http://h71000.www7.hp.com/?
Mark Daniel
disconcerting/disappointing/discouraging when the primary portal doesn't
respond. Second time in almost as many weeks I've gone to check What's
New and received no response.
KLAATU$ ping h71000.www7.hp.com
PING openvms.compaq.com (161.114.65.60): 56 data bytes
----openvms.compaq.com PING Statistics----
4 packets transmitted, 0 packets received, 100% packet loss
%SYSTEM-F-TIMEOUT, device timeout
Not just my particular system or part of the Net either. I've tried it
from four hosts across three continents.
Dave Froble
While not addressing the no response issue, perhaps the server does not
have ping enabled? I've run into more than a few mail and DNS servers
that are configured to not support ping.
--
David Froble Tel: 724-529-0450
Dave Froble Enterprises, Inc. E-Mail: da...@tsoft-inc.com
DFE Ultralights, Inc.
170 Grimplin Road
Vanderbilt, PA 15486
JF Mezei
>
> For an environment touting it's availability it's always a bit
> disconcerting/disappointing/discouraging when the primary portal doesn't
> respond.
As of 22:14 EDT Sunday ( Monday 02:14 GMT ) the VMS web site is
still down. That is a lengty downtime. Perhaps they are upgrading from
IA64 to VAX ? :-) :-) :-) :-)
JF Mezei
The *only* possible logical conclusion one can possibly make of this is
that HP has officially pulled the plug on VMS :-) :-) :-) :-) ;-) :-) :-)
Peter 'EPLAN' LANGSTOEGER
Now it's 8:20 MET-DST (6:20 GMT) and still not reachable (at least for me).
--
Peter "EPLAN" LANGSTOEGER
Network and OpenVMS system specialist
E-mail pe...@langstoeger.at
A-1030 VIENNA AUSTRIA I'm not a pessimist, I'm a realist
Ian Miller
Peter 'EPLAN' LANGSTOEGER
>itrc runs on hp-ux
We're not talking about itrc. We're talking about openvms.compaq.com
(and yes, you're right, itrc runs on PH-UX)
http://toolbar.netcraft.com/site_report?url=http://openvms.compaq.com
http://toolbar.netcraft.com/site_report?url=http://www.openvms.compaq.com
Ian Miller
Parhaps it runs on a small alphaserver under someones desk in a hp
office in the USA and they won't know its down until they come in to
work on Monday morning :-)
etms...@yahoo.co.uk
decided that it wasn't necessary to use the cluster to serve the
website and it was scaled down to a single node.
Maybe it's down in sympathy with Sue? ;o)
Steve
johnhre...@yahoo.com
As of 9:25AM EDT www.hp.com/go/vms still does not work. While
http://h18002.www1.hp.com/alphaserver/index.html works. The OpenVMS
site http://h71000.www7.hp.com/ also does not.
n.r...@sympatico.ca
Yikes! It's 9:30 AM and they are still off the air. They must not have
been running OpenVMS.
Neil Rieck
Kitchener, Ontario, Canada.
Hoff Hoffman
> For an environment touting it's availability it's always a bit
> disconcerting/disappointing/discouraging when the primary portal doesn't
> respond.
The server itself is up and running, and the web server is also (from
what I can see of it) up and running.
The OpenVMS host server uptime is 132 days on the server I checked,
as of this morning.
The OpenVMS web master has been notified of the outage directly, and
I've dispatched a report into the HP IT web site organization.
Bob Gezelter
Mark Daniel wrote:
> For an environment touting it's availability it's always a bit
> disconcerting/disappointing/discouraging when the primary portal doesn't
> respond. Second time in almost as many weeks I've gone to check What's
> New and received no response.
>
Mark,
After working with the Internet since the beginning, I remember the day
that the ARPAnet was switched from NCP (eight bit addresses, limited to
255 nodes) to IP (32 bit addresses), but I digress.
The most likely scenario is that the OpenVMS box is happily sitting
somewhere waiting to receive requests. It is far more likely that a
fault in the HP's network infrastructure is preventing it from
receiving or answering requests.
I understand that the problem has been logged within HP and is being
investigated.
I can sympathize, my server (running WASD on OpenVMS/VAX presently) has
been down for days at a time, but so far never because of a problem
with the server or OpenVMS. Each time, it has been a problem somewhere
in the digital logistical chain involving my ISP, the local telephone
company (which provides the actual wires) or the other companies
involved in the provisioning.
- Bob Gezelter, http://www.rlgsc.com
Mark Daniel
I certainly understand we live in a fragile world Bob.
That is one of the reasons I often see being put forward in advocating
VMS and it's always just a little counter-productive to see the building
manufacturing the COGEN plants all in darkness.
(Particularly when I can still find out all about ink cartridges - and
HP-UX for that matter.)
Cheers.
Bob Gezelter
I have heard back (and verified) that the site is once again reachable.
Apparently, the problem was a network infrastructure involving a
switch. The OpenVMS server was sitting there, unreachable.
Dave Froble
Switches must be rather fragile. At least some of them. Every time
there is a near-by lightening strike I end up replacing several
switches. There have been incidences when I'm rather sure that there
was no physical contact. I'm starting to wonder whether an EMP is
enough to take out some switches.
Mark Daniel
> Mark Daniel wrote:
>
>> For an environment touting it's availability it's always a bit
>> disconcerting/disappointing/discouraging when the primary portal
>> doesn't respond. Second time in almost as many weeks I've gone to
>> check What's New and received no response.
>>
>> KLAATU$ ping h71000.www7.hp.com
>> PING openvms.compaq.com (161.114.65.60): 56 data bytes
>> ----openvms.compaq.com PING Statistics----
>> 4 packets transmitted, 0 packets received, 100% packet loss
>> %SYSTEM-F-TIMEOUT, device timeout
>>
>> Not just my particular system or part of the Net either. I've tried
>> it from four hosts across three continents.
>
>
> While not addressing the no response issue, perhaps the server does not
> have ping enabled? I've run into more than a few mail and DNS servers
> that are configured to not support ping.
You were correct Dave.
Even though my Web page is now populated it still won't ping.
Thomas Wirt
> Bob Gezelter wrote:
>
>> To all,
>>
>> I have heard back (and verified) that the site is once again reachable.
>>
>> Apparently, the problem was a network infrastructure involving a
>> switch. The OpenVMS server was sitting there, unreachable.
>>
>> - Bob Gezelter, http://www.rlgsc.com
>>
>
> Switches must be rather fragile. At least some of them. Every time
> there is a near-by lightening strike I end up replacing several
> switches. There have been incidences when I'm rather sure that there
> was no physical contact. I'm starting to wonder whether an EMP is
> enough to take out some switches.
>
I have replaced many switches that went bad NEAR lightning strikes. I
have been chalking these up to EMP/induced current for a long time. I
figure that when you get a nearly vertical lightning strike near (within
a couple hundred feet) a large horizontal copper antenna (like a 250ft
CAT5 run), it should be pretty easy to get some combination of EMP and
induced current.
We have started taking a fool me twice shame on me attitude. When we
have a switch port (or usually a group) go out in a storm, we add CAT5
lightning arrestors at each end of the CAT5 cable. It is usually easy
to guess which line is the cause. Just look for the long copper run
that has a damaged device at BOTH ends.
I may not know what I am talking about, but since we started protecting
and eliminating our longest copper runs, we have had way fewer switch
problems.
--
Thomas Wirt
Operations Manager, IS Dept.
Kittle's Home Furnishings
Indianapolis, IN
Bob Koehler
> For an environment touting it's availability it's always a bit
> disconcerting/disappointing/discouraging when the primary portal doesn't
> respond. Second time in almost as many weeks I've gone to check What's
> New and received no response.
While I'm not at all sure that HP still runs that site under VMS,
I'm quite sure that if you ping any of my VMS systems you will
get the same result. Keeping my systrems up and available does
not require that I support your ping requests.
Mark Daniel
Just leading with my chin again.
Thomas Wirt
> Dave Froble wrote:
>
>> Bob Gezelter wrote:
>>
>>> To all,
>>>
>>> I have heard back (and verified) that the site is once again reachable.
>>>
>>> Apparently, the problem was a network infrastructure involving a
>>> switch. The OpenVMS server was sitting there, unreachable.
>>>
>>> - Bob Gezelter, http://www.rlgsc.com
>>>
>>
>> Switches must be rather fragile. At least some of them. Every time
>> there is a near-by lightening strike I end up replacing several
>> switches. There have been incidences when I'm rather sure that there
>> was no physical contact. I'm starting to wonder whether an EMP is
>> enough to take out some switches.
>>
> I have replaced many switches that went bad NEAR lightning strikes. I
> have been chalking these up to EMP/induced current for a long time. I
> figure that when you get a nearly vertical lightning strike near (within
> a couple hundred feet) a large horizontal copper antenna (like a 250ft
> CAT5 run), it should be pretty easy to get some combination of EMP and
> induced current.
>
> We have started taking a fool me twice shame on me attitude. When we
> have a switch port (or usually a group) go out in a storm, we add CAT5
> lightning arrestors at each end of the CAT5 cable. It is usually easy
> to guess which line is the cause. Just look for the long copper run
> that has a damaged device at BOTH ends.
>
Some people have asked me about the CAT5 lightning arrestors that I use.
The model I use is the APC PROTECTNET WITH GIGABIT PROTECTION Surge
Protection and Filtering, which can be found at:
http://www.apc.com/resource/include/techspec_index.cfm?base_sku=PNET1GB
These are grounded fuses, so when they are hit by a large surge the
connection is broken and they must be replaced (or removed from the
circuit). I paid about $50 each for them, so they are not as cheap as
cheap D-link (and other low end brand) switches. I have seen them for
under $20 on the Internet recently.
The thing is that one surge on a CAT5 device usually ruins a device at
each end of the cable and may pass through a switch (especially a cheap
one) and ruin the next device down wire. Because of the cost I only use
them where I have already seen a problem. Remember you need one at each
end of the cable.
After a storm has passed and I have had one blow it's fuse, I usually
just have someone one site remove it from the circuit until I can send
them a replacement. This causes fewer trip to remote sites for me and
they get going more quickly.
Hope that helps a few people.
Dave Froble
Like you, I use ping to determine connectivity. I totally understand
why it's disabled, but it sure is a pain in the ass.
Hoff Hoffman
> While I'm not at all sure that HP still runs that site under VMS,
The OpenVMS external web site runs on OpenVMS Alpha.
I haven't checked recently to see if it's a single node or a cluster,
just to determine if it was up and running.
warren sander
1) ping et al will not work for any hp.com type node cause the firewall's
block all that stuff. And you can only
traceroute to the firewall.
2) the server is a DS20E 833 dual processor, 2GB memory running OpenVMS 7.3
and Apache 1.3.
It's running 7.3 because of access issues with updating the OS on 3 systems
at the same time (my development, mirror and deployment systems). If I
upgrade I need to update a systems in 3 seperate facilities to the same OS
version before I mirror any content out on the off chance that a script etc
stops working (And a couple of my scripts think they know stuff about the
inside of VMS that they really shouldn't but were written before some of the
current interfaces were created and since they work they haven't been
re-written). I've been waiting for approval of Integrity systems to replace
the AlphaServer's so I can start anew but that's taking more time than I
have wanted (3 years so far).
3) The problem is the switch that the externals server is connected to. It
went out last month on a weekend also and didn't sound the alarm. They just
rebooted it last time as it was the first time. This time some more looking
around and scratching of heads leads them to not knowing why it didn't cause
an alarm which would have gotten attention and the off-air would have only
been about 20 minutes on a saturday morning. They are going to replace the
switch tomorrow AM (probably just move the cables someplace else) and figure
out off-line the alarm issue.
4) I think I have one of only a couple of OpenVMS systems connected to HP's
external network (the testdrive systems are the only other ones I know
about).
5) the original OpenVMS server was based on OSU in 1995 and was an illegal
cluster configuration of 2 AS200 4/233 (mustang) systems SCSI clustered to a
BA232 pizza box. One of the mustangs was donated to the Digital Internet
group as the original digital.com search engine running altavista software.
Not the altavista main server but just an search of the digital.com sites
(like search.hp.com is today). Anyway we broke up the cluster cause we never
failed over in 2+ years decided that one system was ok and a site search was
a better use of the resource. Then we got AS1000's to replace the mustang
and sometime in there we switched over to purveyor as the web server. When
they got CSWS done I was asked to switch over to apache which I did.
About 4 years ago the Tru64 UNIX AS1000 started having some memory issues.
And there were a number of DS20's scheduled to be crushed. Working with the
folks that host the servers we managed to save a couple of the DS20's and
use them for the Tru64 UNIX and OpenVMS servers. Which is where we are
today.
6) JF the only logical conclusion that you can make is reliance on
technology to alert you to problems and not providing a method to 'ring the
alert yourself' is an issue that HP and many other companies are finding
themselves having with reduced staffing levels and higher needs for service
levels. This has been taken care of at this point.
7) the server has been up for 13 days (I had to restart it to add another
server to the system (Yes I run more that just he OpenVMS server on this
hardware). The Alpha has been up for 132 days I don't remember why it was
rebooted. It was either patches or a power shutdown in the facility or a
power failure. Before that it was up over a year.
8) back in 1995 we put together some pages that would let you execute a
couple of show commands:
http://h71000.www7.hp.com/cgi-bin/show-sys.exe/0 does a show cpu/full
http://h71000.www7.hp.com/cgi-bin/show-sys.exe/1 does a show system
http://h71000.www7.hp.com/cgi-bin/show-sys.exe/2 does a show memory
http://h71000.www7.hp.com/cgi-bin/show-sys.exe/3 does a show cluster
or go to http://h71000.www7.hp.com/misc/about-server.html
"Hoff Hoffman" <hoff-rem...@hp.com> wrote in message
news:51Sug.624$Ir3...@news.cpqcorp.net...
Mark Daniel
> Trying to handle everything
>
> 1) ping et al will not work for any hp.com type node cause the firewall's
> block all that stuff. And you can only
> traceroute to the firewall.
That's pretty usual. I should change my nightcap for a thinking cap at
that hour.
8< snip 8<
> 3) The problem is the switch that the externals server is connected to. It
> went out last month on a weekend also and didn't sound the alarm. They just
That would explain my referred-to previous outage. I tend to do this
sort of browsing over weekends. I was a bit miffed because I had gone
to check What's New what seemed like two weekends in a row - I know it
wasn't quite that short a period - and had not been able to. I almost
commented the first time. Couldn't help myself the second.
8< snip 8<
> 5) the original OpenVMS server was based on OSU in 1995 and was an illegal
> cluster configuration of 2 AS200 4/233 (mustang) systems SCSI clustered to a
8< snip 8<
Thankyou for the potted history and other tidbits Warren.
Regards, Mark Daniel.
w_tom
all switches already contain effective protection. Second, protection
may be overwhelmed if a transient finds a path to earth via that
switch. Nothing - not a protector, not a fuse, not a magic box - will
stop block or absorb the destructive surge. And yet we routinely
suffer direct lightning strikes without damage - see the telco example
provided later.
Solution is also found in a principle pioneered by Ben Franklin in
1752. Don't even try to stop or absorb a surge. Shunt (divert) it.
That is what a shunt mode protector does. Lightning seeks earth
ground. If you don't earth a transient where it enters the building,
then transient will find destructive paths via electronics.
Destructive surges are electricity. Electricity means both an
incoming and outgoing path must exist. If a surge enters on a switch
and has no outgoing path, then no electricity flow; switch is not
harmed. However all switches have numerous incoming and outgoing
paths. Incoming on AC electric (the most common incoming path) and
outgoing via signal lines - especially those line connected to telco
wires.
Telco lines already have an effective 'whole house' type protector
connected short to earth where their wires meet yours. Therefore phone
lines are typically not an incoming path. But that telco 'provided for
free' 'whole house' protector makes a good outgoing path. Incoming on
AC electric; outgoing on phone line. Just one example of how
electronics are routinely damaged. Parts that often fail are on DAA
(telephone wire) side of that path.
Solution is not found in adjacent protectors. Solution is to earth
every incoming utility wire to a common (single point) earthing
electrode AND make that earthing connection as short as possible (ie
'less than 10 feet'). That means all utilities must enter at a common
location - to be earthed short to the same earthing electrode.
Distance is critical which is why wall receptacles are not sufficient
as earthing.
'Whole house' protectors for AC electric are sold in Home Depot,
Lowes, and electrical supply houses. These effective solutions are not
sold in Radio Shack, OfficeMax, Kmart, Sears, Staples, Circuit City or
other sources of ineffective protectors. Effective solutions have
responsible names such as Siemens, Square D, Cutler-Hammer, Leviton,
Intermatic and GE. Effective protector has a wire for the dedicated
earth ground.
Even some RJ-45 ethernet protectors have that all so necessary
earthing wire. But again, a protector is only as effective as that
connection to and quality of earth ground. Earthing - not the
protector - determines whether appliance internal protection is
overwhelmed. You had damage from a nearby strike (which is really more
often a direct strike)? Then look at your protection system.
Where is the path to earth? Through a non-destructive path (as Ben
Franklin demonstrated) or via electronics? Most critical component of
every protection 'system' is the component that everything else centers
upon - a single point earth electrode.
Above defines secondary protection. Primary protection 'system' also
must be inspected:
http://www.tvtower.com/fpl.html
Why does damage occur? Because a transient was not earthed where
wire enters a building. Therefore the transient found a destructive
electric circuit - incoming and outgoing path - through electronics.
Your telco connects its $multi-million computer to overhead wires
everywhere in town. Do they shutdown for a thunderstorm? Of course
not. Is that computer damaged by thunderstorms? It must not fail.
What do they do? Same thing. A good earth ground AND all incoming
wires first connect to that earth ground via a 'whole house' type
protector and before entering the building. A technique well proven
for maybe 100 years. A technique so well proven that surge damage is
considered human failure. It is that routine to eliminate. Switches
failing? Start by inspecting the earth grounds for each - the primary
and secondary protection 'systems'.
One poster in the 15xxx zip code may live where geology tends to make
transient damage from every ground strike most destructive. Damage is
often defined by geology. Some therefore must make the single point
building ground so large as to enclose the building inside either a
halo or Ufer ground. Again, protection is defined first and foremost
by the quality of earthing. Damage being a human failure. No earth
ground means no effective protection. No way around technology that
was standard even before WWII.
Thomas Wirt wrote:
> Dave Froble wrote:
Paul Sture
> In article <1153124005....@35g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, "Ian Miller" <i...@uk2.net> writes:
>> itrc runs on hp-ux
>
> We're not talking about itrc. We're talking about openvms.compaq.com
> (and yes, you're right, itrc runs on PH-UX)
>
> http://toolbar.netcraft.com/site_report?url=http://openvms.compaq.com
> http://toolbar.netcraft.com/site_report?url=http://www.openvms.compaq.com
>
I see from the options at the top of those pages that Netcraft have a
way to report phishing sites.
JF Mezei
> Like you, I use ping to determine connectivity. I totally understand
> why it's disabled, but it sure is a pain in the ass.
If HP's network were not "blocked", we would have been able to see that
traffic stopped before the VMS node and perhaps send an email to some
netowrk administrator that should be there 7/24. As it stands, we all
tended to blame the VMS node itself.
What it does show however is that no matter how disaster tolerant VMS
might be, if it is connected to the net by a single switch, then it
becomes quite vulnerable to downtime.
Dave Froble
> One poster in the 15xxx zip code may live where geology tends to make
> transient damage from every ground strike most destructive. Damage is
> often defined by geology. Some therefore must make the single point
> building ground so large as to enclose the building inside either a
> halo or Ufer ground. Again, protection is defined first and foremost
> by the quality of earthing. Damage being a human failure. No earth
> ground means no effective protection. No way around technology that
> was standard even before WWII.
I seem to remember your apathy for the battery backup and surge
protection units. :-)
Still, one does what one can. I have the units supplying power to most
electronics. I use the RJ45 ports in the units for network lines.
The problem is that I'm connecting 4 buildings via underground conduit.
Not very far underground. I think one is about 6 inches deep, another
maybe 12 inches.
Electrical entrances are all properly grounded. The phone lines have
the protection you mentioned. Unless there is a direct contact, I
should be protected. I'm thinking that the several hundred feet in each
conduit just might be picking up an EMP. I never would have thought
this would happen, but I can not find anywhere in the system that isn't
protected.
One note, this last time the telco device must have taken a hit, I
needed to call for repair. I've noted your thought that the transient
may have hit this from inside, not from outside.
w_tom
example. Lightning strikes the other building. Lightning seeks earth
that is some four miles distant from that building. Your building is
in that path. What is the shortest path, electrically, from that
building to earthborne charges four miles away? Via that buried cable
and through electronics inside your building, then to earth, and onward
for four miles. Your electronics are now in a destructive path that
included buried cable.
EMP is so trivial that even an NE-2 neon glow lamp (a bulb rated in
milliamps) will make such transients irrelevant. If a transient
overwhelmed protection already inside appliances, this it was not EMP.
It was a direct strike.
Every incoming wire in every cable that enters a building must
connect to a common earthing electrode, either by direct (hardwire
connection) or via a protector. In most buildings, only one AC
electric wire is grounded. Other AC electric wires are ungrounded (due
to no 'whole house' protector) and therefore connect nearby lightning
directly into electronics. With only one AC electric wire grounded
means AC electric is not sufficiently earthed. Most all buildings do
not have sufficent earthing ('whole house' protectors) on AC electric.
No 'whole house' protector on AC electric means AC electric wires are
not properly earthed.
This figure from an industry professional demonstrates two structures
with single point ground. Even a buried wire must connect to that
earthing before entering a building.
http://www.erico.com/public/library/fep/technotes/tncr002.pdf
Electronics already contain internal protection. Protection that can
be overwhelmed if a destructive surge is not earthed before entering
the building. My apathy for adjacent protectors is because anything at
the electronics that will protect those electronics is already inside
electronics. Experience has demonstrated how adjacent (and not
earthed) protectors even contributed to damage of adjacent (and powered
off) electronics.
Many reasons why telco lines are not 'most often' struck by
lightning. One is that AC electric lines are above telephone lines and
therefore protect those phone lines. A most common source of damage to
telephone appliances are transients that enter on AC electric. There
are exceptions. But this typical example also demonstrates how to
identify those exceptions. Bottom line - the analysis must answer how
lightning traveled to get to earth. The solution must change that path
so that the transient finds earth without entering the building.
Earthing is THE most critical protection component in a building wide
solution.
Main, Kerry
> -----Original Message-----
> From: JF Mezei [mailto:jfmezei...@teksavvy.com]
> Sent: July 17, 2006 9:46 PM
> To: Info...@Mvb.Saic.Com
> Subject: Re: http://h71000.www7.hp.com/?
>
> Dave Froble wrote:
> > Like you, I use ping to determine connectivity. I totally
> understand
> > why it's disabled, but it sure is a pain in the ass.
>
> If HP's network were not "blocked", we would have been able
> to see that
> traffic stopped before the VMS node and perhaps send an email to some
> netowrk administrator that should be there 7/24. As it stands, we all
> tended to blame the VMS node itself.
>
That is the job of those being paid to manage stuff like this. Some
monitoring processes in place did not work as expected and from what I
have heard, steps are being taken to address this.
If HP or any other business had to rely on a Cust notifying them of an
IT failure, then that would be a very poor IT infrastructure.
> What it does show however is that no matter how disaster tolerant VMS
> might be, if it is connected to the net by a single switch, then it
> becomes quite vulnerable to downtime.
>
Mmm .. Kind of why we stress DT solutions - not just DT systems.
Same applies for single server or single site as well.
Regards
Kerry Main
Senior Consultant
HP Services Canada
Voice: 613-592-4660
Fax: 613-591-4477
kerryDOTmainAThpDOTcom
(remove the DOT's and AT)
OpenVMS - the secure, multi-site OS that just works.
etms...@yahoo.co.uk
weenie between here and the other side of the world exploring their
network and figuring out every little hole that they could.
Companies like HP keep their servers hidden for a good reason. Just
like you and me, they don't like downtime.
Steve
Bob Koehler
> Bob Koehler wrote:
>
>> While I'm not at all sure that HP still runs that site under VMS,
>
> The OpenVMS external web site runs on OpenVMS Alpha.
That's good to know.
JF Mezei
> EMP is so trivial that even an NE-2 neon glow lamp (a bulb rated in
> milliamps) will make such transients irrelevant. If a transient
> overwhelmed protection already inside appliances, this it was not EMP.
> It was a direct strike.
This is not as simple. In the 1980s, much of quebec was thrown into
darkness because of aurora borealis a few thousand km north of montreal.
Those induced currents into the power lines from james bay and
protective circuits automatically shut then down and Hydro Québec's
software was ill conceived to automatically start load shedding and as a
result crashed everything. (our software was fixed since then, but in
ontario and north east USA they obviously had not fixed that load
shedding software a couple years ago during a hot summer's day).
The aurora borealis did not induce destructive currents, but the systems
detected an anomaly in currents and shut the line down.
Now, imagine the line between the home and the barn. Imagine that with
time, the ground at the barn becomes corroded and contact is no longer
really good and your switch there is no longer properly grounded and
some fuse blows to protect the circuits.
> directly into electronics. With only one AC electric wire grounded
> means AC electric is not sufficiently earthed.
Well, if you ground all three of the 2 phase wires that come into north
american homes, the electric utility will either love you because you
your huge electric consumption/bills, or will hate you because you're
shorting their grid :-)
JF Mezei
> That is the job of those being paid to manage stuff like this. Some
> monitoring processes in place did not work as expected and from what I
> have heard, steps are being taken to address this.
>
> If HP or any other business had to rely on a Cust notifying them of an
> IT failure, then that would be a very poor IT infrastructure.
RELY ? No. But there should be an easy way to notify a business of a
problem being seen by customers and not necessarily detected in-house.
In the end, having the lwoer downtime is more important than some
artificial pride of being able to detect problem on your own.
I have seen many examples where those "alarm systems" did not detect or
alert the people of a failure.
> Mmm .. Kind of why we stress DT solutions - not just DT systems.
And very bad publicity for this type of service when your own DT people
coudn't detect the failure of a crucial node (switch) that fed a whole
web site.
Dave Froble
It's my understanding, (note, I'm not an expert), that lightening
doesn't travel inside a wire, it rides on the outside.
If I'm correct, then a simple grounded collar on the wire should strip
the lightening off the wire, if the collar provides a better path to ground.
You don't physically ground all wires.
Dave, just a victim, not an expert.
Bud--
>
> Electronics already contain internal protection. Protection that can
> be overwhelmed if a destructive surge is not earthed before entering
> the building. My apathy for adjacent protectors is because anything at
> the electronics that will protect those electronics is already inside
> electronics. Experience has demonstrated how adjacent (and not
> earthed) protectors even contributed to damage of adjacent (and powered
> off) electronics.
>
I expect that is antipathy, not apathy.
The IEEE and the NIST both say plug-in point-of-use surge protectors are
effective.
The best paper I have seen on surge protection is at
http://www.mikeholt.com/files/PDF/LightningGuide_FINALpublishedversion_May051.pdf
- this a paper w_tom originally provided a link to
- the title is "How to protect your house and its contents from
lightning: IEEE guide for surge protection of equipment connected to AC
power and communication circuits"
- it was published by the IEEE in 2005
A second reference is
http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/practiceguides/surgesfnl.pdf
- this is the "NIST recommended practice guide: Surges Happen!: how to
protect the appliances in your home"
- it is published by the National Institute of Standards and Technology,
the US government agency formerly called the National Bureau of Standards
- it was published in 2001
Both guides were intended for wide distribution to the general public to
explain surges and how to protect against them. The IEEE guide was
targeted at people who have some (not much) technical background. Read
one (or both) to understand surges and protection.
Both say plug-in surge suppressors are effective.
Note that if a device, like a computer, has connections other than
power, like LAN, it has to be connected through the surge suppressor
also. This type of suppressor is called a surge reference equalizer
(SRE) by the IEEE (also described by the NIST). The idea is that all
wires connected to the device (power, phone, CATV, LAN, ...) are clamped
to the common ground at the SRE. The voltage on all wires passing
through the SRE to the protected device are held to a voltage safe to
the device.
>
> Dave Froble wrote:
>
>>I seem to remember your apathy for the battery backup and surge
>>protection units. :-)
>>
>>Still, one does what one can. I have the units supplying power to most
>>electronics. I use the RJ45 ports in the units for network lines.
>>
>>The problem is that I'm connecting 4 buildings via underground conduit.
>> Not very far underground. I think one is about 6 inches deep, another
>>maybe 12 inches.
>>
>>Electrical entrances are all properly grounded. The phone lines have
>>the protection you mentioned. Unless there is a direct contact, I
>>should be protected. I'm thinking that the several hundred feet in each
>>conduit just might be picking up an EMP. I never would have thought
>>this would happen, but I can not find anywhere in the system that isn't
>>protected.
>>
In addition to direct pickup in the network wires, the grounds at
different buildings can be at significantly different potentials. This
can be caused by earth current resulting from a lightning strike, or
other cause. That ground potential difference would appear at a computer
between the power and LAN connection. Incoming LAN wires should have a
protector block with short ground conductor run to electric service
grounding electrode conductor, like phone wires. And/or SRE at computer.
Using fiber optic would be another fix, or wireless.
bud--
Main, Kerry
> -----Original Message-----
> From: JF Mezei [mailto:jfmezei...@teksavvy.com]
> Sent: July 18, 2006 3:18 PM
> To: Info...@Mvb.Saic.Com
> Subject: Re: http://h71000.www7.hp.com/?
>
> "Main, Kerry" wrote:
> > That is the job of those being paid to manage stuff like this. Some
> > monitoring processes in place did not work as expected and
> from what I
> > have heard, steps are being taken to address this.
> >
> > If HP or any other business had to rely on a Cust notifying
> them of an
> > IT failure, then that would be a very poor IT infrastructure.
>
> RELY ? No. But there should be an easy way to notify a business of a
> problem being seen by customers and not necessarily detected in-house.
> In the end, having the lwoer downtime is more important than some
> artificial pride of being able to detect problem on your own.
>
> I have seen many examples where those "alarm systems" did not
> detect or
> alert the people of a failure.
>
Well, there is also the contact Webmaster link on the main HP web site
under contacts.
>
> > Mmm .. Kind of why we stress DT solutions - not just DT systems.
>
> And very bad publicity for this type of service when your own
> DT people
> coudn't detect the failure of a crucial node (switch) that fed a whole
> web site.
>
No excuses, but as I mentioned, there were management processes and
tools in place that failed to work as expected. As I understand it, this
is being addressed.
John Santos
Skin effect? That's still on the conductor, just at the surface
of the wire and not in its core.
>
> If I'm correct, then a simple grounded collar on the wire should strip
> the lightening off the wire, if the collar provides a better path to
> ground.
>
Doesn't the (presumably) grounded service panel locate right at
the entrance to the house do this? (I'm 99.99% sure code requires
the service panel be grounded.) All the wires run through knockouts
in the metal wall of the panel, which creates a grounded collar.
> You don't physically ground all wires.
>
Or does each individual leg require a separate collar? Even
so, if it is that easy, you would think it would be required
anywhere there's been a lightning storm in the last 100 years.
(I.E. the entire planet except maybe parts of Anarctica!)
If you actually need to ground each conductor, the way to do
it would be through a low-pass filter with the cutoff well
below 60Hz connect to the ground, or a high-pass filter with
the cutoff just below 60Hz in series with the AC circuit, or
both. Lightning is basically DC, so I think it would
induce a large DC pulse. Electric power is AC, and would
see the low-pass filter as high-resistance. (High enough
impedance at 60 Hz and no appreciable power would be lost.)
AC would pass right through the high-pass filter but DC
would see it as an open circuit.
Whole house surge protectors seem to cost enough ($150-$200
at Home Depot) that they probably consist of filters and not
just a grounded collar.
It's been 31 years since I studied electronics, so IANAEE!
> Dave, just a victim, not an expert.
>
--
John Santos
Evans Griffiths & Hart, Inc.
781-861-0670 ext 539
Beach Runner
Mark Daniel wrote:
> For an environment touting it's availability it's always a bit
> disconcerting/disappointing/discouraging when the primary portal doesn't
> respond. Second time in almost as many weeks I've gone to check What's
> New and received no response.
>
> KLAATU$ ping h71000.www7.hp.com
> PING openvms.compaq.com (161.114.65.60): 56 data bytes
> ----openvms.compaq.com PING Statistics----
> 4 packets transmitted, 0 packets received, 100% packet loss
> %SYSTEM-F-TIMEOUT, device timeout
>
Couldn't ping it, but I could open it no problem.
w_tom
> This is not as simple. In the 1980s, much of quebec was thrown into
> darkness because of aurora borealis a few thousand km north of montreal.
> Those induced currents into the power lines from james bay and
> protective circuits automatically shut then down and Hydro Québec's
> software was ill conceived to automatically start load shedding and as a
> result crashed everything. (our software was fixed since then, but in
> ontario and north east USA they obviously had not fixed that load
You are literally mixing apples and oranges. Two completely different
effects are discusses as if they were same. They have different
frequency domains. One is on feet of wire; other on hundred miles of
wire. Using your reasoning, I can also suggest that static electric
discharge can also upset the grid - the classic butterfly in Argentian
creating a tornado in Oklahoma. What happened in Quebec on a grid is
irrelevant to lightning inside a building.
Protection already inside electronics makes that nearby strike
irrelevant. Thousands of volts induced on an isolated wire becomes
only trivial volts when those few milliamps are conducted by an NE-2
glow lamp. We install properly earthed protection to make direct
strike irrelevant. That means the induced transient is even moreso
irrelevant.
Meanwhile worry more about a different type of induced transient. If
the wire earthing a direct lightning strike is bundled with other wires
(inches apart), then those other wires have a transient induced on
them. Did you confuse that induced transient with fields that also
might create an aurora borealis?
Worry first about how or if each wire entering a building is properly
earthed either by hardwire or via a 'whole house' protector. Ignore
other irrelevant rumors. Concentrate on what really does shunt
transients to earth without damage..
w_tom
> It's my understanding, (note, I'm not an expert), that lightening
> doesn't travel inside a wire, it rides on the outside.
>
> If I'm correct, then a simple grounded collar on the wire should strip
> the lightening off the wire, if the collar provides a better path to ground.
>
> You don't physically ground all wires.
To enhance a protection system, industry professionals
(www.polyphaser.com) sell bulkheads for wires to pass through; further
increase wire impedance; further encourage a transient to find earth
before entering a building. But still, that transient must be provided
a better path to earth. Otherwise that bulkhead would accomplish
little.
Yes, you physically ground every wire either with a direct connection
(hardwire), or via a protector. Appreciate what an effective protector
does:
http://www.telebyteusa.com/primer/ch6.htm
> Conceptually, lightning protection devices are switches to
> ground. Once a threatening surge is detected, a lightning
> protection device grounds the incoming signal connection
> point of the equipment being protected. Thus, redirecting
> the threatening surge on a path-of-least resistance
> (impedance) to ground where it is absorbed.
> Any lightning protection device must be composed of two
> "subsystems," a switch which is essentially some type of
> switching circuitry and a good ground connection-to allow
> dissipation of the surge energy.
Coax cable is literally connected direct to earth ground - needs no
protector. Telephone line cannot make a hardwire connection.
Therefore the telco installs a 'whole house' protector (for free) to
ground each wire of their cable to your earthing electrode. Earthing
as defined by telebyteusa.com. Earthing as in the most critical
component in every protection system as defined by an industry
benchmark, repeatedly, in application notes:
http://www.polyphaser.com/ppc_ptd_home.aspx
Those representing ineffective protectors (made obvious by no
dedicated earthing connection) hope you never learn what a responsible
protector manufacturers connects to - single point earth ground. Every
wire entering the building must either dump that transient into earth
before the wire enters a building - or that transient will find
destructive paths via interior electronics.
Electricity travels outside the wire and in the skin of the wire.
Irrelevant to what you need know. Protection means earthing a
transient long before that transient can overwhelm internal electronics
protection. A non-destructive transient is made so by a wired
connection to earth. Literally, transient electricity is dumped into
earth at the service entrance or finds earth via your electronics. A
principle demonstrated byBen Franklin in 1752.
JF Mezei
> You are literally mixing apples and oranges. Two completely different
> effects are discusses as if they were same.
The point I was making is that some protection scheme can be thrown off
by unforeseen events. And some may not actually protect from an event
that happens under just slightly different circumstances.
Bud--
> Dave Froble wrote:
>
>> JF Mezei wrote:
>>
>>> w_tom wrote:
>>>
>>>> EMP is so trivial that even an NE-2 neon glow lamp (a bulb rated in
>>>> milliamps) will make such transients irrelevant. If a transient
>>>> overwhelmed protection already inside appliances, this it was not EMP.
>>>> It was a direct strike.
>>>
Can also induce surge on non-protected ports like speaker lines causing
equipment failure.
>>
>> It's my understanding, (note, I'm not an expert), that lightening
>> doesn't travel inside a wire, it rides on the outside.
>
Can also be carried on the center conductor of coax.
>
> Skin effect? That's still on the conductor, just at the surface
> of the wire and not in its core.
>
>>
>> If I'm correct, then a simple grounded collar on the wire should strip
>> the lightening off the wire, if the collar provides a better path to
>> ground.
>>
A 'collar' would not likely increase the wire inductance significantly
and the increased inductance wouldn't block a lightning induced surge. A
collar wouldn't provide a path to ground unless there was a conductor to
grounded collar arc.
>
> Doesn't the (presumably) grounded service panel locate right at
> the entrance to the house do this? (I'm 99.99% sure code requires
> the service panel be grounded.) All the wires run through knockouts
> in the metal wall of the panel, which creates a grounded collar.
>
>> You don't physically ground all wires.
>>
>
> Or does each individual leg require a separate collar? Even
> so, if it is that easy, you would think it would be required
> anywhere there's been a lightning storm in the last 100 years.
> (I.E. the entire planet except maybe parts of Anarctica!)
>
>
>
> If you actually need to ground each conductor, the way to do
> it would be through a low-pass filter with the cutoff well
> below 60Hz connect to the ground, or a high-pass filter with
> the cutoff just below 60Hz in series with the AC circuit, or
> both. Lightning is basically DC, so I think it would
> induce a large DC pulse. Electric power is AC, and would
> see the low-pass filter as high-resistance. (High enough
> impedance at 60 Hz and no appreciable power would be lost.)
> AC would pass right through the high-pass filter but DC
> would see it as an open circuit.
>
> Whole house surge protectors seem to cost enough ($150-$200
> at Home Depot) that they probably consist of filters and not
> just a grounded collar.
>
Surge protectors generally use MOVs - metal oxide varistors. A MOV is
essentially an open circuit until the voltage goes past a knee in the
characteristic curve, then the current rises very rapidly with
increasing voltage. They clamp the voltage across the MOV. They are like
a bidirectional Zenier diode.
In a service panel surge protector MOVs are connected L1-L2, L1-N, L2-N.
The neutral is earthed. When a surge hits, the voltage to neutral-earth
is clamped which causes a very large current to earth (maybe 100,000
amps). Ground potential to 'absolute earth potential' can rise thousands
of volts, but phone, CATV and other signal wires are clamped to the
grounded neutral through phone NID and CATV entrance block and all the
wires ride up with the power conductors.
Plug-in surge suppressors clamp the voltage H-N, H-G, N-G (and signal
wires should go through the protector and be clamped to surge protector
ground). The voltage between wires is clamped to a value that is safe
for connected equipment.
High current and a clamp voltage mean a MOV will absorb and dissipate
energy. If the energy is over the MOV rating the device will fail. They
also progressively degrade when hit with large surges.
Lightning produced surges are short pulses, maybe 10 microseconds rise
time and 100 microseconds decay. They have major high frequency
components. A low pass filter can provide minor attenuation but MOVs
provide the real protection.
bud--
Bill Gunshannon
Bud-- <remove....@isp.com> writes:
>
> Can also induce surge on non-protected ports like speaker lines causing
> equipment failure.
>
As long as we're speaking of induced currents, I have an anecdote I just
have to share.
Being a ham operator myself, I was helping another ham (Jim Shea, KB5FB,
RIP) pack up his gear over in Germany as he prepared for his return home.
We had everything disconnected and most of the gear packed but his dipole
was still up and the unterminated coax lay on the floor. Electrical
storms were predicted. All of a sudden, the entire room became charged
with static electricity. If you reached for anything there was an
uncomfortable feeling accompanied by a 6-10 inch spark. A minute or two
later we saw the flash of lightening outside and heard the boom of thunder.
We quickly threw the coax out the window and waited for the storm to pass
before trying to take down the antenna. :-) It's amazing how much static
electricity you can collect with a 160 Meter Dipole 80-100 feet high.
bill
--
Bill Gunshannon | de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n. Three wolves
bi...@cs.scranton.edu | and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
University of Scranton |
Scranton, Pennsylvania | #include <std.disclaimer.h>
JF Mezei
Load your house with a billion volts. This will repel lightning that is
seeking ground :-)
And this has the nice side advantage of being a truly good theft
deterrant for the whole home :-)
w_tom
> ...
> A 'collar' would not likely increase the wire inductance significantly
> and the increased inductance wouldn't block a lightning induced surge. A
> collar wouldn't provide a path to ground unless there was a conductor to
> grounded collar arc.
One who routinely follows me around to represent plug-in protector
manufacturers even denies what is routinely done in some higher
reliability facilities that do not suffer damage. Routing each wire
through the bulkhead does increase wire impedance and therefore
enhances protection. It is one solution discussed in legendary
application notes from Polyphaser where even coax cable is routed
through the bulkhead to increase protection:
http://www.polyphaser.com/ppc_ptd_home.aspx
The bulkhead solution was also installed to eliminate surge damage
from Orange County emergency response centers in FL:
http://www.psihq.com/AllCopper.htm
A bulkhead (collar) can increase wire impedance. But where that
impedance is increased or minimized is important.
What did professionals do to eliminate damage? Did they install
plug-in protectors as Bud claims? Of course not. They corrected
earthing AND they installed other solutions so that lightning would
find earth on non-destructive paths; not inside the building. Of
course, plug-in protectors don't do this well proven technique. So
plug-in protector manufacturers do not even claim to provide effective
protection in their own numerical specifications. Instead, Bud
promotes those ineffective and so much more expensive solutions.
The bulkhead is effective because so much transient energy is outside
the wire. But this bulkhead (collar), alone, is not sufficient
protection. It is an enhancement after THE most essential protection
device is installed. Lightning will find paths to earth via electronics
if not provided a many times shorter earthing path. After THE most
critical component in a protection 'system' is installed, only then
should other enhancements such as the bulkhead be considered.
Making a path to earth as low impedance as possible is why the
earthing wire must be 'less than 10 feet'. Other considerations that
enhance earthing beyond post 1990 National Electrical Code (NEC)
requirements include no sharp bends, no splices, all wires routed
separated from non-earthing wires (so as to not create induced
transients), AND routed not through metallic conduits. Remember, that
collar, conduit, or bulkhead causes a wire impedance increase. Whereas
increased wire impedance is desirable after the earth ground, that same
wire impedance is very undesirable in connection TO earth ground.
Making earthing connection low impedance is also what that Orange
County solution accomplished. Earthing is the most essential part of a
protection 'system'. Plug-in protectors represented by Bud just
totally forget the whole concept. They don't provide the dedicated
earthing wire so necessary to make those MOVs effective. So Bud
completely ignores such earthing to promote the more profitable and
ineffective solution.
Meanwhile, where is transient's energy absorbed? In MOV as Bud would
have you believe? Of course not. Numbers of joules in plug-in
protectors are woefully too small to absorb that energy. Surge energy
is dissipated in earth. Again, earthing is the most essential
component in a protection system which is why responsible protectors
manufacturers provide a dedicated earthing wire. We earth direct
strikes so that protection already inside appliances is not
overwhelmed. Ineffective protectors have no such earthing, and avoid
earthing discussions. No earth ground means no effective protection.
So those who represent plug-in protector manufacturers hope to ignore
the entire concept - as if those MOVs will somehow absorb what three
miles of sky could not stop.
Earthing is the most critical component in any protection system as
professionals will routinely note - as Ben Franklin demonstrated in
1752. As demonstrated in this figure from but another responsible
industry professional:
http://www.erico.com/public/library/fep/technotes/tncr002.pdf
Bud--
> Bud-- wrote:
>
>>...
>>A 'collar' would not likely increase the wire inductance significantly
>>and the increased inductance wouldn't block a lightning induced surge. A
>>collar wouldn't provide a path to ground unless there was a conductor to
>> grounded collar arc.
>
> One who routinely follows me around to represent plug-in protector
Tactic of a looser with no argument. I have no connection with surge
suppressors.
>
> The bulkhead solution was also installed to eliminate surge damage
> from Orange County emergency response centers in FL:
> http://www.psihq.com/AllCopper.htm
>
> A bulkhead (collar) can increase wire impedance. But where that
> impedance is increased or minimized is important.
>
May be useful if you have a 200' lighthing rod - aka antenna tower - and
want to attach a signal wire to it and connect it to sensitive
electronics. Irrelevant for the rest of us.
> What did professionals do to eliminate damage? Did they install
> plug-in protectors as Bud claims? Of course not.
The professionals at IEEE and NIST recognize plug-in surge suppressors
as effective.
> Instead, Bud
> promotes those ineffective and so much more expensive solutions.
I promote accurate information, as from the IEEE and NIST guides. They
recommend plug-in surge protectors, in addition to service surge
suppressors and single point grouunds.
>
> Meanwhile, where is transient's energy absorbed? In MOV as Bud would
> have you believe? Of course not. Numbers of joules in plug-in
> protectors are woefully too small to absorb that energy.
Plug-in protectors, as clearly described in the IEEE guide, work by
clamping all power (and signal wires in a SRE) to a common ground point
at the surge suppressor.
The IEEE and NIST recognize plug-in suurge suppressors as effective.
You have never provided a reputable link (or any link) that said plug-in
suppressors are not effective. I have seen no supporting posts. You are
alone on this.
bud--
w_tom
represent plug-in protectors. His paper describes how a plug-in
protector might work BUT also how a kid with an Xbox can totally
compromise that protection. Paper ends by declaring the 'whole house'
protectors as a superior solution:
> High-current surges ... are best diverted at the
> service entrance of the premises.
Bud says otherwise and hopes you ignore that conclusion.
Bud must ignore these pictures that demonstrate another problem with
plug-in protectors:
http://www.westwhitelandfire.com/Articles/Surge%20Protectors.pdf
http://www.hanford.gov/rl/?page=556&parent=554
http://www.zerosurge.com/HTML/movs.html
http://www.nmsu.edu/~safety/programs/gen_saf/surgeprotectorfire.htm
Yes, if you carefully rewire the room AND supervise how ever wire is
connected (no kid with Xbox), then an SRE solution would apply for one
appliance. Or we install a single 'whole house' protector, make the
kid with an Xbox irrelevant, and have superior protection for tens of
times less money. Instead we protect everything in the house by
installing products from more responsible manufacturers such as Square
D, Siemens, Leviton, Intermatic, Cutler-Hammer, and GE. Products are
sold in Lowes, Home Depot, and electrical supply houses. Instead we
use the solution that is well proven even long before WWII.
Shunt mode protectors need an essential connection to earth ground.
Somehow Bud's carefully installed SRE solution using shunt mode
protectors will be effective and yet have no dedicated earthing
connection. Only if you carefully reroute every wire in the room using
an engineering analysis and keep kids with an Xbox out. Bud ignores
that essential earthing to promote his products.
Bud's even denies the bulkhead increased wire impedance. Responsible
industry professionals use that bulkhead to supplement protection as
was demonstrated previously by manufacturers who also solve by
earthing. Bud did not even understand the purpose of that bulkhead.
It works because the bulkhead is part of a system that includes that
all so necessary earth ground. Representatives of plug-in
manufacturers believe earthing is not important - deny the purpose of
that bulkhead. Notice no dedicated earthing wires on plug-in
protectors. Somehow plug-in shunt mode protectors will be effective
and yet not earth destructive transients?
Bud-- wrote:
> Tactic of a looser with no argument. I have no connection with surge
> suppressors.
> ...
>
> May be useful if you have a 200' lighthing rod - aka antenna tower - and
> want to attach a signal wire to it and connect it to sensitive
> electronics. Irrelevant for the rest of us.
> ...
>
> The professionals at IEEE and NIST recognize plug-in surge suppressors
> as effective.
> ...
JF Mezei
1- no copper goes into the house. All fibre obtics.
2- house runs on solar panels and wind generators. No grid to feed spikes.
3- During a storm, house runs on batteries only, isolating itself from
solar panels and wing turbines that could be struck by lightning.
:-) ;-) :-) :-) :-) :-)
Dave Froble
Yeah, in Canada, you'll have enough batteries.
Maybe you can get some of those Dell notebook batteries. Poof! Whole
house up in flames.
How do you determine when to isolate house? I'm sure I could go around
unplugging everything when needed. If I'm home. If I knew to do so.
At 3:00 AM.
I could devise a lightning sensor. My luck, the lightning would take
out the sensor. Or the same bolt that sets off the sensor also takes
out the network.
David J. Dachtera
>
> Tactic of a looser with no argument.
How 'bout a tighter?
...or did you mean "loser"?
> I have no connection with surge
> suppressors.
Great use of double-meanings.
--
David J Dachtera
dba DJE Systems
http://www.djesys.com/
Unofficial OpenVMS Marketing Home Page
http://www.djesys.com/vms/market/
Unofficial Affordable OpenVMS Home Page:
http://www.djesys.com/vms/soho/
Unofficial OpenVMS-IA32 Home Page:
http://www.djesys.com/vms/ia32/
Unofficial OpenVMS Hobbyist Support Page:
http://www.djesys.com/vms/support/
Bud--
>
> Bud must ignore these pictures that demonstrate another problem with
> plug-in protectors:
> http://www.westwhitelandfire.com/Articles/Surge%20Protectors.pdf
> http://www.hanford.gov/rl/?page=556&parent=554
> http://www.zerosurge.com/HTML/movs.html
> http://www.nmsu.edu/~safety/programs/gen_saf/surgeprotectorfire.htm
>
As you well know (assuming you can read), UL1449 was revised to include
protection from overheating MOVs. If you have a plug-in surge protector
under UL1449 2nd ed this is irrelevant.
> Yes, if you carefully rewire the room AND supervise how ever wire is
> connected (no kid with Xbox), then an SRE solution would apply for one
> appliance.
It takes willful stupidity to a statement this dumb. The only examples
of protection in the IEEE guide use SREs, obviously with no room
rewiring or supervision.
>
> Shunt mode protectors need an essential connection to earth ground.
> Somehow Bud's carefully installed SRE solution using shunt mode
> protectors will be effective and yet have no dedicated earthing
> connection.
As is clearly decribed in the IEEE guide, SREs work by CLAMPING all
voltages at the SRE to the common ground at the SRE. Shunt mode
protection is a distant second. Just because you can't understand how
they work doesn't mean SREs aren't effective.
>
> Bud's even denies the bulkhead increased wire impedance. Responsible
> industry professionals use that bulkhead to supplement protection as
> was demonstrated previously by manufacturers who also solve by
> earthing.
Who cares whether impedance is significantly increased or not. Nobody
uses a bulkhead on their house (unless they have a 200' lightning
arrestor in their back yard).
For anyone who can read, the IEEE and NIST recognize plug-in suurge
suppressors as effective.
Still can't find a link that says plug-in suppressors are not effective?
bud--
Peter 'EPLAN' LANGSTOEGER
>For an environment touting it's availability it's always a bit
>disconcerting/disappointing/discouraging when the primary portal doesn't
>respond. Second time in almost as many weeks I've gone to check What's
>New and received no response.
And now for the next time (and again on weekend - where nobody of HP cares?)
$ ping openvms.compaq.com
PING openvms.compaq.com (161.114.65.60): 56 data bytes
----openvms.compaq.com PING Statistics----
25 packets transmitted, 0 packets received, 100% packet loss
I wonder if it is the HP network (which has a well known bad reputation)
again or if it VMS itself (which has a well known good reputation) this time.
--
Peter "EPLAN" LANGSTOEGER
Network and OpenVMS system specialist
E-mail pe...@langstoeger.at
A-1030 VIENNA AUSTRIA I'm not a pessimist, I'm a realist
Peter 'EPLAN' LANGSTOEGER
>In article <12bl6fh...@corp.supernews.com>, Mark Daniel <mark....@vsm.com.au> writes:
>>For an environment touting it's availability it's always a bit
>>disconcerting/disappointing/discouraging when the primary portal doesn't
>>respond. Second time in almost as many weeks I've gone to check What's
>>New and received no response.
>
>And now for the next time (and again on weekend - where nobody of HP cares?)
>
>$ ping openvms.compaq.com
Oooops, wrong test. We all know that PING is blocked there
$ telnet openvms.compaq.com 80
%TCPWARE_TELNET-I-TRYING, trying OPENVMS.COMPAQ.COM,http (161.114.65.60,80) ...
%TCPWARE_TELNET-E-NOTOPEN, failed to open connection
-SYSTEM-F-TIMEOUT, device timeout
Hoff Hoffman
> In article <12bl6fh...@corp.supernews.com>, Mark Daniel <mark....@vsm.com.au> writes:
>> For an environment touting it's availability it's always a bit
>> disconcerting/disappointing/discouraging when the primary portal doesn't
>> respond. Second time in almost as many weeks I've gone to check What's
>> New and received no response.
>
> And now for the next time (and again on weekend - where nobody of HP cares?)
>
> $ ping openvms.compaq.com
> PING openvms.compaq.com (161.114.65.60): 56 data bytes
>
> ----openvms.compaq.com PING Statistics----
> 25 packets transmitted, 0 packets received, 100% packet loss
>
> I wonder if it is the HP network (which has a well known bad reputation)
> again or if it VMS itself (which has a well known good reputation) this time.
>
The OpenVMS web server is up and running, and is accessible from my
login testing and from my web browser testing this morning. (I have
confirmed it's not a web cache I'm reading, as a change is visible --
the date on the FAQ link on the main page was just updated.)
After I drop off the VPN this morning, I'll confirm access through
the external firewall.
And again: You cannot ping the OpenVMS server. When you are dealing
with servers behind a firewall and with most anybody's servers these
days, expect to be quite unable to ping them. (You can't ping the
systems I have on the 'net, either; why would anyone allow untrusted
ICMP commands through? My servers are not vulnerable to the Ping Of
Death, but a whole lot of us learned added paranoia from that particular
debacle.)
Ken Robinson
<pe...@langstoeger.at> wrote:
> And now for the next time (and again on weekend - where nobody of HP cares?)
>
> $ ping openvms.compaq.com
> PING openvms.compaq.com (161.114.65.60): 56 data bytes
>
> ----openvms.compaq.com PING Statistics----
> 25 packets transmitted, 0 packets received, 100% packet loss
>
> I wonder if it is the HP network (which has a well known bad reputation)
> again or if it VMS itself (which has a well known good reputation) this time.
As of 9:35 AM EDT, I had no problem bringing up the site.
Ken
Peter 'EPLAN' LANGSTOEGER
>As of 9:35 AM EDT, I had no problem bringing up the site.
Yup, it's working again.
Thanks folks for fixing it that fast...
Hoff Hoffman
FWIW, uptime on the OpenVMS web server is presently just over 159 days.
Bill Gunshannon
Hoff Hoffman <hoff-rem...@hp.com> writes:
>
> FWIW, uptime on the OpenVMS web server is presently just over 159 days.
>
A rather meaningless statistic if the box is unreachable.
Or, what good is available 24/7 if the system is not reachable?
David J. Dachtera
>
> In article <12bl6fh...@corp.supernews.com>, Mark Daniel <mark....@vsm.com.au> writes:
> >For an environment touting it's availability it's always a bit
> >disconcerting/disappointing/discouraging when the primary portal doesn't
> >respond. Second time in almost as many weeks I've gone to check What's
> >New and received no response.
>
> And now for the next time (and again on weekend - where nobody of HP cares?)
>
> $ ping openvms.compaq.com
> PING openvms.compaq.com (161.114.65.60): 56 data bytes
>
> ----openvms.compaq.com PING Statistics----
> 25 packets transmitted, 0 packets received, 100% packet loss
>
> I wonder if it is the HP network (which has a well known bad reputation)
> again or if it VMS itself (which has a well known good reputation) this time.
I wouldn't expect a response to a PING, or Telnet either. I even tried
SNMP. No schmae.
However, connect via http: seemed to work just fine.
Still, I'd be inclined to use http://www.hp.com/go/openvms, just because
it is less likely to "evaporate" than a "legacy" domain name.
Never cared much for "the 'Q'", anyway.
David J. Dachtera
>
> In article <44df3360$1...@news.langstoeger.at>, pe...@langstoeger.at (Peter 'EPLAN' LANGSTOEGER) writes:
> >In article <12bl6fh...@corp.supernews.com>, Mark Daniel <mark....@vsm.com.au> writes:
> >>For an environment touting it's availability it's always a bit
> >>disconcerting/disappointing/discouraging when the primary portal doesn't
> >>respond. Second time in almost as many weeks I've gone to check What's
> >>New and received no response.
> >
> >And now for the next time (and again on weekend - where nobody of HP cares?)
> ^^^^^ should read "when"
> >
> >$ ping openvms.compaq.com
>
> Oooops, wrong test. We all know that PING is blocked there
>
> $ telnet openvms.compaq.com 80
> %TCPWARE_TELNET-I-TRYING, trying OPENVMS.COMPAQ.COM,http (161.114.65.60,80) ...
> %TCPWARE_TELNET-E-NOTOPEN, failed to open connection
> -SYSTEM-F-TIMEOUT, device timeout
Blimey! TCPware gives that bogus status, too?! Same as UCX.
Multinet, on the other hand:
DJAS01::DDACHTERA$ teln 161.114.65.60
Trying... [161.114.65.60] %MULTINET-F-ETIMEDOUT, Connection timed out
DJAS01::DDACHTERA$ say f$mess( &$status )
%SYSTEM-F-NOMSG, Message number 100081E4
DJAS01::DDACHTERA$ ping 161.114.65.60
PING openvms.compaq.com (161.114.65.60): 56 data bytes
----openvms.compaq.com PING Statistics----
3 packets transmitted, 0 packets received, 100% packet loss
DJAS01::DDACHTERA$ say f$mess( &$status )
%SYSTEM-F-UNREACHABLE, remote node is not currently reachable
DJAS01::DDACHTERA$
David J. Dachtera
>
> In article <7dd80f60608130637l789...@mail.gmail.com>, "Ken Robinson" <kenr...@gmail.com> writes:
> >As of 9:35 AM EDT, I had no problem bringing up the site.
>
> Yup, it's working again.
>
> Thanks folks for fixing it that fast...
I suppose it could have been a DOS attack, and things have now
recovered...
Paul Sture
> Peter 'EPLAN' LANGSTOEGER wrote:
>> In article <7dd80f60608130637l789...@mail.gmail.com>, "Ken Robinson" <kenr...@gmail.com> writes:
>>> As of 9:35 AM EDT, I had no problem bringing up the site.
>> Yup, it's working again.
>>
>> Thanks folks for fixing it that fast...
>
> I suppose it could have been a DOS attack, and things have now
> recovered...
>
Everyone bashing at the Freeware 8 stuff?
--
Paul Sture
David J. Dachtera
Well, the InfoServer bits would likely qualify as "long awaited"...
Dave Froble
> In article <l9GDg.6$eI...@news.cpqcorp.net>,
> Hoff Hoffman <hoff-rem...@hp.com> writes:
>> FWIW, uptime on the OpenVMS web server is presently just over 159 days.
>>
>
> A rather meaningless statistic if the box is unreachable.
> Or, what good is available 24/7 if the system is not reachable?
>
> bill
>
Perfectly good for those who can reach it. For the rest, shit happens.