Alpha network performance issues over leased line

Alpha network performance issues over leased line

Post by Maveric » Sat, 09 Nov 2002 01:02:18



Hello,

We have a strange network performance problem.  We have a 2Mb leased line
terminated at each end by a Cisco 2600 router.   A Digital Alpha DS20 is
present in both locations, along with a network of NT boxes. One Alpha is
loaded with VMS 7.1-2 and the other with 7.2-1.  The network at either end
is Switched ethernet.

So we have

| NT boxes|   |DS20 (7.2-1)|
____|___________|______      Location A
                   |
      |Baystack 350 |
      |10/100 switch |

    |Cisco 2651 router|
                  |
                  |
                  |    (2Mb link)
                  |
                  |
    |Cisco 2621 router|

      |Cisco Catalyst|
      |  3500 switch |
_________|____________    Location B
         |                      |
| NT boxes|   |DS20 (7.1-2)|

All boxes can connect over IP, but performance varies dramatically depending
on the destination box.

In summary, performance declines dramatically when the Alpha is the
recipient of the data, and is OK otherwise. The alpha in location B has only
recently moved there.  They used to talk quite happily to each other before
this, when the second Alpha was in another location again.  The only things
that have changed are the routers at each end (used to be Nortel ARN
routers) and the seond Alpha now plugs into a Cisco switch rather than a
Nortel Baystack 350 it plugged into before.

There appears to be no congestion on the link.  Can anyone think of any
reason why the choice of router (Cisco) would have such an effect, but only
on traffic to the Alphas? Or should I be looking at something else?  Some
measurements on performance are given below.  .

- An FTP put from the DS20 in A to the DS20 in B is dreadful at about 25kB/s
- An FTP put from the DS20 in B to the DS20 in A is also not good at about
50kB/s
- An FTP put from any NT box to any NT box (over the link) is  about 170kB/s
in both directions
- An FTP put from an NT box in A to the DS20 in B is again about 25kB/s
- An FTP get from an NT box on one side of the link to a DS20 on the other
is about 170kB/s
- Local performance from NT boxes to Alpha's (both PUT and GET) seems OK at
about 4MB/s in both locations

Any help greatly appreciated!!

 
 
 

Alpha network performance issues over leased line

Post by Leonid Rosenboi » Sat, 09 Nov 2002 01:21:57


Well, the first thing I'd check is the PHY negotiation between
the Alpha and the Cat3500 switch. It sometimes happens
that the switch things its Half duplex while the NIC thinks
its un full deuplex mode or vice versa.

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
   Leonid Rosenboim     Visit:  http://www.masada2000.org/historical.html
       Consultant                Email: my first name at consultant dot com


Quote:> Hello,

> We have a strange network performance problem.  We have a 2Mb leased line
> terminated at each end by a Cisco 2600 router.   A Digital Alpha DS20 is
> present in both locations, along with a network of NT boxes. One Alpha is
> loaded with VMS 7.1-2 and the other with 7.2-1.  The network at either end
> is Switched ethernet.

> So we have

> | NT boxes|   |DS20 (7.2-1)|
> ____|___________|______      Location A
>                    |
>       |Baystack 350 |
>       |10/100 switch |

>     |Cisco 2651 router|
>                   |
>                   |
>                   |    (2Mb link)
>                   |
>                   |
>     |Cisco 2621 router|

>       |Cisco Catalyst|
>       |  3500 switch |
> _________|____________    Location B
>          |                      |
> | NT boxes|   |DS20 (7.1-2)|

> All boxes can connect over IP, but performance varies dramatically
depending
> on the destination box.

> In summary, performance declines dramatically when the Alpha is the
> recipient of the data, and is OK otherwise. The alpha in location B has
only
> recently moved there.  They used to talk quite happily to each other
before
> this, when the second Alpha was in another location again.  The only
things
> that have changed are the routers at each end (used to be Nortel ARN
> routers) and the seond Alpha now plugs into a Cisco switch rather than a
> Nortel Baystack 350 it plugged into before.

> There appears to be no congestion on the link.  Can anyone think of any
> reason why the choice of router (Cisco) would have such an effect, but
only
> on traffic to the Alphas? Or should I be looking at something else?  Some
> measurements on performance are given below.  .

> - An FTP put from the DS20 in A to the DS20 in B is dreadful at about
25kB/s
> - An FTP put from the DS20 in B to the DS20 in A is also not good at about
> 50kB/s
> - An FTP put from any NT box to any NT box (over the link) is  about
170kB/s
> in both directions
> - An FTP put from an NT box in A to the DS20 in B is again about 25kB/s
> - An FTP get from an NT box on one side of the link to a DS20 on the other
> is about 170kB/s
> - Local performance from NT boxes to Alpha's (both PUT and GET) seems OK
at
> about 4MB/s in both locations

> Any help greatly appreciated!!


 
 
 

Alpha network performance issues over leased line

Post by Maveric » Sat, 09 Nov 2002 01:32:23


Thanks Leonid,

I had heard this, and  I changed both the switch and the Alpha to manual
100Mb full duplex with little effect.


Quote:> Well, the first thing I'd check is the PHY negotiation between
> the Alpha and the Cat3500 switch. It sometimes happens
> that the switch things its Half duplex while the NIC thinks
> its un full deuplex mode or vice versa.

 
 
 

Alpha network performance issues over leased line

Post by John Gemignani, Jr » Sat, 09 Nov 2002 05:17:45



> Thanks Leonid,

> I had heard this, and  I changed both the switch and the Alpha to manual
> 100Mb full duplex with little effect.



> > Well, the first thing I'd check is the PHY negotiation between
> > the Alpha and the Cat3500 switch. It sometimes happens
> > that the switch things its Half duplex while the NIC thinks
> > its un full deuplex mode or vice versa.

I think that I may have an idea.  Check the default route (the route for
0.0.0.0) using TCPIP SHOW ROUTE.  When I switched my home office network
onto a T1, I forgot to change the default route to the T1 so that all of
the TCP acknowledgements were going out through a temporary 56K dialup.
I was changing my network over at the time (since my last T1 provider
went bankrupt suddenly) and was transitioning services over one by one
over time.  What I saw was really bad performance, especially in one
direction.

-John

 
 
 

Alpha network performance issues over leased line

Post by Maveric » Sat, 09 Nov 2002 07:30:37


Quote:> I think that I may have an idea.  Check the default route (the route for
> 0.0.0.0) using TCPIP SHOW ROUTE.

Hi John,

Thanks.

Is that the same as UCX SHOW ROUTE? (I'm a complete * where VMS is
concerned I'm afraid).  If it is, then the route is set to the right place.

 
 
 

Alpha network performance issues over leased line

Post by John Gemignani, Jr » Sat, 09 Nov 2002 08:19:37



> > I think that I may have an idea.  Check the default route (the route for
> > 0.0.0.0) using TCPIP SHOW ROUTE.

> Hi John,

> Thanks.

> Is that the same as UCX SHOW ROUTE? (I'm a complete * where VMS is
> concerned I'm afraid).  If it is, then the route is set to the right place.

Yes, it is the same, and I'm sorry to hear that it wasn't the problem.
It had me going for a while and I work on this stuff.

-John

 
 
 

Alpha network performance issues over leased line

Post by Dale Kin » Sat, 09 Nov 2002 10:33:19



> Hi John,

> Thanks.

> Is that the same as UCX SHOW ROUTE? (I'm a complete * where VMS is
> concerned I'm afraid).  If it is, then the route is set to the right
> place.

which version of UCX are you running? ($ ucx show version).  Assuming as you say
your routes are correct, I would check you are at the highest patch level for
your version of UCX, then try again.
 
 
 

Alpha network performance issues over leased line

Post by Rick Jone » Sat, 09 Nov 2002 10:42:27



Quote:> In summary, performance declines dramatically when the Alpha is the
> recipient of the data, and is OK otherwise. The alpha in location B
> has only recently moved there.  They used to talk quite happily to
> each other before this, when the second Alpha was in another
> location again.  The only things that have changed are the routers
> at each end (used to be Nortel ARN routers) and the seond Alpha now
> plugs into a Cisco switch rather than a Nortel Baystack 350 it
> plugged into before.

What are (and were if you happen to know) the round-trip-times between
the sytsems? One of the (many) limits to the performance of a bulk TCP
transfer (such as that done by FTP is the Window Size divided by the
round-trip-time - W/RTT.

If you have done something that has increased RTT, and W is not "large
enough" to allow W/RTT to be >= link rate, you could see a decrease in
performance.

You might also check the statistics of whatever VMS has as the
equivalent to netstat (being pre-merger HP, my last exposure to VMS
was back in oh something like 1987).  Another thing that can kill
performance is packet loss - particulalry if the windows are small
enough that fast retransmits cannot take place and you have to wait
for retransmission timeouts.

Finally, it might be worthwhile to get a tcpdump (packet) trace of a
transfer that is slow and take a look at what it may show.

rick jones
--
denial, anger, bargaining, depression, acceptance, rebirth...
where do you want to be today?
these opinions are mine, all mine; HP might not want them anyway... :)
feel free to post, OR email to raj in cup.hp.com  but NOT BOTH...

 
 
 

Alpha network performance issues over leased line

Post by Maveric » Sat, 09 Nov 2002 14:05:32


Hi Rick,

Thanks for your reply

Quote:> What are (and were if you happen to know) the round-trip-times between
> the sytsems?

Im gonna show myself up now, but How do I measure / compute the RTT?  Ping
times are about 10 sec for 64 byte packets

Also, how do I see the window size?

Quote:

> Finally, it might be worthwhile to get a tcpdump (packet) trace of a
> transfer that is slow and take a look at what it may show.

I'd like to see what's happening at the alpha end.  Is there anything like
tcpdump I can run on the alpha, or do I have to mirror the port and monitor
it from another device?

Thanks,

Maverick

 
 
 

Alpha network performance issues over leased line

Post by Dale Kin » Sat, 09 Nov 2002 14:29:42



> What are (and were if you happen to know) the round-trip-times between
> the sytsems? One of the (many) limits to the performance of a bulk TCP
> transfer (such as that done by FTP is the Window Size divided by the
> round-trip-time - W/RTT.

> If you have done something that has increased RTT, and W is not "large
> enough" to allow W/RTT to be >= link rate, you could see a decrease in
> performance.

The orginal poster stated the following:


>- An FTP put from any NT box to any NT box (over the link) is  about 170kB/s
>in both directions
>- An FTP put from an NT box in A to the DS20 in B is again about 25kB/s

This would indicate the TCP window size is not the problem, as it would be set
by the source (NT box).  He could try a UDP throughput test (with the TTCP
utility in TCPIP V5.1+) to confirm this.
 
 
 

Alpha network performance issues over leased line

Post by Hamlyn Moot » Sat, 09 Nov 2002 16:09:35



> Hello,

> We have a strange network performance problem.  We have a 2Mb leased line
> terminated at each end by a Cisco 2600 router.   A Digital Alpha DS20 is
> present in both locations, along with a network of NT boxes. One Alpha is
> loaded with VMS 7.1-2 and the other with 7.2-1.  The network at either end
> is Switched ethernet.

> So we have

> | NT boxes|   |DS20 (7.2-1)|
> ____|___________|______      Location A
>                    |
>       |Baystack 350 |
>       |10/100 switch |

>     |Cisco 2651 router|
>                   |
>                   |
>                   |    (2Mb link)
>                   |
>                   |
>     |Cisco 2621 router|

>       |Cisco Catalyst|
>       |  3500 switch |
> _________|____________    Location B
>          |                      |
> | NT boxes|   |DS20 (7.1-2)|

> All boxes can connect over IP, but performance varies dramatically depending
> on the destination box.

> In summary, performance declines dramatically when the Alpha is the
> recipient of the data, and is OK otherwise. The alpha in location B has only
> recently moved there.  They used to talk quite happily to each other before
> this, when the second Alpha was in another location again.  The only things
> that have changed are the routers at each end (used to be Nortel ARN
> routers) and the seond Alpha now plugs into a Cisco switch rather than a
> Nortel Baystack 350 it plugged into before.

> There appears to be no congestion on the link.  Can anyone think of any
> reason why the choice of router (Cisco) would have such an effect, but only
> on traffic to the Alphas? Or should I be looking at something else?  Some
> measurements on performance are given below.  .

> - An FTP put from the DS20 in A to the DS20 in B is dreadful at about 25kB/s
> - An FTP put from the DS20 in B to the DS20 in A is also not good at about
> 50kB/s
> - An FTP put from any NT box to any NT box (over the link) is  about 170kB/s
> in both directions
> - An FTP put from an NT box in A to the DS20 in B is again about 25kB/s
> - An FTP get from an NT box on one side of the link to a DS20 on the other
> is about 170kB/s
> - Local performance from NT boxes to Alpha's (both PUT and GET) seems OK at
> about 4MB/s in both locations

> Any help greatly appreciated!!

How long does it take for a ping to traverse the link from an NT box
on side A to the Alpha on side B?

Do you see the same slowdown with any other application besides FTP?

Without any other information, the first thing I would check, is what
DNS (if any) the Alpha on the B side is pointing to, and/or how it is
resolving names, or back resolving IP to names.

Hamlyn

 
 
 

Alpha network performance issues over leased line

Post by Rudolf Winger » Sat, 09 Nov 2002 17:17:24


Hello,

I do not have any expirience with the Cat3500 switch. But I did see slow
network performance too. Between to end nodes I did see a performance less
then 1%. Seldom peaks with 90%. Together with our network service, we
tested all (e.g. different flow control). Nothing did help. And then we
did see, that the slow performance would be only via trunk. I don't know
what the problem is with DECnet and trunk. Changing from trunk to a
single line, the network performance speed up to 95% constant over a
long period. AFAIK there are also some problem with full duplex. Was
this tested between the Alpha network controller and the Cat3500?

Best regards Rudolf Wingert

 
 
 

Alpha network performance issues over leased line

Post by Leonid Rosenboi » Sat, 09 Nov 2002 19:30:28


Darn, the duplex thing would have been an obvious choise,
but I'd recommend setting 10Mbps & Half Duplex manually on both
the switch and the NIC before giving up this venue.

A second thing I'd check is packet loss rate and delay time,
as simply can be shown with a lengthy ping (>100 packets)
and using longer then usual packet size (1,200 bytes).

Also, since the switch is also IP capable, do the ping test between
the VMS and Catalyst, then VMS to Router (local IP )
then from VMP to local Router (T1 side IP address),
then remote router.

This will show not only the nature of the problem, but also where
it begins.

Can also do the same from the NT side, ping to local router, then remote
router,
then remote switch, the VMS, but this is a no brainer cause your T to NT
tests
show that the problem is *probably* on the catalust - VMS section.

-- HTH
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
   Leonid Rosenboim     Visit:  http://www.masada2000.org/historical.html
       Consultant                Email: my first name at consultant dot com


> Well, the first thing I'd check is the PHY negotiation between
> the Alpha and the Cat3500 switch. It sometimes happens
> that the switch things its Half duplex while the NIC thinks
> its un full deuplex mode or vice versa.

> --
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>    Leonid Rosenboim     Visit:  http://www.masada2000.org/historical.html
>        Consultant                Email: my first name at consultant dot
com



> > Hello,

> > We have a strange network performance problem.  We have a 2Mb leased
line
> > terminated at each end by a Cisco 2600 router.   A Digital Alpha DS20 is
> > present in both locations, along with a network of NT boxes. One Alpha
is
> > loaded with VMS 7.1-2 and the other with 7.2-1.  The network at either
end
> > is Switched ethernet.

> > So we have

> > | NT boxes|   |DS20 (7.2-1)|
> > ____|___________|______      Location A
> >                    |
> >       |Baystack 350 |
> >       |10/100 switch |

> >     |Cisco 2651 router|
> >                   |
> >                   |
> >                   |    (2Mb link)
> >                   |
> >                   |
> >     |Cisco 2621 router|

> >       |Cisco Catalyst|
> >       |  3500 switch |
> > _________|____________    Location B
> >          |                      |
> > | NT boxes|   |DS20 (7.1-2)|

> > All boxes can connect over IP, but performance varies dramatically
> depending
> > on the destination box.

> > In summary, performance declines dramatically when the Alpha is the
> > recipient of the data, and is OK otherwise. The alpha in location B has
> only
> > recently moved there.  They used to talk quite happily to each other
> before
> > this, when the second Alpha was in another location again.  The only
> things
> > that have changed are the routers at each end (used to be Nortel ARN
> > routers) and the seond Alpha now plugs into a Cisco switch rather than a
> > Nortel Baystack 350 it plugged into before.

> > There appears to be no congestion on the link.  Can anyone think of any
> > reason why the choice of router (Cisco) would have such an effect, but
> only
> > on traffic to the Alphas? Or should I be looking at something else?
Some
> > measurements on performance are given below.  .

> > - An FTP put from the DS20 in A to the DS20 in B is dreadful at about
> 25kB/s
> > - An FTP put from the DS20 in B to the DS20 in A is also not good at
about
> > 50kB/s
> > - An FTP put from any NT box to any NT box (over the link) is  about
> 170kB/s
> > in both directions
> > - An FTP put from an NT box in A to the DS20 in B is again about 25kB/s
> > - An FTP get from an NT box on one side of the link to a DS20 on the
other
> > is about 170kB/s
> > - Local performance from NT boxes to Alpha's (both PUT and GET) seems OK
> at
> > about 4MB/s in both locations

> > Any help greatly appreciated!!

 
 
 

Alpha network performance issues over leased line

Post by Alan Adam » Sat, 09 Nov 2002 22:21:56




Quote:> Darn, the duplex thing would have been an obvious choise,
> but I'd recommend setting 10Mbps & Half Duplex manually on both
> the switch and the NIC before giving up this venue.

> A second thing I'd check is packet loss rate and delay time,
> as simply can be shown with a lengthy ping (>100 packets)
> and using longer then usual packet size (1,200 bytes).

> Also, since the switch is also IP capable, do the ping test between
> the VMS and Catalyst, then VMS to Router (local IP )
> then from VMP to local Router (T1 side IP address),
> then remote router.

> This will show not only the nature of the problem, but also where
> it begins.

> Can also do the same from the NT side, ping to local router, then remote
> router,
> then remote switch, the VMS, but this is a no brainer cause your T to NT
> tests
> show that the problem is *probably* on the catalust - VMS section.

You might also do a tracert (or traceroute) from both ends, and see whether
the two routes differ.

In another message you said ping was returning in 10 seconds - was that a
typo - ping is more usually 10 milliseconds. 10 seconds WILL be part of your
problem.

- Show quoted text -

> -- HTH
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>    Leonid Rosenboim     Visit:  http://www.masada2000.org/historical.html
>        Consultant                Email: my first name at consultant dot com



> > Well, the first thing I'd check is the PHY negotiation between
> > the Alpha and the Cat3500 switch. It sometimes happens
> > that the switch things its Half duplex while the NIC thinks
> > its un full deuplex mode or vice versa.

> > --
> > -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >    Leonid Rosenboim     Visit:  http://www.masada2000.org/historical.html
> >        Consultant                Email: my first name at consultant dot
> com



> > > Hello,

> > > We have a strange network performance problem.  We have a 2Mb leased
> line
> > > terminated at each end by a Cisco 2600 router.   A Digital Alpha DS20 is
> > > present in both locations, along with a network of NT boxes. One Alpha
> is
> > > loaded with VMS 7.1-2 and the other with 7.2-1.  The network at either
> end
> > > is Switched ethernet.

> > > So we have

> > > | NT boxes|   |DS20 (7.2-1)|
> > > ____|___________|______      Location A
> > >                    |
> > >       |Baystack 350 |
> > >       |10/100 switch |

> > >     |Cisco 2651 router|
> > >                   |
> > >                   |
> > >                   |    (2Mb link)
> > >                   |
> > >                   |
> > >     |Cisco 2621 router|

> > >       |Cisco Catalyst|
> > >       |  3500 switch |
> > > _________|____________    Location B
> > >          |                      |
> > > | NT boxes|   |DS20 (7.1-2)|

> > > All boxes can connect over IP, but performance varies dramatically
> > depending
> > > on the destination box.

> > > In summary, performance declines dramatically when the Alpha is the
> > > recipient of the data, and is OK otherwise. The alpha in location B has
> > only
> > > recently moved there.  They used to talk quite happily to each other
> > before
> > > this, when the second Alpha was in another location again.  The only
> > things
> > > that have changed are the routers at each end (used to be Nortel ARN
> > > routers) and the seond Alpha now plugs into a Cisco switch rather than a
> > > Nortel Baystack 350 it plugged into before.

> > > There appears to be no congestion on the link.  Can anyone think of any
> > > reason why the choice of router (Cisco) would have such an effect, but
> > only
> > > on traffic to the Alphas? Or should I be looking at something else?
> Some
> > > measurements on performance are given below.  .

> > > - An FTP put from the DS20 in A to the DS20 in B is dreadful at about
> > 25kB/s
> > > - An FTP put from the DS20 in B to the DS20 in A is also not good at
> about
> > > 50kB/s
> > > - An FTP put from any NT box to any NT box (over the link) is  about
> > 170kB/s
> > > in both directions
> > > - An FTP put from an NT box in A to the DS20 in B is again about 25kB/s
> > > - An FTP get from an NT box on one side of the link to a DS20 on the
> other
> > > is about 170kB/s
> > > - Local performance from NT boxes to Alpha's (both PUT and GET) seems OK
> > at
> > > about 4MB/s in both locations

> > > Any help greatly appreciated!!

--
Alan Adams

http://www.nckc.org.uk/
 
 
 

Alpha network performance issues over leased line

Post by David Frobl » Sat, 09 Nov 2002 23:44:31


One question about the network.  Are you 100% sure that everything is running
full duplex?  I tried full duplex once on an Alpha, without everything else
being full duplex, and performance died.  I switched back to half duplex and the
performance returned.  Later research discovered this issue.

Dave



>>Hello,

>>We have a strange network performance problem.  We have a 2Mb leased line
>>terminated at each end by a Cisco 2600 router.   A Digital Alpha DS20 is
>>present in both locations, along with a network of NT boxes. One Alpha is
>>loaded with VMS 7.1-2 and the other with 7.2-1.  The network at either end
>>is Switched ethernet.

>>So we have

>>| NT boxes|   |DS20 (7.2-1)|
>>____|___________|______      Location A
>>                   |
>>      |Baystack 350 |
>>      |10/100 switch |

>>    |Cisco 2651 router|
>>                  |
>>                  |
>>                  |    (2Mb link)
>>                  |
>>                  |
>>    |Cisco 2621 router|

>>      |Cisco Catalyst|
>>      |  3500 switch |
>>_________|____________    Location B
>>         |                      |
>>| NT boxes|   |DS20 (7.1-2)|

>>All boxes can connect over IP, but performance varies dramatically depending
>>on the destination box.

>>In summary, performance declines dramatically when the Alpha is the
>>recipient of the data, and is OK otherwise. The alpha in location B has only
>>recently moved there.  They used to talk quite happily to each other before
>>this, when the second Alpha was in another location again.  The only things
>>that have changed are the routers at each end (used to be Nortel ARN
>>routers) and the seond Alpha now plugs into a Cisco switch rather than a
>>Nortel Baystack 350 it plugged into before.

>>There appears to be no congestion on the link.  Can anyone think of any
>>reason why the choice of router (Cisco) would have such an effect, but only
>>on traffic to the Alphas? Or should I be looking at something else?  Some
>>measurements on performance are given below.  .

>>- An FTP put from the DS20 in A to the DS20 in B is dreadful at about 25kB/s
>>- An FTP put from the DS20 in B to the DS20 in A is also not good at about
>>50kB/s
>>- An FTP put from any NT box to any NT box (over the link) is  about 170kB/s
>>in both directions
>>- An FTP put from an NT box in A to the DS20 in B is again about 25kB/s
>>- An FTP get from an NT box on one side of the link to a DS20 on the other
>>is about 170kB/s
>>- Local performance from NT boxes to Alpha's (both PUT and GET) seems OK at
>>about 4MB/s in both locations

>>Any help greatly appreciated!!

> How long does it take for a ping to traverse the link from an NT box
> on side A to the Alpha on side B?

> Do you see the same slowdown with any other application besides FTP?

> Without any other information, the first thing I would check, is what
> DNS (if any) the Alpha on the B side is pointing to, and/or how it is
> resolving names, or back resolving IP to names.

> Hamlyn

 
 
 

1. Leasing & short term leasing of CI connected AXP

We are interested finding a good company for leasing a CI connect AXP system.
Currently that probably means a DEC 7000model610 though eventually that might
change. If you h ave had any previous experience good or bad leasing such
systems, especially if form companies other than DEC please drop a note to

We are an academic insituion and will probably run VMS on it if that makes a
difference.  Ideally we would like to arrange a 6 to 12 month lease but that
seems unlikely so we have to see.
--

2. DNS Migration

3. Performance issues with Alpha and VAX on same CI?

4. How i put net in my Workpad c3?

5. Official OpenVMS name for the Itanium? re leases leases leases

6. FLT_MIN_* macros

7. SYS$QIOW - Performance Issue

8. Sorry to ask but will PsiWin 2.1 work with Outlook98?

9. What about performance issues??

10. UCX NFS Client Poor performance issue

11. Performance issues - recommendations?

12. URGENT: Disk Performance Issue

13. Oracle on VMS performance issue