Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > alt.folklore.computers > #160827 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-03-10 15:55 -0800 |
| Last post | 2016-03-18 14:28 -0600 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 262 — 43 participants |
Back to article view | Back to alt.folklore.computers
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-03-10 15:55 -0800
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") The New Other Guy <Newsgnus@gmail.com> - 2016-03-10 21:39 -0800
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-03-11 06:32 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-03-11 09:24 +0100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-03-11 17:18 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-03-11 16:17 -0600
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-03-12 18:41 +0100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-03-12 18:14 -0800
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> - 2016-03-12 20:39 -0600
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-03-12 19:27 -0800
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-03-13 09:04 -0600
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-03-13 12:58 -0500
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-03-14 12:25 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-14 14:45 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> - 2016-03-14 18:12 -0500
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-03-15 17:30 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-03-15 17:31 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-03-15 17:28 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "Jim Bank" <jb410@gmail.com> - 2016-03-16 13:29 +1100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-03-15 22:45 -0500
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "Jim Bank" <jb410@gmail.com> - 2016-03-16 16:29 +1100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") mausg@mail.com - 2016-03-16 09:27 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-03-16 14:33 +0100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-03-16 09:47 -0500
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-03-14 20:02 -0400
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-03-15 09:57 +0100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-03-14 11:58 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-03-14 19:07 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") mausg@mail.com - 2016-03-14 20:24 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-03-14 19:59 -0400
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-03-11 06:18 -0500
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Bud Frede <frede@mouse-potato.com> - 2016-03-11 06:24 -0500
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-03-11 17:18 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-03-11 17:38 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> - 2016-03-11 13:48 -0600
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-03-11 19:12 -0500
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-03-12 02:20 +0100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-03-11 18:02 -0800
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-03-12 03:09 -0500
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-03-12 09:20 -0800
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-03-12 15:53 -0500
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-03-12 16:27 -0800
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-03-12 19:13 -0800
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-03-12 22:30 -0500
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-03-13 11:33 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-03-13 13:46 -0600
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-03-13 17:41 -0400
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-03-13 18:13 -0600
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "Sam Crean" <sg55443@gmail.com> - 2016-03-14 11:29 +1100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") David Wade <dave.g4ugm@gmail.com> - 2016-03-14 08:51 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-03-13 22:00 -0400
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-03-14 00:20 -0600
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") David Wade <dave.g4ugm@gmail.com> - 2016-03-14 08:54 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-03-14 07:12 -0400
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-03-14 12:31 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-03-14 23:50 +0100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-03-14 12:29 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Alfred Falk <falk@arc.ab.ca> - 2016-03-14 20:13 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-03-15 17:30 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-03-15 18:36 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-03-15 17:53 -0300
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-03-15 19:55 -0400
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Joy Beeson <jbeeson@invalid.net.invalid> - 2016-03-15 22:10 -0400
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-03-15 22:58 -0500
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-03-15 21:51 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "Jim Bank" <jb410@gmail.com> - 2016-03-16 16:33 +1100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2016-03-16 08:21 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "Jim Bank" <jb410@gmail.com> - 2016-03-16 19:29 +1100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-03-16 08:57 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-03-16 11:15 +0100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-03-16 07:14 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-03-16 17:22 +0100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "Joe Morris" <j.c.morris@verizon.net> - 2016-03-16 20:05 -0400
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-03-17 08:02 +0100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-16 06:51 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-03-16 02:18 -0300
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "Jim Bank" <jb410@gmail.com> - 2016-03-16 16:34 +1100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-03-16 13:05 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-16 06:51 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-03-16 16:16 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-03-13 23:00 +0100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-03-13 19:52 -0500
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-03-14 13:43 +0100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-03-14 14:15 -0500
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-03-15 05:58 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-03-15 10:03 +0100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-03-15 13:23 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-03-15 13:44 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-15 08:12 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-03-15 09:36 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-03-15 10:52 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-03-15 13:27 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-03-15 13:43 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-03-14 12:27 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-03-14 19:52 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-03-15 00:37 +0100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-03-15 13:14 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-03-14 12:53 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> - 2016-03-14 16:23 -0500
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-03-14 17:17 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> - 2016-03-14 20:03 -0500
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-03-14 19:31 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-03-14 22:15 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-03-15 09:43 +0100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> - 2016-03-15 16:11 -0500
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-03-15 14:56 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> - 2016-03-15 17:18 -0500
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-03-15 15:49 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-03-15 16:07 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-03-16 09:44 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-03-15 17:22 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-15 18:12 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> - 2016-03-16 11:52 -0500
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> - 2016-03-16 11:42 -0500
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "Sam Crean" <sg55443@gmail.com> - 2016-03-15 08:37 +1100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> - 2016-03-14 18:08 -0500
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-03-15 01:18 +0100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-03-14 21:53 -0400
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-03-15 17:16 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-03-15 22:23 -0400
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "Jim Bank" <jb410@gmail.com> - 2016-03-16 16:25 +1100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-03-16 13:08 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-03-16 14:36 +0100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-03-16 14:40 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-03-16 14:36 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-03-16 14:40 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "Jim Bank" <jb410@gmail.com> - 2016-03-17 07:22 +1100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-03-16 15:35 -0600
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") pechter@cobalt.pechter.dyndns.org (William Pechter) - 2016-03-16 21:04 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "hanja" <hanja228@gmail.com> - 2016-03-17 08:56 +1100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-03-16 17:09 -0600
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "hanja" <hanja228@gmail.com> - 2016-03-17 11:57 +1100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "Jim Bank" <jb410@gmail.com> - 2016-03-17 07:18 +1100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "Jim Bank" <jb410@gmail.com> - 2016-03-16 13:25 +1100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-03-15 23:32 -0400
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-03-16 03:53 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-03-16 02:33 -0300
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-03-16 16:16 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-03-17 03:31 -0300
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-03-17 07:28 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-03-16 13:02 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-03-17 07:15 +1100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-03-17 13:17 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-03-17 16:08 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-03-18 12:45 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-03-18 08:33 +1100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Morten Reisrad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-03-14 23:18 +0100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> - 2016-03-15 16:23 -0500
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> - 2016-03-15 17:39 -0500
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-03-14 11:44 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-03-14 19:55 -0400
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-03-15 17:35 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-03-15 18:30 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> - 2016-03-16 12:14 -0500
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-03-16 11:24 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> - 2016-03-16 12:08 -0500
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-03-16 10:46 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> - 2016-03-16 20:36 -0500
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-03-16 19:16 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-03-11 16:37 -0800
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-03-12 18:59 -0800
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") mausg@mail.com - 2016-03-13 12:10 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-03-14 11:49 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") mausg@mail.com - 2016-03-14 20:15 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-03-14 21:35 +0100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> - 2016-03-11 13:43 -0600
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2016-03-12 11:30 -0500
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-03-11 12:04 -0800
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-03-11 22:05 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-03-12 13:34 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-03-12 18:07 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-03-13 14:12 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-03-14 19:47 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-03-15 13:43 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-03-15 19:00 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-03-16 13:02 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-03-17 07:13 +1100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-03-17 13:17 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-03-17 17:54 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-03-18 12:45 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-03-19 09:09 +1100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-03-18 23:47 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-03-19 02:03 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-03-19 13:23 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-03-22 07:19 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-03-22 13:40 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-03-18 08:37 +1100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-03-17 17:55 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-03-18 12:45 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-03-18 23:48 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-03-19 13:23 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-03-22 07:19 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-03-22 13:40 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-03-26 07:31 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-03-26 13:24 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-04-15 08:33 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-04-15 12:18 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-03-14 00:25 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-03-13 18:00 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> - 2016-03-15 17:10 -0500
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2016-03-14 13:30 -0400
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-03-14 18:57 +0100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-03-14 18:03 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-03-14 18:54 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-03-14 13:09 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> - 2016-03-14 16:01 -0500
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-03-14 21:23 +0100
Re: You count as an old-timer if Lawrence Statton NK1G <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-03-14 19:05 -0600
Re: You count as an old-timer if Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-03-15 10:07 +0100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-03-14 12:39 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2016-03-15 19:57 -0400
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-03-16 03:53 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> - 2016-03-21 20:28 -0400
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-03-22 01:41 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Bob Martin <bob.martin@excite.com> - 2016-03-22 07:26 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-03-22 07:18 -0600
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") tracymnelson@gmail.com - 2016-03-22 09:39 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> - 2016-03-22 23:12 -0500
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-03-23 11:19 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-03-23 05:00 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") mausg@mail.com - 2016-03-23 12:09 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") tracymnelson@gmail.com - 2016-03-23 07:20 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> - 2016-03-23 13:57 -0500
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Ibmekon <Ibmekon> - 2016-03-23 20:07 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> - 2016-04-11 17:03 -0400
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-03-14 16:59 -0500
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> - 2016-03-14 17:57 -0500
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-03-14 18:53 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-03-14 12:49 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-03-14 19:55 -0400
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-03-15 07:13 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-15 08:12 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-03-15 12:11 -0400
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-03-15 17:30 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-03-15 14:44 -0400
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-03-15 19:36 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-03-15 17:25 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-15 18:12 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-03-16 08:01 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-03-15 23:17 -0400
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-03-16 03:53 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-03-16 11:17 -0400
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-03-16 16:16 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-03-16 14:34 -0400
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-03-16 13:01 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-03-16 11:26 -0400
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-03-16 16:03 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-03-16 14:28 -0400
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-03-16 19:00 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-03-16 21:18 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-03-16 20:49 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-03-15 17:42 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-03-14 21:40 +0100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-03-16 21:09 -0500
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-03-17 08:04 +0100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-03-17 13:17 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-03-18 08:40 +1100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-03-17 14:28 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") mausg@mail.com - 2016-03-18 12:43 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-03-18 10:23 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-03-18 18:51 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if Lawrence Statton NK1G <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-03-18 14:28 -0600
Page 8 of 14 — ← Prev page 1 … 6 7 [8] 9 10 … 14 Next page →
| From | jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-16 13:02 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <PM00052E29F000CB85@aca43ce1.ipt.aol.com> |
| In reply to | #161035 |
hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote: > On Monday, March 14, 2016 at 3:53:33 PM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote: >> For example, the usual trend of even a desktop PC having only one hard disk >> drive. So the heads have to move back and forth to read from one file and write >> to another. Two hard disk drives, though, are easy enough to have if you want >> them. Four hard disk drives? Not unless its a server! >> >> I don't ask much, but I do think that a little too much is lost. For that >> matter, I'd wish that ECC memory was _standard_ instead of sold at inflated >> prices (i.e. anything more than 12.5% more expensive). > > My home PC is proving inadequate to the modern web; the disk drive is > flogging itself to death even though there is plenty of disk space. > Having multiple independent drives would help a lot. But basically, > I'm being forced to buy a new PC. Have you tried defragging the structure? <snip> /BAH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-17 07:15 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <dktt7eF54miU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #161071 |
"jmfbahciv" <See.above@aol.com> wrote in message news:PM00052E29F000CB85@aca43ce1.ipt.aol.com... > hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote: >> On Monday, March 14, 2016 at 3:53:33 PM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote: >>> For example, the usual trend of even a desktop PC having only one hard >>> disk >>> drive. So the heads have to move back and forth to read from one file >>> and > write >>> to another. Two hard disk drives, though, are easy enough to have if you > want >>> them. Four hard disk drives? Not unless its a server! >>> >>> I don't ask much, but I do think that a little too much is lost. For >>> that >>> matter, I'd wish that ECC memory was _standard_ instead of sold at >>> inflated >>> prices (i.e. anything more than 12.5% more expensive). >> >> My home PC is proving inadequate to the modern web; the disk drive is >> flogging itself to death even though there is plenty of disk space. >> Having multiple independent drives would help a lot. But basically, >> I'm being forced to buy a new PC. > > Have you tried defragging the structure? Won't make any difference in that situation, the swap file isnt fragmented and the internet cache has files that are too small to be significantly fragmented and if anything fragmented files will see the drive activity light on less as it waits for the heads to move between fragments.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-17 13:17 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <PM00052E3E5B68A0F9@aca2d627.ipt.aol.com> |
| In reply to | #161109 |
Rod Speed wrote: > > > "jmfbahciv" <See.above@aol.com> wrote in message > news:PM00052E29F000CB85@aca43ce1.ipt.aol.com... >> hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote: >>> On Monday, March 14, 2016 at 3:53:33 PM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote: >>>> For example, the usual trend of even a desktop PC having only one hard >>>> disk >>>> drive. So the heads have to move back and forth to read from one file >>>> and >> write >>>> to another. Two hard disk drives, though, are easy enough to have if you >> want >>>> them. Four hard disk drives? Not unless its a server! >>>> >>>> I don't ask much, but I do think that a little too much is lost. For >>>> that >>>> matter, I'd wish that ECC memory was _standard_ instead of sold at >>>> inflated >>>> prices (i.e. anything more than 12.5% more expensive). >>> >>> My home PC is proving inadequate to the modern web; the disk drive is >>> flogging itself to death even though there is plenty of disk space. >>> Having multiple independent drives would help a lot. But basically, >>> I'm being forced to buy a new PC. >> >> Have you tried defragging the structure? > > Won't make any difference in that situation, the swap file isnt > fragmented and the internet cache has files that are too small > to be significantly fragmented and if anything fragmented files > will see the drive activity light on less as it waits for the heads > to move between fragments. > If his disk has its files splattered every other block, every disk access for .TMP files is going to cause flogging. /BAH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-17 16:08 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <UDAGy.15260$bK6.6744@fx01.iad> |
| In reply to | #161142 |
jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> writes: >Rod Speed wrote: <please don't feed the troll> >If his disk has its files splattered every other block, every disk >access for .TMP files is going to cause flogging. You don't understand that disks have changed since 1965. Aside from the fact that spinning rust is much, much, much, much faster than it was in 1965, and filesystem design has improved significantly since 1965, many modern systems use solid-state disk for which "fragmentation" is not a performance issue even if the filesystem is extent based rather than fixed block based.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-18 12:45 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <PM00052E5200858968@aca42417.ipt.aol.com> |
| In reply to | #161155 |
Scott Lurndal wrote: > jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> writes: >>Rod Speed wrote: > > <please don't feed the troll> > >>If his disk has its files splattered every other block, every disk >>access for .TMP files is going to cause flogging. > > You don't understand that disks have changed since 1965. > > Aside from the fact that spinning rust is much, much, much, much > faster than it was in 1965, and filesystem design has improved > significantly since 1965, many modern systems use solid-state disk > for which "fragmentation" is not a performance issue even if the filesystem is > extent based rather than fixed block based. hancock is using an old system. That was my assumption. /BAH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-18 08:33 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <dl0m5cFqu9aU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #161142 |
"jmfbahciv" <See.above@aol.com> wrote in message news:PM00052E3E5B68A0F9@aca2d627.ipt.aol.com... > Rod Speed wrote: >> >> >> "jmfbahciv" <See.above@aol.com> wrote in message >> news:PM00052E29F000CB85@aca43ce1.ipt.aol.com... >>> hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote: >>>> On Monday, March 14, 2016 at 3:53:33 PM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote: >>>>> For example, the usual trend of even a desktop PC having only one hard >>>>> disk >>>>> drive. So the heads have to move back and forth to read from one file >>>>> and >>> write >>>>> to another. Two hard disk drives, though, are easy enough to have if >>>>> you >>> want >>>>> them. Four hard disk drives? Not unless its a server! >>>>> >>>>> I don't ask much, but I do think that a little too much is lost. For >>>>> that >>>>> matter, I'd wish that ECC memory was _standard_ instead of sold at >>>>> inflated >>>>> prices (i.e. anything more than 12.5% more expensive). >>>> >>>> My home PC is proving inadequate to the modern web; the disk drive is >>>> flogging itself to death even though there is plenty of disk space. >>>> Having multiple independent drives would help a lot. But basically, >>>> I'm being forced to buy a new PC. >>> >>> Have you tried defragging the structure? >> >> Won't make any difference in that situation, the swap file isnt >> fragmented and the internet cache has files that are too small >> to be significantly fragmented and if anything fragmented files >> will see the drive activity light on less as it waits for the heads >> to move between fragments. > If his disk has its files splattered every other block, It doesn’t end up like that. > every disk access for .TMP files is going to cause flogging. BULLSHIT. There is no flogging whatever involved with moving the heads to where the file will be written. The most that will happen is in theory a bit more head movement than when the free space is all in one place, but when the system is clearly using the swap file a lot, the bulk of the head movement will just be between the swap file and where the temp files are being written. It makes very little difference when moving between the swap file and where the temp file is written whether the free space is all in one place or scattered over the drive.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Morten Reisrad <first@last.name.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-14 23:18 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <kupjrc-ri7.ln1@sambook.reistad.name> |
| In reply to | #160957 |
In article <2b76adee-9e0a-457c-9762-950d2b2e226a@googlegroups.com>, <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote: >On Sunday, March 13, 2016 at 2:33:38 PM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote: > >> Now, they do have these newfangled things like smartwatches, and, yes, most of >> them would have chips more powerful than any 360, save, possibly, the /195. > >The chip itself might be faster, but do smartwatches have the I/O >capability that S/360 had? What were the channel capacities and speeds of the various models, then? (The /30, a midlevel one and the /195 would do nicely). -- mrr
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-15 16:23 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ZNadneU7T8244HXLnZ2dnUU7-aHNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #160983 |
Morten Reisrad wrote: > In article <2b76adee-9e0a-457c-9762-950d2b2e226a@googlegroups.com>, > <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote: >>On Sunday, March 13, 2016 at 2:33:38 PM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote: >> >>> Now, they do have these newfangled things like smartwatches, and, yes, >>> most of them would have chips more powerful than any 360, save, >>> possibly, the /195. >> >>The chip itself might be faster, but do smartwatches have the I/O >>capability that S/360 had? > > What were the channel capacities and speeds of the various models, then? > > (The /30, a midlevel one and the /195 would do nicely). OK, 360/30 had a single byte-wide memory word, and a 2.5 us memory cycle time. (The local store (register file) is in a separately-addressed extension to main memory, so it interferes with memory access.) So, the memory bandwidth was .3 MB/second. (Some later models may have had faster memory, the Wikipedia article shows 0.7 MB/sec.) Model 195 claims 169 MB/sec, which sure is a lot. I suspect that may be the bandwidth of the buffer (cache) memory, not the main memory. Even with a LOT of interleaved memory modules, I don't quite see how they get there. With an 8-byte memory width, that is 21 MW/second, or 47ns/emeory cycle. Unless they had 16 interleaved memory units, that would be hard to do with core. Well, maybe they DID have 16 units, it was a cost is no concern machine. (Note that the model 195 was not really an old-school 360, it was built from the MST (ECL) logic family later used in the 370s. Also, the 360/85 (which came out one year earlier) was also built with MST, and was a real hot machine. The faster logic technology plus buffer memory (cache) really sped it up. The model 195 used every trick in the book for out of order execution and pipelining, the /85 was a very simple, straightforward machine.) Jon
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-15 17:39 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <Boidnf4w78JyE3XLnZ2dnUU7-SHNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #160983 |
Morten Reisrad wrote: > In article <2b76adee-9e0a-457c-9762-950d2b2e226a@googlegroups.com>, > <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote: >>On Sunday, March 13, 2016 at 2:33:38 PM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote: >> >>> Now, they do have these newfangled things like smartwatches, and, yes, >>> most of them would have chips more powerful than any 360, save, >>> possibly, the /195. >> >>The chip itself might be faster, but do smartwatches have the I/O >>capability that S/360 had? > > What were the channel capacities and speeds of the various models, then? > > (The /30, a midlevel one and the /195 would do nicely). > > -- mrr Ah, missed the "midlevel" one. Well, that might be harder to select. Note that the 360/50 had internal channels, meaning they interrupted the CPU microcode to run. The selector channel didn't require a whole lot of state info to be set up, so it didn't have huge overhead. The multiplexer channel had a lot of state to set up, so although the data rate for typical unit record devices was low, each byte transferred caused more CPU cycles to be used than for the selector. The 360/65 and above had no internal channels, and so the external channels relieved the CPU of any microcode overhead. They still took memory cycles, of course, but tried to buffer up bytes to minimize the memory cycles required. Wikipedia shows the 360/50 with a memory bandwidth of 2 MB/sec (with internal storage) and 0.5 MB/sec with LCS. The 360/65 shows 21 MB/sec memory bandwidth. These were the maximum aggrgate limits on all I/O, and really bad things would happen if you exceeded the limits. IBM's planning guides told what the limits were, and you had to work out the mix of devices on each channel to be sure that you could not exceed the memory bandwidth. The selector channel on the 360/65 could handle 1.3 MB/second. The multiplexer could handle anywhere from 130 to 6xx K bytes/second, depending on the control unit. (Some did burst transfers to internal core memory, such as the 1403 printer controller. The bursts were more efficient, as it didn't incur all the setup for each byte transferred.) For instance, it was possible to put a 2314 disk system on each of several selector channels, and thereby exceed the memory bandwidth of a smaller system. If you put the disks on the SAME channel, it prevented them from handling I/O at the same time, thereby avoiding the excessive memory traffic. But, of COURSE, that reduces your I/O bandwidth. Note that the way the original IBM selector channels worked, they held on to the channel and control unit for the duration of the operation, from seek, through rotational latency, to the data transfer. So, you could not have more than one drive per channel SEEKING at the same time! This became a HUGE bottleneck in large systems, so they had to develop the block multiplexer channel and make newer control units able to have multiple drives seeking simultaneously. This greatly increased throughput, as the seek time was mugh longer than the rotational latency plus transfer. Jon
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-14 11:44 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <3fa52441-8834-47ef-939e-826e46fc1840@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #160922 |
On Saturday, March 12, 2016 at 10:31:00 PM UTC-5, J. Clarke wrote: > Bear in mind that OS/360, bloated thoough it might have seemed, ran fine > on machines that today would be considered underpowered in a good watch > today. I think the earliest releases needed some improvement. The developers had to get experience on what the machines could actually do. Also, as the IBM history notes, there were considerable problems in coordinating the various sub-units in the development group. The project was so large that keeping track and consistency was very difficult. In addition, they said different managers had different development styles that clearly clashed; and the software people clashed with the hardware people. Adding to the mess was the pressure to develop time sharing, which was originally not part of the initial plan. FWIW/IMHO, doing so early on was ill advised as they didn't have enough resources to do the basic job, and then start worrying about advanced features. Further, as it turned out (yes, hindsight is 20/20), timesharing wasn't as easy to do as its advocates claimed, and other projects floundered to.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-14 19:55 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.31511981f45fc56598a024@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #160949 |
In article <3fa52441-8834-47ef-939e-826e46fc1840@googlegroups.com>, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com says... > > On Saturday, March 12, 2016 at 10:31:00 PM UTC-5, J. Clarke wrote: > > > Bear in mind that OS/360, bloated thoough it might have seemed, ran fine > > on machines that today would be considered underpowered in a good watch > > today. > > I think the earliest releases needed some improvement. The > developers had to get experience on what the machines could > actually do. Also, as the IBM history notes, there were > considerable problems in coordinating the various sub-units > in the development group. The project was so large that > keeping track and consistency was very difficult. In addition, > they said different managers had different development > styles that clearly clashed; and the software people clashed > with the hardware people. > > Adding to the mess was the pressure to develop time sharing, > which was originally not part of the initial plan. FWIW/IMHO, > doing so early on was ill advised as they didn't have enough > resources to do the basic job, and then start worrying about > advanced features. Further, as it turned out (yes, hindsight > is 20/20), timesharing wasn't as easy to do as its advocates > claimed, and other projects floundered to. While this is all true, the fact remains that the machines worked and were able to serve major universities and large businesses.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-15 17:35 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <62c7cbf6-0aaa-4c6d-a479-ec709263f5d4@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #160978 |
On Monday, March 14, 2016 at 7:55:44 PM UTC-4, J. Clarke wrote: > > Adding to the mess was the pressure to develop time sharing, > > which was originally not part of the initial plan. FWIW/IMHO, > > doing so early on was ill advised as they didn't have enough > > resources to do the basic job, and then start worrying about > > advanced features. Further, as it turned out (yes, hindsight > > is 20/20), timesharing wasn't as easy to do as its advocates > > claimed, and other projects floundered to. > > While this is all true, the fact remains that the machines worked and > were able to serve major universities and large businesses. I'd have to check the S/360 history, but I think it took several years for IBM to make time sharing a viable option. Time sharing took far more horsepower than batch or even CICS. The early versions didn't work. For instance, I think initially they had something called TSS, which was replaced by TSO. I know years later my employer wouldn't use TSO because it was too resource intensive.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-15 18:30 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <87pouvp5tr.fsf@garlic.com> |
| In reply to | #161040 |
hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com writes: > I'd have to check the S/360 history, but I think it took several > years for IBM to make time sharing a viable option. Time sharing > took far more horsepower than batch or even CICS. The early > versions didn't work. For instance, I think initially they had > something called TSS, which was replaced by TSO. I know years > later my employer wouldn't use TSO because it was too resource > intensive. lots of universities were sold 360/67 for tss/360 ... however tss/360 had lots of difficulty reaching production quality. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_System/360_Model_67 science center http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subtopic.html#545tech did their own virtual memory system cp/40 for 360/40 modified with relocation hardware. http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/cp40seas1982.txt cp/40 morphs into cp/67 when science center gets a 360/67 (trivia: the cp/cms group at the science center had 11 people when the tss/360 group had 1,100 people). Lots of places ran CP/67 on their 360/67. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CP/CMS Univ. of Michigan wrote their own virtual memory system MTs, for 360/67, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michigan_Terminal_System http://archive.michigan-terminal-system.org/ from somebody that worked on MTS http://www.eecis.udel.edu/~mills/gallery/gallery7.html http://www.eecis.udel.edu/~mills/gallery/gallery8.html other MTS pages have gone 404 ... but still are at wayback machine: http://web.archive.org/web/20050212073808/www.itd.umich.edu/~doc/Digest/0596/feat01.html http://web.archive.org/web/20050212073808/www.itd.umich.edu/~doc/Digest/0596/feat02.html http://web.archive.org/web/20050212183905/www.itd.umich.edu/~doc/Digest/0596/feat03.html some number of other univ. ran MTS ... especially on 370. a little MTS lore: http://archive.michigan-terminal-system.org/myths Germ of Truth Early versions of what became UMMPS were based in part on LLMPS from MIT's Lincoln Laboratories. Early versions of what would become MTS were known as LTS. The initial "L" in LTS and in LLMPS stood for "Lincoln". ... snip ... Stanford wrote Orval system for 360/67 (along with Whylbur editor) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ORVYL_and_WYLBUR http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/explain/manuals/ORVMAN.HTML http://www.stanford.edu/dept/its/support/wylorv/ Wylbur later was ported to MVS -- virtualization experience starting Jan1968, online at home since Mar1970
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-16 12:14 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <o9KdnV3dcqTpCXTLnZ2dnUU7-fvNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #161044 |
Anne & Lynn Wheeler wrote: > lots of universities were sold 360/67 for tss/360 ... however tss/360 > had lots of difficulty reaching production quality. > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_System/360_Model_67 CLEARLY, the /67 was better at timesharing than other 360s, due to the memory relocation feature. But, I didn't think there were that many /67s produced. I've heard where a few of them ended up, rather celebrated sites, but I always thought it had a rather limited production. Jon
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-16 11:24 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <87k2l2xoug.fsf@garlic.com> |
| In reply to | #161101 |
Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> writes: > CLEARLY, the /67 was better at timesharing than other 360s, due to the > memory relocation feature. But, I didn't think there were that many /67s > produced. I've heard where a few of them ended up, rather celebrated sites, > but I always thought it had a rather limited production. one of the previous references was that there were 100 360/67s built. That is relatively insignificant to the numbers of some of the other 360s. this has some numbers http://people.cs.clemson.edu/~mark/acs_end.html Of the 26,000 IBM computer systems in use, 16,000 were S/360 models (that is, over 60%). [Fig. 1.311.2] Of the general-purpose systems having the largest fraction of total installed value, the IBM S/360 Model 30 was ranked first with 12% (rising to 17% in 1969). The S/360 Model 40 was ranked second with 11% (rising to almost 15% in 1970). [Figs. 2.10.4 and 2.10.5] Of the number of operations per second in use, the IBM S/360 Model 65 ranked first with 23%. The Univac 1108 ranked second with slightly over 14%, and the CDC 6600 ranked third with 10%. [Figs. 2.10.6 and 2.10.7] ... snip ... In the science center rivalry with the 5th flr, http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subtopic.html#545tech there was something like 120 multics systems over its whole lifetime ... this has complete list of 84 multics installations (but there were slightly more systems than installations) over complete lifetime into the 90s http://www.multicians.org/sites.html Once 370s appeared ... it was no longer fair to compare numbers of total systems ... even just the total number of internal IBM corporate virtual machine, online systems exceeded the total number of multics systems (over complete lifetime) by at least a factor of ten. I've mentioned before that one of my hobbies was developing and supporting enhanced systems for internal installations. At various times, the total number of my system installations (first cp67, then cscvm & sjrvm) were about the same as the total number of multics installations over its whole lifetime. Things really exploded with 4300s ... both inside IBM and customers. The internal network was larger than internet/arpanet from just about the beginning until sometime mid-80s. At the time of the great change-over to internetworking protocol on 1Jan1983, there were about 100 IMP nodes and 255 connected hosts ... when the internal network was rapidly approaching 1000 nodes (largely fueled by vm/4341s). Reference to 1983 internal network and 1000 nodes http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2006k.html#8 Arpa address Reference to AFDS (major multics installation) talking about coming out to talk tome about 20 vm/4341s the spring of 1979, by the time they came out the fall of 1979, it had grown to 210 vm/4341s ... posted in both Multics newsgroup http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001m.html#12 Multics Nostalgia and a.f.c. http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001m.html#15 departmental servers when I was undergraduate in the 60s, the univ. hired me fulltime to support the IBM production systems. It was 360/67 but ran most of the time with os/360 as 360/65. Summer of '69, Boeing hired me as fulltime employee (still hadn't graduated) to help with the formation of Boeing Computer Services (consolidate dataprocessing into independent business unit to better monetize the investment, including offering services to non-Boeing entities). At the time 747#3 was flying the skies of Seattle getting FAA certification. I thot Renton datacenter was possibly largest in the world ... with something like $300M (69 dollars) in IBM gear. That summer there was constantly parts of 2-3 360/65s in the hallways around the machine room waiting to be installed. They also decided to replicate Renton datacenter up at Paine Field in Everett as disaster survivability ... there is disaster scenario where Mt. Rainer heats up causing massive mud slide that takes out the Renton datacenter. Later at IBM I would sponsor John Boyd's briefings, possibly in punishment for his opposition, he was assigned to command "spook base" about the same time I was at Boeing. Boyd would say it had the largest air conditioned bldg in that part of the world. Boyd's biographies claim "spook base" was a $2.5B windfall (69/70 dollars) for IBM (nearly ten times Rendon). "spook base" reference gone 404, but lives at at wayback machine: http://web.archive.org/web/20030212092342/http://home.att.net/~c.jeppeson/igloo_white.html Boyd posts and URLs from around the web http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subboyd.html -- virtualization experience starting Jan1968, online at home since Mar1970
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-16 12:08 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <VYednTP-XrySDnTLnZ2dnUU7-L_NnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #161040 |
hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote: > > I'd have to check the S/360 history, but I think it took several > years for IBM to make time sharing a viable option. Time sharing > took far more horsepower than batch or even CICS. The early > versions didn't work. For instance, I think initially they had > something called TSS, which was replaced by TSO. I know years > later my employer wouldn't use TSO because it was too resource > intensive. Yes, everybody tried to make timesharing work on machines (and OS's) not well suited for it. Timesharing with the 2705 comm controller was really pretty primitive. But, then, remember, this was 1968 or so, and the amount of smarts they could put into such a device was severely limited, or it would end up as complex as the CPU. So, for instance, interrupting the CPU ONLY on specific terminator characters was not possible. So, you could complete the transfer and interrupt on one specific character (enter key) or on all of them, causing massive overhead. Our installation used IBM Series I minis to do screen editing and terminator character recognition, and it apparently worked pretty well - vastly better than the 2705 (We used a Memorex work-alike.) Still, TSO was a hog. But, then, with all the problems with swapping and memory fragmentation on 360s, the basic processor limited what you could do. Some other maker's machines had much more advanced techniques to handle memory, and worked WAY better for timesharing. Jon
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-16 10:46 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <87oaaexqmn.fsf@garlic.com> |
| In reply to | #161099 |
Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> writes: > Still, TSO was a hog. But, then, with all the problems with swapping and > memory fragmentation on 360s, the basic processor limited what you could do. > Some other maker's machines had much more advanced techniques to handle > memory, and worked WAY better for timesharing. TSO had enormous pathlength bloat ... but that wasn't its only problem ... there were also major issues with the underlying system ... especially with mvs/os360 CKD multi-track search. For a time San Jose Research had an MVS168 and a VM158 with a common 3330 disk farm. However, there were 3830/3330 controller/strings that were "dedicated" to MVS and others "dedicated" to VM370 ... to avoid impacting VM370 with the enormous interactive penalty from CKD multi-track search (from OS/360 days, MVS requirement for CKD still continues to this day even though real CKD haven't been made for decades). One morning, some MVS operator mounted a 3330 pack on a VM158 sraing drive ... and almost immediately the machine room phone was ringing off the hook with irate calls from people all around the building about what had happened to VM/CMS interactive response. The problem was that the CKD multi-track search locks up the channel, controller, and drive for duration ... which can be 1/3rd second (MVS multi-track search locking up the vm158 3830 controller locks out access to all drives on that string from the vm370 side). TSO response was so horrible and they were so use to the bloated overhead and effects of CKD multi-track search ... they didn't know any better. However, this was a dramatic demonstration about how bad multi-track search can effect interactive response. Note that things like CICS will attempt to minimize use of underlying system services and maximize fixed resident resources to minimize the parallelizing effects of the underlying operating system. In any case, a demand was made to immediately move the MVS 3330 off a VM370 drive. Initially they refused ... saying they would defer the move to offshift (since it would require interrupting all uses of the drive). We had a highly optimized VS1 system for running under VM370 and put its pack on MVS string ... and started some of our own multi-track searches ... which brought MVS168 to its knees (and alleviated the effect that MVS168 was having on VM/CMS reponse) ... and they immediately aggreed to move their MVS pack off a VM370 drive ... if we would move the VS1 pack (a highly optimized VS1 system running in virtual machine on loaded VM158 easily outperforms a MVS168 system) misc. past posts mentioning CKD, multi-track search and FBA http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/submain.html#dasd trivia: MVT storage allocation was so bad that region sizes had to be defined four times larger than normally used. This turned out to be major justification for decision to make all 370 systems virtual memory. Morphing MVT into OS/VS2 SVS (essentially running MVT in 16mbyte virtual memory) met that a typical 1mbyte 370/165 with four regions could be run with 15 regions with OS/VS2 SVS with effectively no paging. Old post discussing the decision to make all 370s virtual memory (based on the significant problem with MVT storage allocation, somebody over in ibmmain mailing list had asked me to contract old IBMers for the history of this decision) http://www.garlic.com/~ynn/2011d.html#73 Multiple Virtual Memory other trivia: Boeing Huntsville had gotten two-processor SMP 360/67 assuming they would run TSS/360 support 2250 graphics displays doing engineering design. With the TSS/360 problems they would run the machine as two 360/65 single processors under os/360. The MVT storage allocation problem ... was especially aggrevated by the long running 2250 graphics design applications. The Beoing Hunstville group eventually modified OS/360 MVT Release 13 to run in virtual memory mode ... it didn't do any paging ... it just used the virtual memory hardware to re-arrange contiguous addresses as countermeasure to MVT storage fragmentation problem. -- virtualization experience starting Jan1968, online at home since Mar1970
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-16 20:36 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <gNydnfEUp629l3fLnZ2dnUU7-bPNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #161102 |
Anne & Lynn Wheeler wrote: > > One morning, some MVS operator mounted a 3330 pack on a VM158 sraing > drive ... and almost immediately the machine room phone was ringing off > the hook with irate calls from people all around the building about what > had happened to VM/CMS interactive response. The problem was that the > CKD multi-track search locks up the channel, controller, and drive for > duration Yes, the whole concept of CKD drives must have seemed really great in 1962 or so when the 360 was being described on paper. But, clearly, long key searches on the disk of a large, multiuser 360 was a horrible thing to do, even on an all batch system. Locking out the entire disk system for up to a couple seconds totally defeated the idea of multiprocessing. A database system that used up some hunk of memory to enable it to find the required record in a minimum number of seeks was certainly a better way to do it. Jon
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-16 19:16 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <87k2l1x316.fsf@garlic.com> |
| In reply to | #161127 |
Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> writes: > Yes, the whole concept of CKD drives must have seemed really great in 1962 > or so when the 360 was being described on paper. But, clearly, long key > searches on the disk of a large, multiuser 360 was a horrible thing to do, > even on an all batch system. Locking out the entire disk system for up to > a couple seconds totally defeated the idea of multiprocessing. > > A database system that used up some hunk of memory to enable it to find the > required record in a minimum number of seeks was certainly a better way to > do it. re: http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/submain.html#dasd the trade-off beteween abundant I/O resources versus scarce/constrained real memory in the 60s ... inverted in the 60s ... and i/o became bottleneck and real storage was increasingly being used to compensate for I/O bottleneck ... and multiprogramming/multithreading was increasingly being used to overlap with i/o blocked execution (somewhat analogous to modern hardware out-of-order execution ... where execution proceeds with instruction that is not block by cache miss). I was increasingly vocal by this ... by the early 80s, I was saying that relative disk i/o system throughput had declined by an order of magnitude over a period of 15years. Old posts with summary of comparison (over 15yrs, number of years increased proportional to disk throughput not processor/memory throughput) http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/93.html#31 Big I/O or Kicking the Mainframe out the Door note that CP67, VM370, CMS never made use of multi-track support, it was always at least logical FBA ... even when using CKD disks (somewhat heritage from CTSS). Note that I could show at least three times increased I/O throughput with my paged-mapped filesystem (in modest I/O constrained workload) ... but I did other enhancements. CMS did synchronous I/O ... by fiddling page tables, I could do asynchronous filesystem I/O ... while preserving CMS synchronous semantics. I also implemented read-ahead and write-behind as well as contiguous allocation and large congiquous block transfers (it wasn't strictly page-mapped ... but page-mapped made it easier to transparently implement such things w/o having large hits to CMS) http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/submain.html#mmap the adcon and address independent execution required lot more hits http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/submain.html#adcon I've periodically mentioned offering MVS people FBA support (which would require operation w/o multi-track search and eliminate enormous resources later required for CKD simulation on FBA long after CKD disks stopped being made). I was told that even if I provided fully integrated and tested FBA support, I would still need $26M business case ($200M-$300M incremental new disk sales) for education and training ... and since customers were already buying disks as fast as they could be made, FBA support would just mean selling same amount of FBA in place of CKD (precluding making any incremental $26M profit). Some disk division/GPD executives took exception with the statement about factor of ten times in decline in relative disk system throughput and assigned the division performance group to refute the statement ... after a few weeks they came back and said that I had somewhat understated the problem. They then respin the analysis for a SHARE presentation (SHARE 63, Presentation B874) about how to configure disks for improved throughput. past posts mentioning B874: http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002i.html#18 AS/400 and MVS - clarification please http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002i.html#46 AS/400 and MVS - clarification please http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2006f.html#3 using 3390 mod-9s http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2006o.html#68 DASD Response Time (on antique 3390?) http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2007s.html#5 Poster of computer hardware events? http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2009g.html#71 308x Processors - was "Mainframe articles" http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2009i.html#7 My Vintage Dream PC http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2009k.html#34 A Complete History Of Mainframe Computing http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2009k.html#52 Hercules; more information requested http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2009l.html#67 ACP, One of the Oldest Open Source Apps http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2010c.html#1 "The Naked Mainframe" (Forbes Security Article) http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2010h.html#70 25 reasons why hardware is still hot at IBM http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2010l.html#31 Wax ON Wax OFF -- Tuning VSAM considerations http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2010l.html#32 OS idling http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2010l.html#33 History of Hard-coded Offsets http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2010n.html#18 Mainframe Slang terms http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2011.html#35 CKD DASD http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2011.html#61 Speed of Old Hard Disks http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2011e.html#1 Multiple Virtual Memory http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2011p.html#5 Why are organizations sticking with mainframes? http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2011p.html#32 Has anyone successfully migrated off mainframes? http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012b.html#73 Tape vs DASD - Speed/time/CPU utilization http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012e.html#39 A bit of IBM System 360 nostalgia http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012o.html#62 ISO documentation of IBM 3375, 3380 and 3390 track format http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2013m.html#72 'Free Unix!': The world-changing proclamation made 30 years agotoday http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2014l.html#90 What's the difference between doing performance in a mainframe environment versus doing in others http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2014m.html#87 Death of spinning disk? http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2015g.html#0 Miniskirts and mainframes http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2015h.html#110 Is there a source for detailed, instruction-level performance info? past posts mentioning $26M issue http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2009e.html#61 "A foolish consistancy" or "3390 cyl/track architecture" http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2009j.html#73 DCSS ... when shared segments were implemented in VM http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2010k.html#10 Documenting the underlying FBA design of 3375, 3380 and 3390? http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2010m.html#4 History of Hard-coded Offsets http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2010n.html#14 Mainframe Slang terms http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2010n.html#65 When will MVS be able to use cheap dasd http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2011.html#23 zLinux OR Linux on zEnterprise Blade Extension??? http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2011.html#35 CKD DASD http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2011b.html#47 A brief history of CMS/XA, part 1 http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2011b.html#63 If IBM Hadn't Bet the Company http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2011e.html#35 junking CKD; was "Social Security Confronts IT Obsolescence" http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2011e.html#44 junking CKD; was "Social Security Confronts IT Obsolescence" http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2011j.html#57 Graph of total world disk space over time? http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012g.html#19 Co-existance of z/OS and z/VM on same DASD farm http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012j.html#12 Can anybody give me a clear idea about Cloud Computing in MAINFRAME ? http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012n.html#65 Fred Brooks on OS/360 "JCL is the worst language ever" http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012n.html#70 Under what circumstances would it be a mistake to migrate applications/workload off the mainframe? http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012o.html#31 Regarding Time Sharing http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012o.html#58 ISO documentation of IBM 3375, 3380 and 3390 track format http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012o.html#64 Random thoughts: Low power, High performance http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012p.html#32 Search Google, 1960:s-style http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2013.html#40 Searching for storage (DASD) alternatives http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2013c.html#68 relative mainframe speeds, was What Makes an Architecture Bizarre? http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2013d.html#2 Query for Destination z article -- mainframes back to the future http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2013f.html#80 The cloud is killing traditional hardware and software http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2013g.html#23 Old data storage or data base http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2013i.html#2 IBM commitment to academia http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2013n.html#54 rebuild 1403 printer chain http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2014.html#94 Santa has a Mainframe! http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2014b.html#18 Quixotically on-topic post, still on topic http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2014e.html#8 The IBM Strategy http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2014g.html#14 Is end of mainframe near ? http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2015.html#35 [CM] IBM releases Z13 Mainframe - looks like Batman http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2015f.html#86 Formal definituion of Speed Matching Buffer http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2015h.html#24 the legacy of Seymour Cray -- virtualization experience starting Jan1968, online at home since Mar1970
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-11 16:37 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <87r3fgjzuz.fsf@garlic.com> |
| In reply to | #160863 |
Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> writes: > For me, going from 300 to 1200 was the big jump - although going from > there to 2400 was a welcome increase as well. For most of the 70s I had 2741 @134 (including one at home) replaced with 300 baud CDI miniterm (for a couple yrs) http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/miniterm.jpg and then to 1200 baud 3101 (ibm glass teletype, for a couple yrs) ... which included some stuff skipping long blank runs with cursor positioning ... internally also included being able to switch between glass teletype and 3270 simulation. http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/home3101.jpg Then got IBM/PC with 2400 baud modem and ran internal "pcterm" 3270 simulator. The PC & host side did bit compression on the transmission and also kept character string caches ... it could transmit string location in cache as opposed to the actual (compressed) string. http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/homepc.jpg as miniterm picture shows, I had compact microfiche reader ... at work, it was possible to direct computer output (like large source listings, documentation, etc) to microfiche printer. PC was at original announce on the employee purchase plan ... however by the time they started deliverying PCs on the employee purchase plan, the street price had dropped to less than the employee discount (I would have payed less if I had avoided the employee purchase plan and got it sooner). -- virtualization experience starting Jan1968, online at home since Mar1970
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 8 of 14 — ← Prev page 1 … 6 7 [8] 9 10 … 14 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | alt.folklore.computers
csiph-web