC was better at running spreadsheets than Apple II (and selling against Apple II market) ... it was that the IBM/PC was better than a mainframe terminal because it could both be a mainframe terminal and something else
There were probably at least two order magnitude larger install base of mainframe terminals than Apple II install base (maybe three order magnitude, there were probably single companies that had more mainframe terminals than the total number of Apple IIs). Visicalc on the IBM/PC could have been worse than the Apple II and it still would meet the criteria in my assertion. My assetion would said that IBM/PC was being sold as a better mainframe terminal into a really really larger market that spent more money on each mainframe terminal than the cost of Apple II. In that market and sales orientation whether or not the Apple II existed, was cheaper, and/or had a better spreaddsheet wouldn't have entered into the equation. The assertion wasn't that the IBM/PC had to be better than an Apple II, the assertion was that the IBM/PC had to be better than a mainframe terminal at relatively the same cost.
--
Anne & Lynn Wheeler | lynn@garlic.com - https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/
From: Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> Subject: Re: computers and stuff. Newsgroups: comp.lang.asm370,alt.folklore.computers Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2002 19:21:11 GMTlesterDELzick@worldnet.att.net (Lester Zick) writes:
a) the PC market prior to ibm/pc was made up of apple II and some number of other machines. that market had a specific kind of profile(s). ... including the use of visicalc on apple IIs and some number of other machines. The IBM/PC initial introduction in 1981 didn't significantly impact the nature or size of that market and it wasn't able to create new market segment in traditional ibm data processing environment.
b) It wasn't until the introduction of lotus 123 in 1983 that there was a significant new or expanded market for PCs ... specifically the new customers that found the expanded capability of lotus123 on ibm/pc as a new killer app.
c) so prior to lotus123 introduction; there shouldn't be any significant spikes in the total PC market in all of '81 and '82 (period before and after ibm/pc was introduced extending up to the introduction of lotus123).
d) after 1983, the total number of lotus123 sales should correspond fairly closely to the total ibm/pc sales
==================================
i don't have any idea what the market size numbers so I have no way of quantitative comparing your assertion to my assertion.
as to unpleasant ... i may have gotten into some heated debates with
some mac developers (before mac was even announced) about the
requirement for mainframe terminal emulation but I don't think it was
unpleasant. i was somewhat constrained ... as mentioned in an opening
post related to this thread ... during the period my brother was
regional apple rep (couple state area) having worked his way up from
an apple II expert ... random refs:
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/99.html#28 IBM S/360
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2000d.html#22 IBM promotional items?
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2000g.html#13 IBM's mess (was: Re: What the hell is an MSX?)
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001e.html#38 IBM Dress Code, was DEC dress code
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001n.html#21 Unpacking my 15-year old office boxes generates memory refreshes
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002k.html#24 computers and stuff
--
Anne & Lynn Wheeler | lynn@garlic.com - https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/
From: Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> Subject: Re: computers and stuff. Newsgroups: comp.lang.asm370,alt.folklore.computers Date: Sun, 18 Aug 2002 18:55:52 GMTlesterDELzick@worldnet.att.net (Lester Zick) writes:
the bimodel operation ... would be more desirable for professionals, decision makers and knowledge workers.
this differentiation would change later with terminal emulation screen-scraping utilitaties that would provide development of better human factors (& efficient) interface for clerks, data/entry people, etc ... w/o requiring change to the mainframe system.
total separate line ... my brother use to mention dialing into the corporate s/38 order management system that was used to run the business.
--
Anne & Lynn Wheeler | lynn@garlic.com - https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/
From: Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> Subject: Re: general networking is: DEC eNet: was Vnet : Unbelievable. Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2002 19:33:26 GMTeugene@cse.ucsc.edu (Eugene Miya) writes:
on the hardware side ... LANL pushed the parallel copper HiPPI as standards work for cray channel ... and LLNL pushed the work to turn a serial copper non-blocking switch work into fiber standard (aka FCS).
--
Anne & Lynn Wheeler | lynn@garlic.com - https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/
From: Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> Subject: Re: Looking for security models/methodologies Newsgroups: alt.security Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2002 20:08:23 GMT"Tim" writes:
one paradigm approach to this has been NIST's work on Role-based access control. a "role" is abstracted along with all the permissions needed to fulfill that role. then security officers just have to assign a role to somebody ... and the permissions sort of flow from the infrastructure that implements the underlying infrastructure. This is simplying paradigm for security officiers for managing large complex enterprise environments. Issues that have cropped up is that frequently individuals have to be assigned multiple roles ... and the join of all the permission sets for multiple roles opens up unanticipated fraud avenues.
use search engines for RBAC, NIST, role-based access control. There are papers and other information on the NIST web site.
--
Anne & Lynn Wheeler | lynn@garlic.com - https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/
From: Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> Subject: Re: general networking is: DEC eNet: was Vnet : Unbelievable. Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2002 03:00:35 GMTeugene@cse.ucsc.edu (Eugene Miya) writes:
we also got it when we were publishing numbers for enet and 16mbit t/r as part of this new idea we were pushing for three tiered paradigm and middle layer (especially zapped by the SAA people ... it is interesting that i ran into the executive that had been in charge of SAA today at share in san fran ... he is doing something completely different).
--
Anne & Lynn Wheeler | lynn@garlic.com - https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/
From: Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> Subject: 30th b'day .... original vm/370 announcement letter (by popular demand) Newsgroups: bit.listserv.vmesa-l Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2002 20:52:14 -0600... following is posting by Joe Morris (mitre) to alt.folklore.computers ... for those that don't have newsgroup access .... or access to google newsgroup search
note that in CP/67, cms had capability to run on the bare iron ... that was disabled in the conversion to vm/370.
===========================================
For nostalga types, here is the text of the original VM/370 announcement, OCR-scanned from the blue letter...
========== begin included text ==========
IBM Data Processing Division PROGRAM ANNOUNCEMENT VM/370 PROVIDES VIRTUAL MACHINE, VIRTUAL STORAGE, AND TIME SHARING SUPPORT FOR SIX SYSTEM/370 MODELS SCP 5749-010 Virtual Machine Facility/370 (VM/370) is System Control Programming for System/370 Models 135,145, 155 II, 158, 165 II and 168. Its major functions are: . Multiple concurrent virtual machines with virtual storage support. . Time sharing support provided by a conversational subsystem. Role in Advanced Function Announcement VM/370 is complementary to OS/VS2, OS/VS1 and DOS/VS, offering our customers extended capabilities and additional virtual storage-based functions. Oriented to the on-line environment, VM/370 can be a significant assist in the development and installation of new applications, and can help justify additional equipment through satellite systems, additional storage and I/O, and CPU upgrades. Use it to help move your customers to virtual storage systems, and to help them grow when they get there. VM/370 Highlights . Virtual machine, virtual storage, and time sharing support. . The execution of multiple concurrent operating systems, including DOS, DOS/VS, OS/MFT, MVT, VS1.and VS2, and VM/370 itself. . Virtual storage facilities for operating systems which do not support Dynamic Address Translation, such as OS/MFT. . A general-purpose time sharing system suitable for both problem solving and program development, available to customers beginning with a 240K byte Model 135. . Capability of running many types of batch problem-solving applications from a remote terminal with no change in the batch program. . Up to 16 million bytes of virtual storage available to each user. . Capability of performing system generation, maintenance, and system testing concurrent with other work. . A high degree of security, isolation, and integrity of user systems. . The ability for many users to test privileged code in their own virtual machines. . An aid in migrating from one operating system to another. . Device address independence for all supported operating systems. . Multiple forms of disk protection, e.g., preventing users from writing and/or accessing specific disks. . Ability to use virtual machines to provide backup for other systems. . Options to improve the performance of selected virtual machines. . Ability to run many System/370 emulators in virtual machines. Customers who should consider VM/370 . Large, multi-system users: satellite systems for virtual machine applications and on-line program development. . Customers not yet large enough to utilize TSO and who are interested in on-line program development and/or interactive application programs. . Universities, colleges, and schools: time sharing applications for students, faculty, research and administration. . Users of non-IBM systems: VM/370 is a strong new IBM entry with many advanced functional capabilities. . Customers considering conversion from DOS to OS or OS/VS: VM/370 can assist through its virtual machine function, and can supplement the DOS emulator available with OS systems. . Mixed systems or mixed release installations, including those using PS/44 or modified back releases of DOS or OS. . Customers with high security requirements: operating applications in separate virtual machines may provide an extra measure of security. . Current CP/67 users: the features of the virtual storage-based Control Program 67/Cambridge Monitor System (CP-67/CMS), originally designed and implemented in 1968 for use on the System/360 Model 67, have been refined and improved to form the foundation for VM/370. Description VM/370 is a multi-access time shared system with two major elements: . The Control Program (CP) which provides an environment where multiple concurrent virtual machines can run different operating systems, such as OS, OS/VS, DOS and DOS/VS, in time-shared mode. . The Conversational Monitor System (CMS) which provides a general- purpose, time-sharing capability. Multiple Concurrent Virtual Machines The control program of VM/370 manages the resources of a System/370 to provide virtual storage support through implementation of virtual machines. Each terminal user appears to have the functional capabilities of a dedicated System/370 computer at his disposal. Multiple virtual machines may be running conversational, batch, or teleprocessing jobs at the same time on the same real computer. A user can define the number and type of I/O devices and storage size required for his virtual machine application provided sufficient resources are available with the real machine's configuration. A customer can concurrently run many versions, levels, or copies of IBM operating systems under VM/370, including DOS, DOS/VS, OS, OS/VS, and VM/370 itself. (See sales manual pages for the major restrictions pertaining to the operation of systems in virtual machines.) The capability of running multiple virtual machines should assist the customer in scheduling multiple operating systems and various mixes of production jobs, tests, program maintenance, and FE diagnostics. It can aid new systems development, reduce the problems of converting from one operating system to another, and provide more economical backup facilities. Time Sharing The Conversational Monitor System (CMS) component of the VM/370 system provides a general-purpose, conversational time sharing facility that is suitable for general problem solving and program development, and can serve as a base for interactive applications. CMS, specifically designed to run under VM/370, provides broad functional capability while maintaining a relatively simple design. CMS can help programmers become more productive and efficient by reducing unproductive wait time. CMS also allows non-programmers such as scientists, engineers, managers, and secretaries to become more productive via its problem-solving and work-saving capabilities. CMS gives the user a wide range of functional capabilities, such as; creating and maintaining source programs for such operating systems as DOS and OS on CMS disks; compiling and executing many types of OS programs directly under CMS; setting up complete DOS or OS compile, linkedit and execute job streams for running in DOS or as virtual machines; and transferring the resultant output from those virtual machines back to CMS for selective analysis and correction from the user's remote terminal. Service Classification VM/370 is System Control Programming (SCP). Note: VM/370 does not alter or affect in any way the current service classification of any IBM operating system, language, program product, or any other type of IBM program while under the control of VM/370. Language Support for CMS A VM/370 System Assembler is distributed as a part of the system and is required for installation and maintenance. All necessary macros are provided in CMS libraries. The following is distributed with VM/370 as a convenience to the customer but is not part of the SCP. A BASIC language facility consisting of the CALL-OS BASIC (Version 1.1) Compiler and Execution Package adapted for use with CMS. This facility will receive Class A maintenance by the VM/370 Central Programming Service. The following program products may also be ordered for use with CMS: OS Full American National Standard COBOL V4 Compiler and Library 5734-CB2 OS Full American National Standard COBOL V4 Library 5734-LM2 OS FORTRAN IV (G1) 5734-F02 OS FORTRAN IV Library Mod I 5734-LM1 OS Code and Go FORTRAN 5734-F01 OS FORTRAN IV H Extended 5734-F03 OS FORTRAN IV Library Mod II 5734-LM3 FORTRAN Interactive Debug 5734-F05 OS PL/I Optimizing Compiler 5734-PL1 OS PL/I Resident Library 5734-LM4 OS PL/I Transient Library 5734-LM5 OS PL/I Optimizing Compiler and Libraries 5734-PL3 Further details on language support and execution- time limitations appear in the manual IBM Virtual Machine Facility/370: Introduction, and in the Program Product section of the sales manual. Availability VM/370 has a planned availability of November 30, 1972, supporting the Dynamic Address Translation facility on the System/370 Models 135 and 145. Planned support for certain advanced VM/370 facilities, other System/370 machines, and additional I/O devices will be via Independent Component Releases on the dates shown below. ICR1, planned for April 1973, will support the System/370 Models 155 II, the 158, the Integrated File Adapter Feature (4655) for 3330 Model 1 and 3333 Model 1 on the Model 135, and the following additional VM/370 facilities: . The Virtual=Real and Dedicated Channel performance options. . The virtual and real Channel-to-Channel Adapter . Support of OS/ASP in a VM/370 environment, effective with the availability of ASP Version 3 . The 3811 Control Unit and the 3211 Printer. ICR2, planned for August 1973, will support the CMS Batch Facility, the Model 168, and the Integrated Storage Controls (ISCs) for the 158 and 168. ICR3, planned for December 1973, will support the 165 II. See the respective program product announcement letters for planned availability of the program products for CMS. Note: VM/370 requires the system timing facilities (i.e., the Clock Comparator and the CPU Timer). Maintenance Maintenance for VM/370 Release 1 will be provided by the VM/370 Central Programming Service until nine months after the next release of VM/370. Education See Education Announcement Letter E72-14 for details of VM/370 Introduction (no charge) and additional educational plans. Publications IBM Virtual Machine Facility/370: Introduction (GC20-1800), is available from Mechanicsburg. Other manuals to be available at a later date include logic manuals, as well as planning, system generation, command language, system operator, terminal user, and programmer guides. Titles and form numbers will be announced in a future Publications Release Letter (PRL). Reliability, Availability and Serviceability (RAS) VM/370 provides facilities which supplement the reliability, availability, and serviceability (RAS) characteristics of the System/370 architecture. See the sales manual or the introduction manual for details. MINIPERT VM/370 planning information is available in the MINIPERT Master Library as an aid to selling and installing System/370. No RPQs will be accepted at this time. Detailed information on the VM/370 system is in sales manual pages. <signed> W. W. Eggleston Vice President - Marketing Release Date: August 2, 1972 Distribution: DP managers, marketing representatives and systems engineers FE managers and program systems representatives P72-91========== end included text ========== --
From: Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> Subject: ... certification Newsgroups: bit.listserv.vmesa-l Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 09:46:29 -0600At 12:00 AM 8/21/2002 -0500, you wrote:
you typically wouldn't see FIPS-140 associated with straight software certification.
The other kinds of certification is the old orange book ... aka C2, B3, type stuff. That is in the process of being replaced with common criteria protection profiles ... and stuff like EAL3-low, EAL4-high, etc.
trusted product evaluation program
http://www.radium.ncsc.mil/tpep/
above has pointers to evaluated products but also pointers to some stuff about common criteria
fips page
http://csrc.nist.gov/publications/fips/index.html
see above for fips140, security requireds for cryptographic modules
common criteria
http://csrc.nist.gov/cc/
i also have a merged security glossary from orange book/tcsec, common
criteria, fips, and a bunch of other sources:
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/secure.htm
random other refs:
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/aadsm12.htm#13 anybody seen (EAL5) semi-formal specification for FIPS186-2/x9.62 ecdsa?
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/aadsm12.htm#14 Challenge to TCPA/Palladium detractors
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002j.html#86 formal fips186-2/x9.62 definition for eal 5/6 evaluation
--
Anne & Lynn Wheeler lynn@garlic.com, https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/
From: Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> Subject: ... certification addenda Newsgroups: bit.listserv.vmesa-l Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 10:00:55 -0600oh and some stuff regarding exploits and weaknesses related to some of the SSL (not necessarily the crypto part) areas (as well as others)
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subpubkey.html#sslcerts
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subintegrity.html#fraud
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subintegrity.html#assurance
specific recent thread:
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002k.html#11 Serious vulnerablity in several common SSL implementations?
--
Anne & Lynn Wheeler lynn@garlic.com, https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/
From: Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> Subject: Re: RCA Spectra architecture Newsgroups: comp.lang.asm370 Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 17:34:20 GMT"psc_kent" writes:
some folklore that PCM activity may have contributed to the nature of the pu5/pu4 interface.
--
Anne & Lynn Wheeler | lynn@garlic.com - https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/
From: Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> Subject: GOTOs cross-posting Newsgroups: bit.listserv.vmesa-l Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 09:35:10 -0600my first year out of school, i got to go to some conferences and heard all about goto-less (and super programmers). at the time, probably 90 percent of my programming was 360 assembler .... so it actually didn't have a whole lot of meaning .... since the only construct was condition or condition-less branch.
I did start writing a program (in PLI)which would read a 360 assembler listing, establish all code blocks (sequences of code w/o branches) and code threads ... ... all possible paths thru the code blocks. I tried to do simple checks on register use before setting and miscellaneous other stuff. I then added semantics for do-while, do-until, if/then, if/then/else and attempted to re-generate psuedo code for the code blocks based on non-branch/goto semantics. For simple things it helped ... but for a surprising amount of code, auto-restructure w/o gotos was really, really ugly. Adding semantics for leave/break and continue helped a little but there were still some surprising amounts of code that was really ugly, really ugly. case for computed-gotos (branch tables) helped some special cases. there was still some amount of assembler code that was rather trivial logic with some selected gotos .... but otherwise would do if/then/else nesting six or seven levels deep even for relatively small assembler modules.
part of the flow analysis was trying to improve some simple analysis for kernel failures involving bad pointers (or other problems with register values) by attempting to reconstruct code flow (backtrack) from the point a failure occurred. Lots of code paths that merged (branch) all to the same point frequently made it difficult to backtrack establishing sequence of events leading up to that point in the code.
Later I wrote a dump (core image at time of failure) analysis program (in rexx, thanks mfc) that had a library of scripts that would automatically examine memory for classes or signatures of typical failure scenarios. at one time it was in use by nearly every PSR and internal site.
The original objective was to demonstrate that IPCS which was running 10+? thousand instructions and had a whole group supporting it ... could be rewritten in REX (as a demonstration of REX capability) in half time over 3 months with ten times the performance and ten times the function. With the help of about 120 appropriately implemented assembler instructions and 3000 rex statements ... it achieved 10 times the performance and 10 times the function.
random dumprx refs:
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/94.html#11 REXX
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2000b.html#32 20th March 2000
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2000b.html#33 20th March 2000
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001c.html#0 Z/90, S/390, 370/ESA (slightly off topic)
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002g.html#27 Security Issues of using Internet Banking
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002h.html#37 Computers in Science Fiction
slightly related subject of failure modes with respect to disk
engineering lab & total rewrite of i/o subsystem to make it bullet
proof (by comparison ... when starting this .... MVS typically had a
MTBF of 15 minutes with a single test cell ... an objective was to be
able to concurrently operate a dozen test cells with absolutely no
system failures)
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subtopic.html#disk
assurance related postings
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subintegrity.html#assurance
--
Anne & Lynn Wheeler lynn@garlic.com, https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/
From: Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> Subject: Re: Vnet : Unbelievable. Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 15:54:06 GMTAnne & Lynn Wheeler writes:
--
Anne & Lynn Wheeler | lynn@garlic.com - https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/
From: Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> Subject: hung/zombie users Newsgroups: bit.listserv.vmesa-l Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 14:17:13 -0600with respect to hung/zombie user subject brought up in one of the share sessions this week .... (at least) both for the resource manager and later (again) for the disk engineering labs ... the system was cleansed of all situations that might result in hung/zombie users.
for the resource manager case, a benchmark suite of 2000+ automated benchmarks were run (taking 3 months elapsed time). some of the benchmarks severely stressed the system. when the stress benchmarks were initially run ... it was guaranteed to crash the system and/or hang users. by the time the resource manager was shipped, the serialization facility in the kernel was almost completely redone to eliminate all situations that were resulting in system failures and/or hung users.
misc. hung/zombie refs:
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/93.html#0 360/67, was Re: IBM's Project F/S ?
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/94.html#2 Schedulers
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/95.html#1 pathlengths
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/97.html#15 OSes commerical, history
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/99.html#198 Life-Advancing Work of Timothy Berners-Lee
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2000c.html#33 What level of computer is needed for a computer to Love?
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001b.html#23 Linux IA-64 interrupts [was Re: Itanium benchmarks ...]
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001f.html#56 any 70's era supercomputers that ran as slow as today's supercomputers?
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001h.html#18 checking some myths.
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001l.html#32 mainframe question
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002d.html#0 VAX, M68K complex instructions (was Re: Did Intel Bite Off MoreThan It Can Chew?)
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002f.html#23 Computers in Science Fiction
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002h.html#49 Coulda, Woulda, Shoudda moments?
automated benchmark refs:
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001c.html#13 LINUS for S/390
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001e.html#45 VM/370 Resource Manager
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001f.html#56 any 70's era supercomputers that ran as slow as today's supercomputers?
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001h.html#18 checking some myths.
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001l.html#32 mainframe question
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002d.html#0 VAX, M68K complex instructions (was Re: Did Intel Bite Off MoreThan It Can Chew?)
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002h.html#49 Coulda, Woulda, Shoudda moments?
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002i.html#53 wrt code first, document later
resource manager specific refs:
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subtopic.html#fairshare
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subtopic.html#wsclock
previous ref to work on making i/o subsystem bullet proof for the disk engineering lab
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002k.html#38 GOTOs cross-posting
--
Anne & Lynn Wheeler | lynn@garlic.com - https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/
From: Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> Subject: Re: How will current AI/robot stories play when AIs are real? Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 23:30:17 GMTCharles Richmond writes:
the premise seemed to be that US was going to be heavily dependent on overseas knowledge workers (some that may come to US for varying periods of times but had some probability of returning home). I've heard tales of whole advanced R&D departments in some companies totally composed of foreign born workers.
In any case, the reports seemed to be heavily oriented towards big segments of the US work force being composed of jobs in the service sector and/or jobs that were subsidized in one way or another. Part of it was that there seemed to be a decreasing percent in absolute literacy ... and information economy transition would significantly raise the literacy requirement. Some possibility that in 20 years possibly as few as 5 percent of US population would be considered qualified for knowledge worker jobs.
--
Anne & Lynn Wheeler | lynn@garlic.com - https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/
From: Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> Subject: Re: MVS 3.8J and NJE via CTC Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ibm-main,alt.folklore.computers Date: Sat, 24 Aug 2002 05:33:49 GMTjgs2@NERSP.NERDC.UFL.EDU (Jack Schudel) writes:
the other problem was that JES2/NJE messed up the architecture and design of various layers in the NJE header ... the result was that files from different NJE releases didn't interoperate very well and had a tendency to crash the whole MVS system. The solution was that there tended to be specially modifed NJE drivers in RSCS that communicated with specific JES2 releases ... where the RSCS NJE driver would do a conanical representation of the JES2 header information and then make sure the format transmitted to JES2 was at the corresponding JES2 release level ... so as not to bring down the MVS system. The quirky thing was that RSCS tended to get blamed (rather than jes2 architecture/desgin) when some new JES2 header would leak thru the RSCS filtering and crash some other JES2 system somewhere on the internal network.
total aside (bitnet info from vmshare archives):
http://vm.marist.edu/~vmshare/browse.cgi?fn=BITNET&ft=MEMO#1
random past on jes2/nje
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/94.html#44 bloat
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/95.html#7 Who built the Internet? (was: Linux/AXP.. Reliable?)
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/99.html#40 [netz] History and vision for the future of Internet - Public Question
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/99.html#160 checks (was S/390 on PowerPC?)
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2000b.html#27 Tysons Corner, Virginia
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2000c.html#29 The first "internet" companies?
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2000c.html#72 Does the word "mainframe" still have a meaning?
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2000e.html#14 internet preceeds Gore in office.
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2000e.html#15 internet preceeds Gore in office.
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2000e.html#29 Vint Cerf and Robert Kahn and their political opinions
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2000g.html#25 SSL as model of security
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001.html#5 Sv: First video terminal?
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001c.html#41 PKI and Non-repudiation practicalities
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001c.html#50 PKI and Non-repudiation practicalities
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001e.html#8 Blame it all on Microsoft
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001e.html#12 Blame it all on Microsoft
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001g.html#26 distributed authentication
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001g.html#48 The Alpha/IA64 Hybrid
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001h.html#37 Credit Card # encryption
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001i.html#7 YKYGOW...
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001j.html#39 Big black helicopters
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001j.html#45 OT - Internet Explorer V6.0
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001k.html#22 ESCON Channel Limits
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001n.html#27 Unpacking my 15-year old office boxes generates memory refreshes
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002.html#36 a.f.c history checkup... (was What specifications will the standard year 2001 PC have?)
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002.html#38 Buffer overflow
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002b.html#53 Computer Naming Conventions
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002b.html#59 Computer Naming Conventions
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002c.html#31 You think? TOM
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002e.html#14 EMV cards
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002e.html#36 Crypting with Fingerprints ?
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002e.html#65 Digital Signatures (unique for same data?)
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002e.html#71 Blade architectures
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002g.html#38 Why is DSA so complicated?
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002g.html#40 Why did OSI fail compared with TCP-IP?
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002g.html#41 Why is DSA so complicated?
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002g.html#42 Why is DSA so complicated?
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002h.html#2 DISK PL/I Program
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002i.html#57 CDC6600 - just how powerful a machine was it?
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002i.html#58 CDC6600 - just how powerful a machine was it?
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002j.html#64 vm marketing (cross post)
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002j.html#75 30th b'day
--
Anne & Lynn Wheeler | lynn@garlic.com - https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/
From: Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> Subject: Re: how to build tamper-proof unix server? Newsgroups: comp.security.unix Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2002 16:35:07 GMTkmv_dev writes:
above lists labeled security protection (B1) for Informix, Oracle, and
Sybase.
> Why do you think the digital signatures are the hard part? I thought
> it should be the easy part. The hard part seems, to me, how to prevent
> root user from messing with the log? Since root can do anything, anyone
> with root acess can obviously remove/change the system logs, and do
> a bunch of other things.
>
> I'm thinking if we can tie the system log to a secure database (for
> data redundancy), and all system log records are loaded up into
> the database. And make sure that no single person has the privilege
> to root and dba at the same time (but per above, we still can't solve
> the dba human error problem).
>
> I've not used Trusted Solaris, am just reading on it. It seems
> like there's something interesting there.
I've seen unix systems that have been built with r/o filesystems (both
cdrom ... and disks with r/w inihibit switch) and logging were to high
speed serial write-only connection on a different, isolated machine
with a dedicated logging application (i.e. no support for commands,
etc over the link). the logging application writes to WORM. KISS.
there is a KISS/complexity trade-off with databases. A common vulnerability is have dba doing some maintanance ... requiring taking the system offline, removing some protections ... and then the dba forgetting to turn on the protections when they put the system back online (not a direct attack, but the more complex ... the higher the probability some mistake is made). there has been some references to security checking tools that have to be run whenever any maint. has been performed ... because of the frquency of mistakes as things get more complex ... even needing just tools implies opportunity for mistakes (again non-KISS).
--
Anne & Lynn Wheeler | lynn@garlic.com - https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/
From: Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> Subject: Re: how to build tamper-proof unix server? Newsgroups: comp.security.unix Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2002 16:50:08 GMTAnne & Lynn Wheeler writes:
--
Anne & Lynn Wheeler | lynn@garlic.com - https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/
From: Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> Subject: Re: How will current AI/robot stories play when AIs are real? Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2002 20:18:06 GMT"Charlie Gibbs" writes:
i think that the newspaper story was something to the effect that half the 18 year olds were functionally illiterate (didn't have the skills to deal with all the things they could be expected to face). as before the issue was that information/knowledge based economy raises the bar for funcitionally literate (and some indication that fewer people were achieving functional literacy even under a static standard).
trying to find quick reference for the newspaper article with simple
use of search engines turns up
https://web.archive.org/web/20100413134230/http://www.nifl.gov/nifl/facts/facts_overview.html
which is close but not exactly the same.
--
Anne & Lynn Wheeler | lynn@garlic.com - https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/
From: Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> Subject: Re: OT (sort-of) - Does it take math skills to do data processing ? Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ibm-main,alt.folklore.computers Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 02:06:28 GMTTom.Kelman@SUNTRUST.COM (Kelman.Tom) writes:
fortran programming has tended to be extremely math oriented. lots of kernel and system programming have tended to be extremely state, process, & logic oriented.
when i was doing the resource manager ... I somewhat intermixed the
two styles ... it drove some number of people crazy (who tended to be
oriented towards a single, specific style):
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001e.html#45 VM/370 Resource Manager
somewhat related refs:
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002k.html#40 hung/zombie users
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subtopic.html#fairshare
they told me i was somewhat the guinea pig (aka first) for SCP priced software ... I got to spend 6 months with the business people about pricing SCP stuff. afterwards the mvs resource manager came out ... at i believe the same exact price.
--
Anne & Lynn Wheeler | lynn@garlic.com - https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/
From: Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> Subject: Re: OT (sort-of) - Does it take math skills to do data processing ? Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ibm-main,alt.folklore.computers Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 02:32:34 GMTjchase@USSCO.COM (Chase, John) writes:
what got me was the end of 5th grade on an achievement test was
2x+y=5
x+y=3
I thot it was really unfair since I had never heard of algebra in my
whole life.
from a somewhat related thread
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002d.html#32 Farm kids
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002d.html#42 Farm kids
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002e.html#37 Would the value of knowledge and information be transferred or shared accurately across the different culture??????
slightly related from a GOTO discussion
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002k.html#38 GOTOs cross-posting
--
Anne & Lynn Wheeler | lynn@garlic.com - https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/
From: Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> Subject: Re: MVS 3.8J and NJE via CTC Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ibm-main Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 19:49:14 GMTb19141@ACHILLES.CTD.ANL.GOV (Barry Finkel) writes:
--
Anne & Lynn Wheeler | lynn@garlic.com - https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/
From: Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> Subject: Re: MVS 3.8J and NJE via CTC Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ibm-main Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 19:53:10 GMTefinnell@SEEBECK.UA.EDU (Edward J. Finnell, III) writes:
--
Anne & Lynn Wheeler | lynn@garlic.com - https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/
From: Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> Subject: Re: OT (sort-of) - Does it take math skills to do data processing ? Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ibm-main,alt.folklore.computers Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 20:11:54 GMTJoe Simon writes:
--
Anne & Lynn Wheeler | lynn@garlic.com - https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/
From: Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> Subject: Re: SSL Beginner's Question Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ibm-main Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 13:38:45 GMTbpellet@MAIL.CSLF.ORG (Robert Pelletier) writes:
there is server authentication, encrypted transmission and some protection from MITM attacks. that is the straight-foward thing that most people think of when entering credit card numbers communicating to some e-merchant.
the server authentication ... involves some public key technology at the server site and a server SSL domain name cettificate. The client does some simple checking for valid certificate ... and then checks to see if the server domain name entered in the URL matches the domain name in the SSL domain name certificate.
The client & server then can exchange a secret key ... that is then used for subsequent encrypted transmission (preventing evesdroppers from gaining access to information flowing over the session ... like credit card numbers).
If they are only worried about encryption of transmitted data ... they may be less interested in server authentication and/or all the gorpy details about all the business issues regarding obtaining a SSL domain name certificate ... and any trust that such a certificate might represent.
SSL can also mean optional client certificate authentication. Most implementations don't bother with client certificate authentication ... they are primarily interested in encrypted transmission ... and then possibly within an encrypted transmission perform client authentication by asking them to enter userid/password.
if you have a mainframe webserver doing IP ... then there is all the SSL code that resides on the mainframe server ... the mainframe being able to generate a public/private key pair ... and perform private key operations. Also obtaining or generating a server certificate that is acceptable to clients. Then there is the secret key operation and handling of encrypted transmission. If this is for a web server ... then the SSL package is integrated into HTTP web server operation ... as HTTPS. If it is for something other than web server/HTTP operation, then you will probably need an IP service that has SSL integrated into it.
One of the issues is that SSL is an application layer operation ... which carries with it the implication that the support for SSL is integrated into specific applications (aka the application program is performing the authentication and encryption/decryption operation ... possibly by calling SSL library routines).
SSL is not a network or transport layer operation ... aka not part of the underlying TCP/IP services. You don't deploy SSL and then it is automagically available for use by all applications that use TCP/IP.
ramdom refs:
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/aadsm12.htm#18 Overcoming the potential downside of TCPAs
--
Anne & Lynn Wheeler | lynn@garlic.com - https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/
From: Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> Subject: Re: Dump Annalysis Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ibm-main Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 13:48:21 GMTrajeevva@IN.IBM.COM (Rajeev Vasudevan) writes:
--
Anne & Lynn Wheeler | lynn@garlic.com - https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/
From: Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> Subject: Re: general networking Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 14:01:42 GMTeugene@cse.ucsc.edu (Eugene Miya) writes:
--
Anne & Lynn Wheeler | lynn@garlic.com - https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/
From: Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> Subject: Re: general networking Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 14:24:15 GMTref:
... there is also some of the other side. i've noted a couple times that some of the much better written up time-sharing systems in various bodies of literature ... make references to poor or non-existance time-sharing from ibm. i've contended that ibm has offered extensive time-sharing ... in some cases with 100 to 1000 times more customer installations that some of the better referenced time sharing systems. However, these weren't the ibm commercial data processing systems and because these ibm commercial data processing systems may have had 100 times more customers installations than the ibm time sharing systems ... many people automatically associated ibm solely with its commercial data processing (in much the same way that many ibm customers may have equated ibm commercial data processing with all computing).
--
Anne & Lynn Wheeler | lynn@garlic.com - https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/
From: Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> Subject: Re: Moore law Newsgroups: comp.arch Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 14:59:43 GMTcecchi@signa.rchland.ibm.com (Del Cecchi) writes:
--
Anne & Lynn Wheeler | lynn@garlic.com - https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/
From: Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> Subject: Re: Moore law Newsgroups: comp.arch Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 16:40:22 GMTnmm1@cus.cam.ac.uk (Nick Maclaren) writes:
unrelated example ... one of the things that my wife and i had running in our high-speed backbone was rate-based pacing .... the nsfnet audit that said it & other things were five years ahead of the bid proposals for NSFNET (to build something new). as it turns out it is closer to 15 years ... maybe 20 years ... internet2 is talking about rate-based pacing.
amount of memory hiccup'ed because of price and some supply issues during the period.
i think part of the reason that i got chosen was that I had been
posting prices from sunday sjmn and keeping some running references
over a several year period:
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001n.html#79 a.f.c history checkup... (was What specifications will the standard year 2001 PC have?)
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001n.html#81 a.f.c history checkup... (was What specifications will the standard year 2001 PC have?)
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001n.html#82 a.f.c history checkup... (was What specifications will the standard year 2001 PC have?)
--
Anne & Lynn Wheeler | lynn@garlic.com - https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/
From: Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> Subject: Re: History of AOL Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 18:33:33 GMT"Michael J. Albanese" writes:
flat rate supposedly sprouted when a large clientele developed that used possibly five percent or less of their monthly flat rate. This created a bi-model distribution with huge number of users effectively subsidizing the heavy use of a small number of users (aka nothing is free .... there is always somebody paying for it some way).
The profile of the large clientele population (that made it possible for a few to enjoy large amounts of computer use) ... was supposedly business oriented people that would connect a couple times a week (later a couple times a day) and do email exchange (upload/download) and then disconnect. They believed that they were getting value for their money ... even though their actual computer use never came close to consuming the resources that their payments underwrote.
It is sort of analogous to insurance .... if everybody consumed more than they were paying for ... insurance wouldn't work. In general, low insurance premiums indicate either 1) that they aren't getting any service or 2) a huge number of people utilize significantly less than they pay for. The early days of flat rate tended to be heavily skewed towards #2.
--
Anne & Lynn Wheeler | lynn@garlic.com - https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/
From: Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> Subject: Re: OT (sort-of) - Does it take math skills to do data processing ? Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ibm-main,alt.folklore.computers Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 22:31:01 GMTgds@best.com.cuthere (Greg Skinner) writes:
--
Anne & Lynn Wheeler | lynn@garlic.com - https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/
From: Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> Subject: Re: History of AOL Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 22:33:58 GMTQ writes:
--
Anne & Lynn Wheeler | lynn@garlic.com - https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/
From: Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> Subject: Re: IBM-Main Table at Share Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ibm-main Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 22:38:27 GMTEBIE@PHMINING.COM (Eric Bielefeld) writes:
--
Anne & Lynn Wheeler | lynn@garlic.com - https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/
From: Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> Subject: Re: arrogance metrics (Benoits) was: general networking Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 00:22:00 GMTeugene@cse.ucsc.edu (Eugene Miya) writes:
https://web.archive.org/web/20020528181839/http://www.212.net/business/jargonn.htm
notwork - n. VNET (q.v.), when failing to deliver. Heavily used in
1988, when VNET was converted from the old but trusty RSCS software
to the new strategic solution. To be fair, this did result in a
sleeker, faster VNET in the end, but at a considerable cost in
material and in human terms. nyetwork, slugnet
and then from some other source ...
[...from The Sayings of Chairman Peter]
Very few EDP people perform; in part because they are arrogant, in
part because they are ignorant, and in part because they are too
enamored with their tool.
-- Peter Drucker
[Business Maxims:] Signs, real and imagined, which belong on the walls
of the nation's offices:
1) Never Try to Teach a Pig to Sing; It Wastes Your Time and It Annoys the Pig.
2) Sometimes the Crowd IS Right.
3) Auditors Are the People Who Go in After the War Is Lost and Bayonet the Wounded.
4) To Err Is Human -- To Forgive Is Not Company Policy.
there is also corollary to above
They would forgive you for being wrong, but they were never going to
forgive you for being right.
--
Anne & Lynn Wheeler | lynn@garlic.com - https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/
From: Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> Subject: Re: OT (sort-of) - Does it take math skills to do data processing ? Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ibm-main,alt.folklore.computers Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 00:34:34 GMTgds@best.com.cuthere (Greg Skinner) writes:
A month later I had finished a algebra intro book from the bookmobile and could solve the problem ... but at the time it was gibberish. By the end of the summer, I had finished every algebra book that the bookmobile had.
--
Anne & Lynn Wheeler | lynn@garlic.com - https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/
From: Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> Subject: Re: OT (sort-of) - Does it take math skills to do data processing ? Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ibm-main,alt.folklore.computers Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 01:22:07 GMTgds@best.com.cuthere (Greg Skinner) writes:
one of the statements of the researcher was that i used english as if
i was a non-native (aka a foreign language) ... even tho i was born &
raised in the usa ... and only had the smattering of non-english
language courses that you typically get in school. supposedly how i
thot about problems was not readily recognizable. random cmc stanford
phd musings
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001j.html#29 Title Inflation
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001k.html#64 Programming in School (was: Re: Common uses...)
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002b.html#51 "Have to make your bones" mentality
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002c.html#27 OS Workloads : Interactive etc
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002g.html#64 Pardon my ignorance,
My first programming course was simple fortran intro ... spring of my soph year. They then gave me a summer job (it was better than the dish washing job that i had during the school year) that involved design & implementing my own machine language monitor. I was given the whole machine room from 8am sat. until 8am monday morning (basically a couple mainframes for use as my personal computers ... 48hrs straight w/o sleep and frequently another 8-10 or so during the day on monday). after a couple weeks I was reading the binary punched holes in the cards. I would identify a problem and frequently fan the the binary card deck to the corresponding card and change the punched holes (actually dup the card in a 026 keypunch for the non-changed columns and then "multi-punch" the fix in the appropriate cols. of the new card) as a patch/fix.
for the resource manager ... there were more than a few people that
asserted that my inability to explain the workings in terms that they
could understand was a failing on my part ... not theirs (aka i
invented stuff that i had no english description for). recent
resource manager postings ...
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002k.html#13 Difference between Unix and Linux?
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002k.html#40 hung/zombie users
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002k.html#46 OT (sort-of) - Does it take math skills to do data processing ?
there was also the case of some kernel code that i originally dashed
off as an undergraduate in the area of page replacement algorithm and
it got incorporated into ibm mainframe operating system. nearly 15
years later there was a stanford phd on the subject ... somewhat
re-inventing it.
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subtopic.html#wsclock
--
Anne & Lynn Wheeler | lynn@garlic.com - https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/
From: Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> Subject: Re: History of AOL Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 14:20:55 GMTjmfbahciv writes:
two things credited with turning some of the early time-sharing
services (in house or commercial) into 24x7 operaton was (csc
started leaving machine up round the clock).
1) prepare command
2) unattended operation
the meter ran when processor was executing and/or doing i/o transfer.
the terminal control unit normal was considered in the middle of doing
somthing if there was an "active" operation on the controller
... whether or not actual keystrokes were happening at the moment. The
prepare CCW command put the terminal controller in a state that
effectively didn't active the cpu meter but still ready to accept
keystroke.
w/o an off-shift operator and the prepare command ... it was easy to leave the machine up 7x24 and have very little off-shift bills ... the meter only running when somebody was actually doing something. If nobody was one ... or on and not doing something
random refs:
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/99.html#86 1401 Wordmark?
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/99.html#107 Computer History
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001b.html#27 HELP
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002b.html#24 Infiniband's impact was Re: Intel's 64-bit strategy
--
Anne & Lynn Wheeler | lynn@garlic.com - https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/
From: Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> Subject: Re: History of The Well was AOL Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 19:05:35 GMTeugene@cse.ucsc.edu (Eugene Miya) writes:
--
Anne & Lynn Wheeler | lynn@garlic.com - https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/
From: Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> Subject: Re: OT (sort-of) - Does it take math skills to do data processing ? Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ibm-main,alt.folklore.computers Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 19:57:54 GMTgds@best.com.cuthere (Greg Skinner) writes:
from the resource manager ... and a short lead in ... most of the dynamic adaptive stuff was xxxSTP ... from the '60s tv commercial that had the line "the racer's edge".
the long one is slightly more complicated. so when i was an
undergraduate i invented, implemented and deployed this stuff for page
replacement algorithm, "my form" of working sets scheduling control,
fair share scheduling, dynamic adaptive resource management, bunch of
fastpath and other misc. stuff. some amount was picked up as part of
official ibm product. i also was one of four people that did the first
360 pcm controller.
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/submain.html#360pcm
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subtopic.html#fairshare
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subtopic.html#wsclock
i then went to work at the cambridge science center. later for various and sundry reasons, misc. of the changes were dropped in the 360->370 port. so over a period of a couple years there was a body of 370 code that wasn't part of the product. one version escaped into at&t longlines and apparently propagated around the organizations because ten years later some branch office guy tracked me down because they were running the same kernel ... but on most recent 370 ... and the next ibm product was XA-only which longlines wasn't going to buy because this ten year old kernel wouldn't run on it.
csc did a lot of the early work in workload profiling, performance
modeling and stuff that eventually matured into capacity
planning. part of it was that they had nearly 10 years of data at five
minute intervals of the system running at csc. they also had similar
data for shorter periods of time from possibly hundreds of internal
installations. One of the things was to take the millions of data
points and plot consumption/activity of major system resources on
independent axis ... filling an operational workload envelope. One of
the opportunities then was being able to define a synthetic workload
... that could be configured to match the operation characteristic of
any point of this operational workload envelope. It was also possible
to configure the synthetic workload to operate well outside the
operational envelope as a stress test methodology. some of this
resulted in my interest in boyd's work:
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subboyd.html#boyd
So during this period ... share and customers started lobbying the ibm
company for the release of the "wheeler" scheduler ... which
eventually happened. The code that shipped in the initial resource
manager had the rewrite of serialization mechanism to eliminate a lot
of failure modes that could be reliable reproduced with the synthetic
workload generator. It also contained a lot of code for multiprocessor
support (in the next subsequent release all the SMP and serialization
rewrite disappeared into the base, free SCP kernel code ... cutting
the module hits by about 90 percent and the actual lines of code by
possibly 2/3rds).
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subtopic.html#smp
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subtopic.html#fairshare
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subtopic.html#wsclock
Now while there were a lot of references to fair share ... it was just one of the available administrative policies (the default) for resource allocation. The actual resource manager had extensive dynamic adaption to configuration and workload characteristics.
So ... now with the setting for the long humor story. The business people said that before the resource manager could go out it had to be updated to be as modern as the MVS SRM. This SRM had a big table of tunable values ... and obviously any modern operating system needed hundreds of tunable values for system tuners to fiddle with. WTSC and other organizations had great cottage industry going doing methodical fiddling of the MVS SRM tuning parameters and generate elaborate reports about the fiddling. So i'm sitting here and listening to this request to disable all the elaborate automatic dynamic adaptive stuff and return to the deep dark ages that MVS SRM was in.
Now the obvious thing would have been to define a whole bunch of parameters and not do anything with them. Turns out that would have been too simple.
I had already observed that very few kernel hackers were familiar with
anything from operation research, control algorithms (kind you might
find in oil refinary), etc. So the idea was to implement some number
of manual tuning parameters in a new module appropriately named xxxSRM
and actually use all the tuning parameters in real live code. So there
is detailed documentation and formulaes and all the source code for
how all of this works. The one thing that i sort of glossed over was
this OR-thing referred to as degrees of freedom. Now if you were me at
this point and were going to institute degrees of freedom .... which
would you give greater "freedom" to
1) the dynamic adaptive control parameters
or
2) the manual tuning control parameter
remember i said it would have been too simple to have just ignored the
manual tuning parameters.
So sometime 15 years after the resource manager had shipped, i'm riding up this elevator in "tinker-toy" hk bank building and somebody in the back asks are you the "wheeler" of the wheeler scheduler. So I say maybe. He says that he recently graudated from the xyz university and had studied the wheeler scheduler in computer science. Of course, I asked him if they had taught about the joke and degrees of freedom.
--
Anne & Lynn Wheeler | lynn@garlic.com - https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/