Subject: [os2genau_digest] No. 660
From: Digest <deadmail>
To: "OS/2GenAu Digest"<deadmail>
Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2003 00:02:00 EST-10EDT,10,-1,0,7200,3,-1,0,7200,3600

**************************************************
Monday 14 July 2003
 Number  660
**************************************************

Subjects for today
 
1   Warp Server : Graham Norton" <gn at smart-road dot com dot au>
2  Re:  Warp Server : John Angelico" <talldad at kepl dot com dot au>
3  Re:  Warp Server : Graham Norton" <gn at smart-road dot com dot au>
4   SWAPPER.DAT : Alan Heiser <aheiser at ozemail dot com dot au>
5  Re:  SWAPPER.DAT : Ed Durrant <edurrant at bigpond dot net dot au>
6  Re:  Warp Server : Paul Smedley" <paul at smedley.info>
7  Re:  SWAPPER.DAT : John Angelico" <talldad at kepl dot com dot au>
8  Re:  Warp Server : Ed Durrant <edurrant at bigpond dot net dot au>
9  Re:  Warp Server : Paul Smedley" <paul at smedley.info>
10  Re:  Warp Server : bob <bob at fots dot org dot au>
11  Re:  Warp Server : Paul Smedley" <paul at smedley.info>
12  Re:  Warp Server : John Angelico" <talldad at kepl dot com dot au>
13  Re:  Warp Server : Paul Smedley" <paul at smedley.info>
14  Re:  SWAPPER.DAT : Mike O'Connor" <mikeoc at dodo dot com dot au>
15  Re:  Warp Server : bob <bob at fots dot org dot au>

**= Email   1 ==========================**

Date:  Mon, 14 Jul 2003 14:44:35 +0950 (CST)
From:  "Graham Norton" <gn at smart-road dot com dot au>
Subject:   Warp Server

Hi all

It is with some pride that I discovered today that our Business warp
Server file and print machine and a second PC - Internet gateway server
have both  been up and running without hiccup for 

29days    22 hours and  23 minutes!!!

and the reason for the server stopping almost a month ago was a violent
electrical storm and power failure and the UPS monitor shut things down
cleanly!

Cheers

Graham Norton
Neurologist

"when I need a hole in the head, I use Windows
when I need a window on the brain, I use OS2!"

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

**= Email   2 ==========================**

Date:  Mon, 14 Jul 2003 15:42:56 +1000 (AEST)
From:  "John Angelico" <talldad at kepl dot com dot au>
Subject:  Re:  Warp Server

On Mon, 14 Jul 2003 14:44:35 +0950 (CST), Graham Norton wrote:

>Hi all
>
>It is with some pride that I discovered today that our Business warp
>Server file and print machine and a second PC - Internet gateway server
>have both  been up and running without hiccup for 
>
>29days    22 hours and  23 minutes!!!
>
>and the reason for the server stopping almost a month ago was a violent
>electrical storm and power failure and the UPS monitor shut things down
>cleanly!
>

Good on you Graham.

I trust that you have the latest available kernel which overcomes the 49
day problem.

Yes, sadly folks, OS/2 suffers from a similar problem to the Win-dy
systems. Although one wonders how MS ever found it or considered it a real
issue...

Best regards
John Angelico
OS/2 SIG
os2 at melbpc dot org dot au or talldad at kepl dot com dot au
_______________________________________

PMTagline v1.50 - Copyright, 1996-1997, Stephen Berg and John Angelico
.... Would you trust a BMW controlled by Windows?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

**= Email   3 ==========================**

Date:  Mon, 14 Jul 2003 15:30:34 +0950 (CST)
From:  "Graham Norton" <gn at smart-road dot com dot au>
Subject:  Re:  Warp Server

Oops!  Now you have upset me!  What is the 49 day issue!??

On Mon, 14 Jul 2003 15:42:56 +1000 (AEST), John Angelico wrote:

>On Mon, 14 Jul 2003 14:44:35 +0950 (CST), Graham Norton wrote:
>
>>Hi all
>>
>>It is with some pride that I discovered today that our Business warp
>>Server file and print machine and a second PC - Internet gateway server
>>have both  been up and running without hiccup for 
>>
>>29days    22 hours and  23 minutes!!!
>>
>>and the reason for the server stopping almost a month ago was a violent
>>electrical storm and power failure and the UPS monitor shut things down
>>cleanly!
>>
>
>Good on you Graham.
>
>I trust that you have the latest available kernel which overcomes the 49
>day problem.
>
>Yes, sadly folks, OS/2 suffers from a similar problem to the Win-dy
>systems. Although one wonders how MS ever found it or considered it a real
>issue...
>
>
>
>Best regards
>John Angelico
>OS/2 SIG
>os2 at melbpc dot org dot au or talldad at kepl dot com dot au
>_______________________________________
>
>PMTagline v1.50 - Copyright, 1996-1997, Stephen Berg and John Angelico
>... Would you trust a BMW controlled by Windows?

> 

Graham Norton
Neurologist

"when I need a hole in the head, I use Windows
when I need a window on the brain, I use OS2!"

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

**= Email   4 ==========================**

Date:  Mon, 14 Jul 2003 18:46:34 +1000
From:  Alan Heiser <aheiser at ozemail dot com dot au>
Subject:   SWAPPER.DAT

Stupid question - how do I reduce the size of swapper.dat
It has taken over the whole system

Thanks
Alan

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

**= Email   5 ==========================**

Date:  Mon, 14 Jul 2003 19:14:45 +1000
From:  Ed Durrant <edurrant at bigpond dot net dot au>
Subject:  Re:  SWAPPER.DAT

Add more real memory !

No really, if you want to limit it's size (and possibly change its location to another
disk), find the statement in config.sys, which may look something like this:

SWAPPATH=D:\ 4096 40960

The first numerical value (4096 in this example) is how much freespace (in kb) you
decided you *MUST* keep free on the drive (in my example, drive D:). When this limit
is reached OS/2 will start popping up messages to say that there's no more space. At
which point, cancel some of your running applications. The second figure is the
initial value to create the swapper.dat file with at boot up. OS/2 will keep
increasing the size of the swapper.dat file as it needs to up to the limit of "must
have free" that you set, however allocating a "chunk" together at the start is more
efficient as the OS has less searching for free space to do.

Best solution is to add more "Real" memory. How much do you have in the system at the
moment ? Although Warp4 CAN run with as little as 4MB, I'd recommend 64 MB for current
applications - more if you're running virtual PC or ODIN.

Cheers/2

Ed.

Alan Heiser wrote:

> Stupid question - how do I reduce the size of swapper.dat
> It has taken over the whole system
>
> Thanks
> Alan
>

>  

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

**= Email   6 ==========================**

Date:  Mon, 14 Jul 2003 19:08:08 +0950 (CST)
From:  "Paul Smedley" <paul at smedley.info>
Subject:  Re:  Warp Server

Hey Graham,

On Mon, 14 Jul 2003 15:30:34 +0950 (CST), Graham Norton wrote:
>Oops!  Now you have upset me!  What is the 49 day issue!??

Well, strictly speaking, it's the 49.7 day issue.  There's a variable in the kernel that records 
(from memory) the number of seconds since the system was rebooted.  The problem is 
that the type of variable used only holds enough seconds for 49.7 days.  There's been 
several attempts to correct - we definitely installed one of the Testcase kernels on the 
FIrewall machine in an attempt to prevent this hang at 49.7 days - I think the WSEB 
machine is still running the FP3 kernel.

Most recent changes to do with the 49.7 day hang in the kernel were:
    JR15405: (probably) DosQueryAsyncTimer fails on timecritical thread after
    	     mscount rolls over after 49.7 days of uptime

  20020401   revision 14.088g
    JR15405 part 2: more likely fix for 49.7 day hang (still in test)

  20020802   revision 14.091a
	- Yet another attempt (the last, we hope) to fix the 49.7 day hang

  20020822   revision 14.091b
	JR15405 (final) the 49.7 day change might not have been in 20020802.

  20030213 14.093e
	JR17862 fix a problem with a thread hanging (but not the whole system) 
	  after the 49.7 day rollover doing a DosSleep (*Not* fixed in 1226)

Can't remember where FP3 sits in the above....

Cheers,

Paul.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

**= Email   7 ==========================**

Date:  Mon, 14 Jul 2003 19:43:51 +1000 (AEST)
From:  "John Angelico" <talldad at kepl dot com dot au>
Subject:  Re:  SWAPPER.DAT

On Mon, 14 Jul 2003 19:14:45 +1000, Ed Durrant wrote:

Hi Alan.

>Add more real memory !

[chomp]ed Ed's excellent advice.

But let's ask a question, as well...

>
>Alan Heiser wrote:
>
>> Stupid question - how do I reduce the size of swapper.dat
>> It has taken over the whole system

Is there some specific reason why it has taken over the whole system?
Sounds like a runaway application gobbling up memory until the SWAPPER is
occupying the entire drive and, as Ed said, it then pops up messages at
you.

 

Best regards
John Angelico
OS/2 SIG
os2 at melbpc dot org dot au or talldad at kepl dot com dot au
_______________________________________

PMTagline v1.50 - Copyright, 1996-1997, Stephen Berg and John Angelico
.... Oh, no! Not *ANOTHER* learning experience!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

**= Email   8 ==========================**

Date:  Mon, 14 Jul 2003 19:45:04 +1000
From:  Ed Durrant <edurrant at bigpond dot net dot au>
Subject:  Re:  Warp Server

Is this a bug in newer releases ?  I certainly have systems (some on pretty old versions of code)
that have been running FAR longer than 49.7 days !!

Cheers/2
Ed.

Paul Smedley wrote:

> Hey Graham,
>
> On Mon, 14 Jul 2003 15:30:34 +0950 (CST), Graham Norton wrote:
> >Oops!  Now you have upset me!  What is the 49 day issue!??
>
> Well, strictly speaking, it's the 49.7 day issue.  There's a variable in the kernel that records
> (from memory) the number of seconds since the system was rebooted.  The problem is
> that the type of variable used only holds enough seconds for 49.7 days.  There's been
> several attempts to correct - we definitely installed one of the Testcase kernels on the
> FIrewall machine in an attempt to prevent this hang at 49.7 days - I think the WSEB
> machine is still running the FP3 kernel.
>
> Most recent changes to do with the 49.7 day hang in the kernel were:
>     JR15405: (probably) DosQueryAsyncTimer fails on timecritical thread after
>              mscount rolls over after 49.7 days of uptime
>
>   20020401   revision 14.088g
>     JR15405 part 2: more likely fix for 49.7 day hang (still in test)
>
>   20020802   revision 14.091a
>         - Yet another attempt (the last, we hope) to fix the 49.7 day hang
>
>   20020822   revision 14.091b
>         JR15405 (final) the 49.7 day change might not have been in 20020802.
>
>   20030213 14.093e
>         JR17862 fix a problem with a thread hanging (but not the whole system)
>           after the 49.7 day rollover doing a DosSleep (*Not* fixed in 1226)
>
> Can't remember where FP3 sits in the above....
>
> Cheers,
>
> Paul.
>

>  

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

**= Email   9 ==========================**

Date:  Mon, 14 Jul 2003 19:25:19 +0950 (CST)
From:  "Paul Smedley" <paul at smedley.info>
Subject:  Re:  Warp Server

On Mon, 14 Jul 2003 19:45:04 +1000, Ed Durrant wrote:

>Is this a bug in newer releases ?  I certainly have systems (some on pretty old versions of 
code)
>that have been running FAR longer than 49.7 days !!

To be honest - I don't know.  I gather it must manifest in different hardware combinations in 
different ways.  There have been MANY attempts to fix this - what I posted was just whats 
listed in the readme of the latest Testcase kernels.

Obviously it was a non-trivial thing to fix!!

Cheers,

Paul.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

**= Email   10 ==========================**

Date:  Mon, 14 Jul 2003 17:57:13 +0800
From:  bob <bob at fots dot org dot au>
Subject:  Re:  Warp Server

On Mon, 14 Jul 2003 05:45 pm, you wrote:
> Is this a bug in newer releases ?  I certainly have systems (some on
> pretty old versions of code) that have been running FAR longer than 49.7
> days !!

The bug isn't a crash issue (like it is in win9x) all it does is wrap the 
"uptime" counter back to 0 after 49.7 days. The trivial workaround for this 
is to have a small .cmd write a log of boot times and refer to that.

BTW, my record is 619 days. A 12 hr power outage got it in the end (a UPS 
can only do so much :)

> Cheers/2
> Ed.

-- 
By doing just a little every day, you can gradually let the task
completely overwhelm you.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

**= Email   11 ==========================**

Date:  Mon, 14 Jul 2003 19:33:32 +0950 (CST)
From:  "Paul Smedley" <paul at smedley.info>
Subject:  Re:  Warp Server

Bob,

On Mon, 14 Jul 2003 17:57:13 +0800, bob wrote:

>On Mon, 14 Jul 2003 05:45 pm, you wrote:
>> Is this a bug in newer releases ?  I certainly have systems (some on
>> pretty old versions of code) that have been running FAR longer than 49.7
>> days !!
>
>The bug isn't a crash issue (like it is in win9x) all it does is wrap the 
>"uptime" counter back to 0 after 49.7 days. The trivial workaround for this 
>is to have a small .cmd write a log of boot times and refer to that.

Well according to Scott's changelog in the latest Testcase kernels - he fixed a 49.7 day 
hang - so there must have been a hang on some hardware :)  A search on 
groups.google dot com shows posts about the hangs too :)

Cheers,

Paul.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

**= Email   12 ==========================**

Date:  Mon, 14 Jul 2003 20:07:48 +1000 (AEST)
From:  "John Angelico" <talldad at kepl dot com dot au>
Subject:  Re:  Warp Server

On Mon, 14 Jul 2003 19:08:08 +0950 (CST), Paul Smedley wrote:

Thanks Paul.

I would still be searching for the details of the answer....

I do understand that all eCS 1.1 registered users can go to the eCS site
and download the latest kernel 14.094 (not strictly WSEB but given the
common kernel I would expect there is an equivalent download for you) which
is reputed to totally fix the problem.

Interesting note: it seems from Paul's notes to be called the "mscount" -
somewhat ironic! 
[Dick Martin] I didn't know that!!

Best regards
John Angelico
OS/2 SIG
talldad at kepl dot com dot au
__________________
 
>Hey Graham,
>
>On Mon, 14 Jul 2003 15:30:34 +0950 (CST), Graham Norton wrote:
>>Oops!  Now you have upset me!  What is the 49 day issue!??
>
>Well, strictly speaking, it's the 49.7 day issue.  There's a variable in the kernel that records 
>(from memory) the number of seconds since the system was rebooted.  The problem is 
>that the type of variable used only holds enough seconds for 49.7 days.  There's been 
>several attempts to correct - we definitely installed one of the Testcase kernels on the 
>FIrewall machine in an attempt to prevent this hang at 49.7 days - I think the WSEB 
>machine is still running the FP3 kernel.
>
>Most recent changes to do with the 49.7 day hang in the kernel were:
>    JR15405: (probably) DosQueryAsyncTimer fails on timecritical thread after
>    	     mscount rolls over after 49.7 days of uptime
>
>  20020401   revision 14.088g
>    JR15405 part 2: more likely fix for 49.7 day hang (still in test)
>
>  20020802   revision 14.091a
>	- Yet another attempt (the last, we hope) to fix the 49.7 day hang
>
>  20020822   revision 14.091b
>	JR15405 (final) the 49.7 day change might not have been in 20020802.
>
>  20030213 14.093e
>	JR17862 fix a problem with a thread hanging (but not the whole system) 
>	  after the 49.7 day rollover doing a DosSleep (*Not* fixed in 1226)
>
>Can't remember where FP3 sits in the above....
>
>Cheers,
>
>Paul.
>

> 

>
>

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

**= Email   13 ==========================**

Date:  Mon, 14 Jul 2003 19:45:58 +0950 (CST)
From:  "Paul Smedley" <paul at smedley.info>
Subject:  Re:  Warp Server

Hiya John,

On Mon, 14 Jul 2003 20:07:48 +1000 (AEST), John Angelico wrote:
>On Mon, 14 Jul 2003 19:08:08 +0950 (CST), Paul Smedley wrote:
>
>I would still be searching for the details of the answer....
Well I'm a testcase junky and always read the changelon - plus I hang out on Usenet a lot 
and saw the original posts!

>I do understand that all eCS 1.1 registered users can go to the eCS site
>and download the latest kernel 14.094 (not strictly WSEB but given the
>common kernel I would expect there is an equivalent download for you) which
>is reputed to totally fix the problem.

Well the absolute latest kernels are currently sitting on IBM's Testcase site at 
ftp://testcase.boulder.ibm dot com/ps/fromibm/os2

for WSEB Uni-processor 
ftp://testcase.boulder.ibm dot com/ps/fromibm/os2/uni20030621.zip

for WSEB SMP-Processor 
ftp://testcase.boulder.ibm dot com/ps/fromibm/os2/smp20030621.zip

for Warp 4/eCS/MCP/MCP2 
ftp://testcase.boulder.ibm dot com/ps/fromibm/os2/w420030621.zip

>Interesting note: it seems from Paul's notes to be called the "mscount" -
>somewhat ironic! 

Yeah :) or could be millisecond count :) but hey let's blame M$ for the heck of it :)

Cheers,

Paul

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

**= Email   14 ==========================**

Date:  Mon, 14 Jul 2003 20:27:17 +1000
From:  "Mike O'Connor" <mikeoc at dodo dot com dot au>
Subject:  Re:  SWAPPER.DAT

Ed Durrant wrote:

>Add more real memory !
>
>No really, if you want to limit it's size (and possibly change its location to another
>disk), find the statement in config.sys, which may look something like this:
>
>SWAPPATH=D:\ 4096 40960
>
>The first numerical value (4096 in this example) is how much freespace (in kb) you
>decided you *MUST* keep free on the drive (in my example, drive D:). When this limit
>is reached OS/2 will start popping up messages to say that there's no more space. At
>which point, cancel some of your running applications. The second figure is the
>initial value to create the swapper.dat file with at boot up. OS/2 will keep
>increasing the size of the swapper.dat file as it needs to up to the limit of "must
>have free" that you set, however allocating a "chunk" together at the start is more
>efficient as the OS has less searching for free space to do.
>
>Best solution is to add more "Real" memory. How much do you have in the system at the
>moment ? Although Warp4 CAN run with as little as 4MB, I'd recommend 64 MB for current
>applications - more if you're running virtual PC or ODIN.
>
>Cheers/2
>
>Ed.
>
>Alan Heiser wrote:
>  
>
>>Stupid question - how do I reduce the size of swapper.dat
>>It has taken over the whole system
>>

Hi Alan, Ed,
Although with Warp3 Connect and 64MB RAM, after everything [NetBIOS
etc.] loaded, you still have approx 20MB of RAM FREE, using any version
of Warp4 that will show up as only 512KB of RAM FREE - just sufficient
to run the virtual memory paging mechanism.  If possible with Warp4 and
better I would recommend not less than 96MB or 128MB - depending on the
motherboard's SIMM/DIMM etc., capability - there are very cheap RAM
modules around still. I saw 256MB SDRAM for AU$59 locally - should be
even cheaper in one of the Capital Cities.

-- 
Regards,
Mike

Failed the exam for
--------------------
MCSE - Minesweeper Consultant and Solitaire Expert
--------------------

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

**= Email   15 ==========================**

Date:  Mon, 14 Jul 2003 19:07:42 +0800
From:  bob <bob at fots dot org dot au>
Subject:  Re:  Warp Server

On Mon, 14 Jul 2003 05:43 pm, you wrote:

> Well according to Scott's changelog in the latest Testcase kernels - he
> fixed a 49.7 day hang - so there must have been a hang on some hardware
> :)  A search on groups.google dot com shows posts about the hangs too :)

Thats not good. I'd be real unhappy if I couldn't get > 50 days uptime.

Not one of the OS/2 servers I've had anything to do with has these sorts of 
problems... and I never heard anything other than rumours about these sorts 
of crashes, which I discounted as bad HW.

> Cheers,
>
> Paul.

As an aside... I wasn't aware of this before now but apparently a lot of 
Petrol servos run OS/2 on their control consoles. A friend of mine has just 
scored a job doing system support with a mob called Metric through his 
experience with OS/2 :)

-- 
Feel disillusioned?  I've got some great new illusions, right here!

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------