JetDirect Printing through Pathworks from Win95

JetDirect Printing through Pathworks from Win95

Post by issino » Thu, 15 Aug 2002 18:13:30



OK Folks, this one is really killing me; I've seen similar posts on
this but nothing which works.

Situation...
AlphaServer 1000 running VMS 7.1, Pathworks 5.0f & UCX 4.1
LaserJet cabled to a DECserver 300, mapped to an LTA port and spooled
through a queue. Queue shared through Pathworks. Share connected to on
Win95 box (native networking components) and everything works just
fine.

What I want...
To replace the DECserver route with a direct network connection
through a JetDirect card...
Defined a host for the JetDirect in UCX. Created a UCX$TELNETSYM print
queue direct to port 9100 on the JetDirect. Print from VMS yields
perfect printout.
Create Pathworks share of queue (queue and share have the same name)
with appropriate permissions. Connect to queue from Win95 box and try
to print. BANG! Full failure with an "unspecified system failure" on
the Windows print-driver side of things.

Works with LAT queue, doesn't work with TELNET queue. What is going
on?
Tried the same thing from a DOS/WFW box and it DOES work, printing
works perfectly. Is this a Win95 specific issue? I haven't been able
to try an NT client but I suspect it will work. Strangely when the LPT
device is connected to the share it will correctly show jobs in queue
and queue state, it just refuses to print!

I've tried all the relevant tricks like creating a local LPTx.DOS port
and capturing it. I've tried attaching through NET USE then hooking up
the printer driver to that. Nothing.

This is causing me grief with my customer.
Where on the server can I find relevant logs showing me why the print
submission has failed? Or is the failure exclusively within the
Windows box?
Do I need to use a Pathworks/DEC print redirector? If so which one?
Have I got a buggy version of Pathworks or UCX?

Any help MUCH appreciated.

 
 
 

JetDirect Printing through Pathworks from Win95

Post by Jan-Erik S?derhol » Thu, 15 Aug 2002 18:31:50


THE only change seems to be from the LAT symbiont to
the telnet dito, right ?

Don't know why telnet printing should create problems, but if it was
my envionmrnt, I'd also try to use LPD printing instead of telnet.

- create a host for the printer in UCX.
- setup a "printer" in the printcap file.
- setup a queue with the LPD symbiont.

Some other things...

Could you upgrade to a newer UCX package ?

You could try with creating a generic queue that
"points" to the telnet queue, and then change the PW share
to point to the generic queue instead. That would "hide" the
telnet queue from Patwhorks, if that's the problem.

You could also try to run TCPIPTRACE [your-PC-host-name]
to see what is sent between your PC and the VMS box.

Jan-Erik S?derholm.


> OK Folks, this one is really killing me; I've seen similar posts on
> this but nothing which works.

> What I want...
> To replace the DECserver route with a direct network connection
> through a JetDirect card...
> Defined a host for the JetDirect in UCX. Created a UCX$TELNETSYM print
> queue direct to port 9100 on the JetDirect. Print from VMS yields
> perfect printout.
> Create Pathworks share of queue (queue and share have the same name)
> with appropriate permissions. Connect to queue from Win95 box and try
> to print. BANG! Full failure with an "unspecified system failure" on
> the Windows print-driver side of things.


 
 
 

JetDirect Printing through Pathworks from Win95

Post by issino » Thu, 15 Aug 2002 23:30:34


Sorry, I forgot to mention, I am already using a generic queue shared
through Pathworks. No luck. I've tried it with generic & execution
queues - same result!

Also, I'd rather avoid LPD as we've found UCX LPD to be unreliable to
say the least.


> THE only change seems to be from the LAT symbiont to
> the telnet dito, right ?

> Don't know why telnet printing should create problems, but if it was
> my envionmrnt, I'd also try to use LPD printing instead of telnet.

> - create a host for the printer in UCX.
> - setup a "printer" in the printcap file.
> - setup a queue with the LPD symbiont.

> Some other things...

> Could you upgrade to a newer UCX package ?

> You could try with creating a generic queue that
> "points" to the telnet queue, and then change the PW share
> to point to the generic queue instead. That would "hide" the
> telnet queue from Patwhorks, if that's the problem.

> You could also try to run TCPIPTRACE [your-PC-host-name]
> to see what is sent between your PC and the VMS box.

> Jan-Erik S?derholm.


> > OK Folks, this one is really killing me; I've seen similar posts on
> > this but nothing which works.

> > What I want...
> > To replace the DECserver route with a direct network connection
> > through a JetDirect card...
> > Defined a host for the JetDirect in UCX. Created a UCX$TELNETSYM print
> > queue direct to port 9100 on the JetDirect. Print from VMS yields
> > perfect printout.
> > Create Pathworks share of queue (queue and share have the same name)
> > with appropriate permissions. Connect to queue from Win95 box and try
> > to print. BANG! Full failure with an "unspecified system failure" on
> > the Windows print-driver side of things.

 
 
 

JetDirect Printing through Pathworks from Win95

Post by Jan-Erik S?derhol » Fri, 16 Aug 2002 00:12:13



> Also, I'd rather avoid LPD as we've found UCX LPD to be unreliable to
> say the least.

Well, you should not state that when using an *old* version of UCX...

I'v mostly/only used LPD and I'v found it more flexible then telnetsym.
E.g. it's easier to route printing through some NT "print-server", like
they want to do at some sites I'v helped.

Jan-Erik S?derholm.

 
 
 

JetDirect Printing through Pathworks from Win95

Post by Peter LANGSTOEG » Fri, 16 Aug 2002 02:32:46



>Also, I'd rather avoid LPD as we've found UCX LPD to be unreliable to
>say the least.

The problem with LPD is not really UCX, it is mostly the print server card.
eg. The JetDirect Cards offer an LPD server, but didn't do queuing via
LPD, don't offer switches defined for LPD (like page header, doublesided,...).
So, LPD is only good to communicate to a host-based print-server (or for
PC *where a 'printer driver' has to use a 'source file' and convert
it every (printing) time - thus you can't print an excel table if not having
office installed/payed). And VMS (with DCPS) is a (the best) printer server.

And to communicate with the JetDirect Crap, Stream/Telnet seems perfect
(while NT can't offer it natively - DEC offered such a feature for NT).

So, use DCPS on VMS, Stream/Telnet (IP_RawTCP) to the JetDirect (TCP Port
9100 up to TCP port 9102) and feel good. Then use PATHWORKS/SAMBA or LPD
to print from the clients to your (VMS) print-server...

And to use PATHWORKS for printing, upgrade to the latest and greatest versions
of PATHWORKS as there have been a lot of bugs in previous versions (and some
still are there yet) !

        http://www.veryComputer.com/

Advanced Server V7.3 on OpenVMS Alpha V7.3[-1] with the OpenVMS registry
configured/running. But you probably know this...

--
Peter "EPLAN" LANGSTOEGER
Network and OpenVMS system specialist

A-1030 VIENNA  AUSTRIA              I'm looking for (a) Network _and_ VMS Job(s)

 
 
 

JetDirect Printing through Pathworks from Win95

Post by Carl Karch » Fri, 16 Aug 2002 00:43:08



->To replace the DECserver route with a direct network connection
->through a JetDirect card...
->Defined a host for the JetDirect in UCX. Created a UCX$TELNETSYM print
->queue direct to port 9100 on the JetDirect. Print from VMS yields
->perfect printout.
->Create Pathworks share of queue (queue and share have the same name)
->with appropriate permissions. Connect to queue from Win95 box and try
->to print. BANG! Full failure with an "unspecified system failure" on
->the Windows print-driver side of things.

I have lots of queues setup this way (on Pathworks 6.0D - but 5.0f worked
too). One suggestion:

Did you define UCX$TELNETSYM_RAW_TCP to have a value of "1"?

--
-- Carl Karcher, Waisman Computing Services, Waisman Center, UW-Madison

 
 
 

JetDirect Printing through Pathworks from Win95

Post by Peter LANGSTOEG » Fri, 16 Aug 2002 18:05:02




>Pathworks 5.x is a bit ancient, the last of it I used was 5.0d, and I
>upgraded to Pathworks 6.x as soon as it became available and never
>looked back.

I used V5.0F (with ECO) until I found out (the hard way of course) that
our NT admins increased the number of groups from about 100 in January
to over 300 in March and I had to upgrade PW immediately. Since PW6 crashed
my system (for over 3 years now) a couple of seconds after system boot
(pool corruption - made by KNB, triggered by a LanMan Auth packet on the LAN)
I had to switch to SAMBA V1.x (which was horrible because of n+1 processes
for n clients with every process able and willing to reach 100% CPU instead
of 9 processes for PATHWORKS with all processes together not climbing over
30% CPU)

SAMBA V2 and ASOVMS V7 (member server) fixed this problems (after 3 years !)

Quote:>Also some clients have restrictions on how long of names can be used for
>the printer share name, or what characters may be in them.  Since you
>say that it works with DOS/WFW that does not appear to be a problem.

Good suggestion.

Quote:>One thing to understand about OpenVMS print queues is that they can be
>referenced by logical names.  This gives you great power in configuring
>the print queues.

Good suggestion.

Quote:>[snip]
>If your printer is a PostScript printer, I recommend using DCPS
>(DECPrint Supervisor) to print to it.

Good suggestion.

Quote:>When you share a printer with a PC application, some PC applications
>tend to change the power up defaults of the printer with each print job,
>and thus distort the following print jobs.

>DCPS makes sure that the printer is properly set up for each print job
>that is sent to it.

>The right to use DCPS is bundled with the OpenVMS license.

Yup.

Quote:>If you are having problems printing to a PostScript printer from a
>Microsoft Windows operating system, use the Digital LPS20 driver.  It
>has worked with every PostScript printer that I have tried, several of
>which the vendors did not have a working driver.

Good idea

--
Peter "EPLAN" LANGSTOEGER
Network and OpenVMS system specialist

A-1030 VIENNA  AUSTRIA              I'm looking for (a) Network _and_ VMS Job(s)

 
 
 

JetDirect Printing through Pathworks from Win95

Post by David J. Dachter » Sat, 17 Aug 2002 02:06:27




>  > OK Folks, this one is really killing me; I've seen similar posts on
>  > this but nothing which works.

>  > Situation... AlphaServer 1000 running VMS 7.1, Pathworks 5.0f & UCX
>  > 4.1 LaserJet cabled to a DECserver 300, mapped to an LTA port and
>  > spooled through a queue. Queue shared through Pathworks. Share
>  > connected to on Win95 box (native networking components) and
>  > everything works just fine.

> I would recommend upgrading your environment to the supported versions.

Y'know, maybe I'm just in a pissy mood today, but I am *REALLY* getting
tired of reading that.

If upgrading were an option, I'm willing to bet that the option would be
exercised.

Folks are "stuck" at various versions of VMS and layered products for a
reason. Get over it.

I understand HP/Q's needs in this area. However, HP/Q needs to be
sensitive to the customers' needs and not view them as oppotunity to
"wring * from the stone".

Hint: try asking it as a question: "Is it possible for you to upgrade to
a more recent version of (x)?" instead of stating it like it's a
prerequisite of some kind. For many, it simply is not an option and
never will be.

Apologies to John and the group - I'm just not in the mood to hold back
today.

--
David J. Dachtera
dba DJE Systems
http://www.veryComputer.com/

Unofficial Affordable OpenVMS Home Page:
http://www.veryComputer.com/

 
 
 

JetDirect Printing through Pathworks from Win95

Post by issino » Sat, 17 Aug 2002 03:43:34


OK, I solved my problem today and as usual I couldn't see the wood for
the trees!

It turns out it was a permissions problem on the newly created shares
which were causing silent failures on the PC side and not being logged
on the VMS side. Lovely.

It wan't until I ditched the horrible, horrible 5.0 GUI and learned to
use the NET CLI that I saw what was wrong; and saw almost immediately
by the way. Thank God they dropped this thing in newer versions in
favour of the ADMIN command. Going back is so, so painful.

Incidentally, on my path to solving this one, I dabbled with LPD
queues and all I can say is *YUCK*. The formatting was all over the
place and they're configuration was less than intuitive.

It's all working lovely now, but I think I must have crossed every
bridge on the way to the solution. If anyone has trouble in this area,
I can probably help ;-)

Thanks to all for your input.

 
 
 

JetDirect Printing through Pathworks from Win95

Post by issino » Sun, 18 Aug 2002 02:36:13


Thanks, David, I couldn't agree more.

Problem occured in a *VERY* important production environment. Downtime
cannot be tolerated and version upgrades of core packages are not an
option without a *VERY* good reason.

Just as well I didn't recommend it, eh?




> >  > OK Folks, this one is really killing me; I've seen similar posts on
> >  > this but nothing which works.

> >  > Situation... AlphaServer 1000 running VMS 7.1, Pathworks 5.0f & UCX
> >  > 4.1 LaserJet cabled to a DECserver 300, mapped to an LTA port and
> >  > spooled through a queue. Queue shared through Pathworks. Share
> >  > connected to on Win95 box (native networking components) and
> >  > everything works just fine.

> > I would recommend upgrading your environment to the supported versions.

> Y'know, maybe I'm just in a pissy mood today, but I am *REALLY* getting
> tired of reading that.

> If upgrading were an option, I'm willing to bet that the option would be
> exercised.

> Folks are "stuck" at various versions of VMS and layered products for a
> reason. Get over it.

> I understand HP/Q's needs in this area. However, HP/Q needs to be
> sensitive to the customers' needs and not view them as oppotunity to
> "wring * from the stone".

> Hint: try asking it as a question: "Is it possible for you to upgrade to
> a more recent version of (x)?" instead of stating it like it's a
> prerequisite of some kind. For many, it simply is not an option and
> never will be.

> Apologies to John and the group - I'm just not in the mood to hold back
> today.

 
 
 

JetDirect Printing through Pathworks from Win95

Post by Peter LANGSTOEG » Sun, 18 Aug 2002 07:13:10



>Problem occured in a *VERY* important production environment. Downtime
>cannot be tolerated and version upgrades of core packages are not an
>option without a *VERY* good reason.

How about the coming IPF migration ?
You have to get as current as possible on Alpha
before the next migration wave gets over you.
In my eyes, this *is* a *VERY* good reason.

Start ASAP.
Frozen systems are dead systems very soon.

--
Peter "EPLAN" LANGSTOEGER
Network and OpenVMS system specialist

A-1030 VIENNA  AUSTRIA              I'm looking for (a) Network _and_ VMS Job(s)

 
 
 

JetDirect Printing through Pathworks from Win95

Post by David J. Dachter » Sun, 18 Aug 2002 10:00:21


Apologies up front for the tone of this. Guess I'm just "on the rag"
this week.



> >Problem occured in a *VERY* important production environment. Downtime
> >cannot be tolerated and version upgrades of core packages are not an
> >option without a *VERY* good reason.

> How about the coming IPF migration ?
> You have to get as current as possible on Alpha
> before the next migration wave gets over you.
> In my eyes, this *is* a *VERY* good reason.

...and that does exactly what to break down the barriers to upgrades?

Does it magically move a VAX/VMS V5.3-1 application to OpenVMS-Alpha
V7.3-1 with no source code and no problems with VESTing?

Does it magically make a recalcitrant vendor (of the app. or OpenVMS,
your choice) co-operative and beneficent?

Does it magically make downtime an option to allow the upgrades?

I said:


> Folks are "stuck" at various versions of VMS and layered products for
> a reason.

What part of that is in anyway ambiguous?

Quote:> Start ASAP.
> Frozen systems are dead systems very soon.

A couple of summers ago, I had to go to one of Mark's sites that was
still using MicroVAX 2000s with touch screens in a production
environment. (notice: no clue as to identity, industry or anything else
that compromises their position, security or intellectual property!
Didn't think I could do it, did ya?)

I don't see them moving to OpenVMS Alpha or IPF anytime soon. If
anything, they'd probably go Linux or *BSD (my guess - totally
unfounded).

Things don't "die" until you let them.

Go ahead, guys - keep motivating me and others here to give up VMS,
maybe even computing in general. It'd be the biggest favor you can do
for any of us.

--
David J. Dachtera
dba DJE Systems
http://www.djesys.com/

Unofficial Affordable OpenVMS Home Page:
http://www.djesys.com/vms/soho/

 
 
 

JetDirect Printing through Pathworks from Win95

Post by Larry Kilgall » Sun, 18 Aug 2002 13:28:39




>>Problem occured in a *VERY* important production environment. Downtime
>>cannot be tolerated and version upgrades of core packages are not an
>>option without a *VERY* good reason.

> How about the coming IPF migration ?
> You have to get as current as possible on Alpha
> before the next migration wave gets over you.

Let me know when the migration wave is going to overcome my MicroVAX II.
It is in "production", doing as well as ever.  There is no reason to
upgrade it.
 
 
 

JetDirect Printing through Pathworks from Win95

Post by Peter LANGSTOEG » Sun, 18 Aug 2002 17:02:41



Quote:>Apologies up front for the tone of this. Guess I'm just "on the rag"
>this week.

Sorry, David. I didn't want to upset you with hints given from the off.
I also didn't want to start a flame war and so I'd better kept my mouth
shut, but I try to explain my arguments one more time. I don't want
to continue this sensible discussion for any longer. Opinions are different
of course. And every opinion has it's arguments of course.

Quote:>> >Problem occured in a *VERY* important production environment. Downtime
>> >cannot be tolerated and version upgrades of core packages are not an
>> >option without a *VERY* good reason.

>> How about the coming IPF migration ?
>> You have to get as current as possible on Alpha
>> before the next migration wave gets over you.
>> In my eyes, this *is* a *VERY* good reason.

>....and that does exactly what to break down the barriers to upgrades?

>Does it magically move a VAX/VMS V5.3-1 application to OpenVMS-Alpha
>V7.3-1 with no source code and no problems with VESTing?

Iff you have such an old application and you have no source code,
you already lost. But having no VEST problems bring hope back in.

But unfortunately the time of VEST is officially over. It may work
of course, but you can't call HPQ for support. You are some years
too late for this. You may like it or not, but this is now a fact.

Quote:>Does it magically make a recalcitrant vendor (of the app. or OpenVMS,
>your choice) co-operative and beneficent?

Of course not. If you have problems like these, than you are forced
to do what you have done. But I know of people who like to 'never touch
a running system' until it's too late and their systems gets replaced
instead of upgraded and this means in 99% bye-bye-vms.

Quote:>Does it magically make downtime an option to allow the upgrades?

No. But if downtime is a problem (and this is exactly why VMS or VMSclusters
were and still are the best solution) then such an upgrade takes very much
time. With maybe two downtimes a year, you probably need some years to do
your migration tests. So, I'd better start sooner than later...

Quote:>> Folks are "stuck" at various versions of VMS and layered products for
>> a reason.

>What part of that is in anyway ambiguous?

It is not. And being "stuck" makes life much more complicated of course.
But to go on after the freeze time is over you have two options. Find a
replacement with VMS systems (how complicated this may be, you surely know
better than I do) or let someone do the replacement with something else...

Quote:>> Start ASAP.
>> Frozen systems are dead systems very soon.

>A couple of summers ago, I had to go to one of Mark's sites that was
>still using MicroVAX 2000s with touch screens in a production
>environment. (notice: no clue as to identity, industry or anything else
>that compromises their position, security or intellectual property!
>Didn't think I could do it, did ya?)

>I don't see them moving to OpenVMS Alpha or IPF anytime soon. If
>anything, they'd probably go Linux or *BSD (my guess - totally
>unfounded).

Shit happens.

Quote:>Things don't "die" until you let them.

You mean, you make your hardware spare parts on your own ?
What to do if HPQ does no longer offer maint for your old hardware
and you tried to get spare parts on the used market and you've been
unsuccessful for over a year ? Then things are dead without your will...

Quote:>Go ahead, guys - keep motivating me and others here to give up VMS,
>maybe even computing in general. It'd be the biggest favor you can do
>for any of us.

Sorry, David, the opposite is true. I'd like to motivate everyone to use VMS.
It is the best operating system, it is a general purpose operating system
and it probably has all the features people need and like. The image and the
price of VMS (means, as you know, the treatment of it's owner) is not ok.

But, my experience has been, if you keep a system frozen for a long time,
it gets replaced and not upgraded. And this means, one VMS system less...

Good luck anyway

--
Peter "EPLAN" LANGSTOEGER
Network and OpenVMS system specialist

A-1030 VIENNA  AUSTRIA              I'm looking for (a) Network _and_ VMS Job(s)

 
 
 

1. Using Pathworks Print Server to print to an HP4000 Jetdirect on an NT Domain

Can anyone help.

I'm trying to use Pathworks print server to print to a HP4000 with a jet
direct card. My VMS box is using one NT server as its DNS host. The HP4000
is on another NT domain, the two domains are linked by a router.

I'm getting the error

%pwprint-e-pcsererr, print server error received
Error connecting to printer - access is denied

Has anyone had any similar experiences

Rgds

Alan Miller

2. Comments - Printing

3. LAT print queue setup via HP JetDirect print server

4. MDAC 2.7

5. DEC Printserver 20, LPS print queues (LPD thru Windoze)

6. Ethernet <-> Parallel for Postscript printer?

7. Pathworks for Win95 - Putting C:\PW in that path

8. Error 500 Internal Server

9. Pathworks/Win95 config

10. pathworks 4 and win95

11. EXCURSION with PATHWORKS 32 & WIN95

12. Need help printing thru a UNIX system

13. Pathworks for Win95, is there an alternative?