Running 'bridge' as root in the VM?
Sampsa Laine wrote:
I'm setting up a VM that runs SIMH-VAX in a Gentoo VM and keep getting
the following error message:
Error opening device.
The relevant part of my bridge.conf reads as follows:
[bridge]
local eth0
sampsa silverback.sampsa.com
Any ideas?
Sampsa
I'm setting up a VM that runs SIMH-VAX in a Gentoo VM and keep getting the following error message:
Error opening device.
The relevant part of my bridge.conf reads as follows:
[bridge]
local eth0
sampsa silverback.sampsa.com
Any ideas?
Sampsa
Hi.
Mark Wickens wrote:
Guys,
Thought someone might be interested in my 'the minimum you need to know'
guide about setting up a RAID-1 system disk using volume shadowing under
OpenVMS:
http://lakesdev.blogspot.com/2009/09/volume-shadowing-system-disk-on-vax.ht…
Nice writeup. Maybe I shouldn't tell how easy it is under RSX... :-)
Johnny
gerry77 at mail.com wrote:
On Wed, 23 Sep 2009 10:25:36 +0200, you wrote:
Wow. I apologize. I thought I had that under control... :-)
I wonder if VMS have changed along the way, or if it has always been like that...?
It's my feeling that it has been always like that, anyway I can certify that
VAX/VMS V4.7 works as I expected:
[...Same tests as done by Bob]
FLORRY::RPT$ type test.dat;-0
one
FLORRY::RPT$ show system
VAX/VMS V4.7 on node FLORRY 23-SEP-2009 10:21:58.14 Uptime 15 08:30:54
Pid Process Name State Pri I/O CPU Page flts Ph.Mem
00000100 NULL COM 0 0 15 08:29:27.66 0 0
00000101 SWAPPER HIB 16 0 0 00:00:00.06 0 0
[...]
Bye, :)
G.
P.S.: This V4.7 was obtained by upgrading a V4.6, so I'm assuming that even on
that release the behaviour would have been the same.
I would expect that if anything, the change would have happened between V3 and V4 of VMS. V3 had the same 9+3 filename length limits as RSX... (Started using VMS at V3.7 (I think it was), a long long time ago...)
Johnny
On Wed, 23 Sep 2009 10:25:36 +0200, you wrote:
Wow. I apologize. I thought I had that under control... :-)
I wonder if VMS have changed along the way, or if it has always been
like that...?
It's my feeling that it has been always like that, anyway I can certify that
VAX/VMS V4.7 works as I expected:
[...Same tests as done by Bob]
FLORRY::RPT$ type test.dat;-0
one
FLORRY::RPT$ show system
VAX/VMS V4.7 on node FLORRY 23-SEP-2009 10:21:58.14 Uptime 15 08:30:54
Pid Process Name State Pri I/O CPU Page flts Ph.Mem
00000100 NULL COM 0 0 15 08:29:27.66 0 0
00000101 SWAPPER HIB 16 0 0 00:00:00.06 0 0
[...]
Bye, :)
G.
P.S.: This V4.7 was obtained by upgrading a V4.6, so I'm assuming that even on
that release the behaviour would have been the same.
Bob Armstrong wrote:
Actually, in VMS (as well as in RSX), ;-1 means the oldest version
available.
I think you only have ;-1 and ;0 which are special.
Can't speak for RSX's problems, but for VMS none of this is true.
Wow. I apologize. I thought I had that under control... :-)
I wonder if VMS have changed along the way, or if it has always been like that...?
In RSX it is as I described, however...
.dir login.cmd;*
Directory DU4:[BQT]
23-SEP-09 10:23
LOGIN.CMD;48 3. 26-FEB-09 10:27
LOGIN.CMD;47 3. 16-FEB-09 11:37
LOGIN.CMD;46 3. 13-DEC-08 06:22
Total of 9./15. blocks in 3. files
.dir login.cmd;0
Directory DU4:[BQT]
23-SEP-09 10:23
LOGIN.CMD;48 3. 26-FEB-09 10:27
Total of 3./5. blocks in 1. file
.dir login.cmd;-0
Directory DU4:[BQT]
23-SEP-09 10:23
LOGIN.CMD;48 3. 26-FEB-09 10:27
Total of 3./5. blocks in 1. file
.dir login.cmd;-1
Directory DU4:[BQT]
23-SEP-09 10:23
LOGIN.CMD;46 3. 13-DEC-08 06:22
Total of 3./5. blocks in 1. file
.
Johnny
--
Johnny Billquist || "I'm on a bus
|| on a psychedelic trip
email: bqt at softjar.se || Reading murder books
pdp is alive! || tryin' to stay hip" - B. Idol
Actually, in VMS (as well as in RSX), ;-1 means the oldest version
available.
I think you only have ;-1 and ;0 which are special.
Can't speak for RSX's problems, but for VMS none of this is true.
-----
$ create foo.txt
one
^Z
$ create foo.txt
two
^Z
$ create foo.txt
three
^Z
$ dir foo.txt
Directory USERS:[BOB]
FOO.TXT;3 1/80 22-SEP-2009 18:52:28.94 [BOB]
(RWED,RWED,RWED,RE)
FOO.TXT;2 1/80 22-SEP-2009 18:52:26.34 [BOB]
(RWED,RWED,RWED,RE)
FOO.TXT;1 1/80 22-SEP-2009 18:52:21.09 [BOB]
(RWED,RWED,RWED,RE)
Total of 3 files, 3/240 blocks.
$ type foo.txt;1
one
$ type foo.txt;0
three
$ type foo.txt
three
$ type foo.txt;
three
$ type foo.txt;-1
two
$ type foo.txt;-2
one
$ type foo.txt;-3
%TYPE-W-SEARCHFAIL, error searching for USERS:[BOB]FOO.TXT;-3
-RMS-E-FNF, file not found
$ type foo.txt;-0
one
-------
Give it a try for yourself (there are lots of VMS systems on HECnet!).
Bob
gerry77 at mail.com wrote:
On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 16:07:03 -0700, you wrote:
That's legal. The longer story is that version numbers start with 1, and
";0" is shorthand for the most recent version. "FOO.TXT;" is just shorthand
for "FOO.TXT;0".
It's also legal to say "FOO.TXT;-1" meaning the previous version (i.e.
most recent -1), as is ";-2", ";-3", etc.
It's legal ";-0" too, meaning the oldest version available :)
Actually, in VMS (as well as in RSX), ;-1 means the oldest version available.
Around here is where VMS differs from TOPS-20.
;0 also have different meanings on TOPS-20 compared to VMS.
On VMS, ;0 means the most recent version if you open a file for reading. But if you try to create a file, ;0 means one higher than what exist right now.
In TOPS-20, unless my memory fails me, ;0 will overwrite the most recent version that do exist.
The ;-0, ;-1, ;-2, ;-3 and so on to refer to older versions is how I think TOPS-20 did it. I don't remember that there is a way of specifying something like that in VMS. I think you only have ;-1 and ;0 which are special. But I might be remembering wrong from playing too much with RSX. :-)
Johnny
--
Johnny Billquist || "I'm on a bus
|| on a psychedelic trip
email: bqt at softjar.se || Reading murder books
pdp is alive! || tryin' to stay hip" - B. Idol
It's legal ";-0" too, meaning the oldest version available :)
One is starting to hope that PHP gets _some_ of the filespec stuff
right. :)
But, while I'm willing to believe (at least until I have time to study
it a bit more) that it's PHP which looks to see if it owns the requested
extension, I'm reluctant to believe that Apache hands over full pathname
processing. That should reduce the size of the problem space a little.
I wonder if case matters...
The rule might better read:
RewriteRule (.*\.[Pp][Hh][Pp])([;.][0-9-]*)(.*) $1$3
De
