Conference azur::mcc

RE: base note

 I don't know a whole lot about the VUP requirements of EMS (other than
"the more VUPS the better"), but one thing driving the "support" list is
what ethernet devices are supported by the assorted point-products
(TSM, ETHERnim, LTM).

 ETHERnim, for instance, did not (by default) support ethernet devices
using EZDRIVER. A "patch" was generated to address this (adds EZ to the
list of recognized devices), and the next EMS (is it V2.3?) will have
this fix.

 What's the ethernet device on the VAX 4000 / 100?

						Chris 

The three criteria used to determine what was and was not supported were
the amount of disk space available, the amount of memory available, and the
speed of the processor. (Disk is not a real issue, these days).

Issues like the "EZDRIVER" were never addressed.


We drew a line for what we felt would give acceptable performace
for non-trivial configurations, with systems doing some real
level of network management. 

My memory seems to indicate that
the "line" for VMS MCC V1.2.0 was 6 VUPs, and it looks like this was
a case of a "typ0" when making up the list.  Originally, we didn't 
want to make up an instantly out-of-date list, but wanted to just
publish the selection criteria.  "Corperate" required that we produce 
the supported/not supported list for the current (on that day) set of
processors. 

The same issue applies for the Risc boxes, where lots of acceptably
fast CPU's are not included because they only support less that the required
amount of memory.

    
    	Am I missing something here?  If the requirement is 6 VUP's
    and the 4000-100 is rated at 24 VUP's, why is it on the un-supported
    list?
    
    Ed

I don't know why the model you asked about is on the list.
However, as Chris indicated in .1, there are considerations other than pure
CPU power that cause systems to be added to the unsupported list.
In particular, if you find something supported by BMS but not supported
by EMS, it probably has to do with a point product dependency, as in .1
Also, systems that do not support the minimum memory requirements for
DECmcc will be listed as unsupported.

-- Erik

Please disreguard .-1

	As I said in my previous reply:

	1.	POINT PRODUCT CONSIDERATIONS WERE NOT MADE, that is
		when the system list was made up, we did not consider
		the requirements of the other point products.  So beat us
		up for the oversight! Get it done, scream and yell,
		and then when all the moaning is over, lets get on with
		some real business for a change.

	2.	IT WAS A TYPO...

>My memory seems to indicate that
>the "line" for VMS MCC V1.2.0 was 6 VUPs, and it looks like this was
>a case of a "typ0" when making up the list.  Originally, we didn't 

	      ^^^^  See, TYPO, and it even has a TYPO in it as a joke.
			("TYP<zero>", not TYP<"o">)

    
    	Didn't mean to upset anyone!
    
    	I know it's confusing and rather inconsistant of DEC to assign
    smaller model numbers to machines with more VUP's (i.e. 4000-100
    w/ 24 VUP's .vs. 4000-400 w/ 16 VUP's), and I just wanted to clarify
    the support of the 4000-100 for the customer...I'll pass on the info.
    
        Since the root note was entered we were informed that Ethernim
    would not work on the 4000-100 because that software (point product)
    wasn't EMA compliant and thus it will remain a point product until
    it is EMA compliant.  We were conjecturing that may have been the
    reason the 4000-100 ended up on the un-supported list.  We were
    obviously WRONG!
    
    And thanks again for your support,
    Ed
    

Not to fear, nobody is upset (Dave and I use rubber bullets for our duels :-)

>        Since the root note was entered we were informed that Ethernim
>    would not work on the 4000-100 because that software (point product)
>    wasn't EMA compliant and thus it will remain a point product until
>    it is EMA compliant.  We were conjecturing that may have been the
>    reason the 4000-100 ended up on the un-supported list.  We were
>    obviously WRONG!

Ethernim is in fact a point product; one of several on the EMS kit.
It is not (and will probably never be) EMA compliant,
but that is not necessary for it to be supporeted.
We do expect that the functions that Ethernim provides will eventually
be included in an EMA compliant product, which will then make the point
product obsolete.

RE: 3882.2

>The three criteria used to determine what was and was not supported were
>the amount of disk space available, the amount of memory available, and the
>speed of the processor. (Disk is not a real issue, these days).
>
>Issues like the "EZDRIVER" were never addressed.

 Wow.

 I assumed that if even ONE of the point products in the EMS package (ENIM,
 TSM, LTM, NMCC/DM) was not supported on a particular processor, that we
 wouldn't commit DEC legally to supporting it by putting it in the SPD.

 Learn something new every day...

						Chris

   

Chris,

	You, of all people, should not be suprised!  After all,
	the SSA was produced by your group, and everyone was
	sent a copy asking that they review it for correctness.

I guess that there are 10-15 people who missed this one...

:-)  <---  Thas a smiley face for those who don't recognize it.
		Its supposed to indicate that the above was said with
		a bit of humor intended....

Ed:  The VAX4000 Model 100 is a supported machine.  Please feel confident
that if you use this machine to configure your system you will have no 
trouble.

laurel.