top - download
⟦8ab123993⟧ Wang Wps File
Length: 22627 (0x5863)
Types: Wang Wps File
Notes: DIVERSE
Names: »3606A «
Derivation
└─⟦daa99b8e3⟧ Bits:30006185 8" Wang WCS floppy, CR 0401A
└─ ⟦this⟧ »3606A «
WangText
…00……00……00……00……00……00……00……00……00……00……00……00……00……00……00……00……00……00……00……00……00……00……00……00……00……00……00……00……00……00……00……00……00……00……00……00……00……00……00……00……00……00……00……00……00……00……00……00……00……00……00……00……00……08……10…;$…10…;…85……10…;…00……00……00……00……00……00……00……00……00……00……00……00……00……00……00……00……00……00……00……00……00……00……00……00……00……00……00……00……00……00……00……00……00……00……00……00……00……00……00……00……00……00……00……00……00……00……00……00……00……00……00……00……00……00……00……00……00……00……00……00……00……00……00……00……00……00……00……00……00……00……00……00……00……00……00……00……00……00……00……00……00……00……00……00……00……00……00……00……00……00……00……00……00……00……00……00……00……00……00……00……00……00……00……00……00……00……00……00……00……00……00……00……00……00……00……00……00……00……00……00……00……00……00……00……00……00……00……00……00……00……00……00……00……00……00……00……00……00……00……00……00……00……00……00……00……00……00……00……00……00……00……00……00……00……00……00……00……00……00……00……00……00……00……00……00……00……00……00……00……00……00……00……00……00……00……00……00……00……00……00……00……00……00……00……06…1
…00……00……00……00……00……00……00……00……00……00……00……00……00……00……00……00……00……00……00……00……00……00……00……00……00……00……00……00……00……00……00……00……00……00……00……00……00……00……00……00……00……00……00……00……00……00……00……00……00……00……00……00……00…"…10…
INTERACTIONSPrecedence FLASOther PrecedencesPreemption
Delay…00…3̲CAMPS TIMING VERIFICATIONSTERMINAL INTERACTIONSNon-Interactive
TransInteractive TransCommand LineRequest ValidationINFO
ValidationSucceeding Actions…00…a̲…88……88… …02… …02… …02… …02…
…82……00…b̲ For standardization
purposes
SHAPE has
requested
CR to install
4 boards
per PU in
all of the
above system.
In addition to the above installed memory boards
spares are required at sites as well as at depots.
The number of spare modules required depends on the
reliability of the memory boards. CR has performed
a theoretical calculation which calculates the Mean
Time Between Failures (MTBF) to 3,900 hours. The
actual observed reliability is, however, approximately
15,000 hours.
SHAPE insits that CR is using the theoretical calculated
MTBF value.
Below the number of spares required at site and depots
are presented for the two different MTBF values.
For standardization purposes SHAPE has requested
CR to install 4 boards per PU in all of the above
system.
In addition to the above installed memory boards
spares are required at sites as well as at depots.
The number of spare modules required depends on the
reliability of the memory boards. CR has performed
a theoretical calculation which calculates the Mean
Time Between Failures (MTBF) to 3,900 hours. The
actual observed reliability is, however, approximately
15,000 hours.
SHAPE insits that CR is using the theoretical calculated
MTBF value.
Below the number of spares required at site and depots
are presented for the two different MTBF values.
For standardization purposes SHAPE has requested
CR to install 4 boards per PU in all of the above
system.
In addition to the above installed memory boards
spares are required at sites as well as at depots.
The number of spare modules required depends on the
reliability of the memory boards. CR has performed
a theoretical calculation which calculates the Mean
Time Between Failures (MTBF) to 3,900 hours. The
actual observed reliability is, however, approximately
15,000 hours.
SHAPE insits that CR is using the theoretical calculated
MTBF value.
Below the number of spares required at site and depots
are presented for the two different MTBF values.
For standardization purposes SHAPE has requested
CR to install 4 boards per PU in all of the above
system.
In addition to the above installed memory boards
spares are required at sites as well as at depots.
The number of spare modules required depends on the
reliability of the memory boards. CR has performed
a theoretical calculation which calculates the Mean
Time Between Failures (MTBF) to 3,900 hours. The
actual observed reliability is, however, approximately
15,000 hours.
SHAPE insits that CR is using the theoretical calculated
MTBF value.
Below the number of spares required at site and depots
are presented for the two different MTBF values.
For standardization purposes SHAPE has requested
CR to install 4 boards per PU in all of the above
system.
In addition to the above installed memory boards
spares are required at sites as well as at depots.
The number of spare modules required depends on the
reliability of the memory boards. CR has performed
a theoretical calculation which calculates the Mean
Time Between Failures (MTBF) to 3,900 hours. The
actual observed reliability is, however, approximately
15,000 hours.
SHAPE insits that CR is using the theoretical calculated
MTBF value.
Below the number of spares required at site and depots
are presented for the two different MTBF values.
For standardization purposes SHAPE has requested
CR to install 4 boards per PU in all of the above
system.
In addition to the above installed memory boards
spares are required at sites as well as at depots.
The number of spare modules required depends on the
reliability of the memory boards. CR has performed
a theoretical calculation which calculates the Mean
Time Between Failures (MTBF) to 3,900 hours. The
actual observed reliability is, however, approximately
15,000 hours.
SHAPE insits that CR is using the theoretical calculated
MTBF value.
Below the number of spares required at site and depots
are presented for the two different MTBF values.
For standardization purposes SHAPE has requested
CR to install 4 boards per PU in all of the above
system.
In addition to the above installed memory boards
spares are required at sites as well as at depots.
The number of spare modules required depends on the
reliability of the memory boards. CR has performed
a theoretical calculation which calculates the Mean
Time Between Failures (MTBF) to 3,900 hours. The
actual observed reliability is, however, approximately
15,000 hours.
SHAPE insits that CR is using the theoretical calculated
MTBF value.
Below the number of spares required at site and depots
are presented for the two different MTBF values.
For standardization purposes SHAPE has requested
CR to install 4 boards per PU in all of the above
system.
In addition to the above installed memory boards
spares are required at sites as well as at depots.
The number of spare modules required depends on the
reliability of the memory boards. CR has performed
a theoretical calculation which calculates the Mean
Time Between Failures (MTBF) to 3,900 hours. The
actual observed reliability is, however, approximately
15,000 hours.
SHAPE insits that CR is using the theoretical calculated
MTBF value.
Below the number of spares required at site and depots
are presented for the two different MTBF values.
…00……86…1 …02…
…02… …02…
…02…
WORK PACKAGE DESCRIPTION…02…XXXXX…02……02…#
…02……02…CAMPS
1984-11-14 Pu/vhn
to: delta data corp, usa.
att: mr. don. mccunney
fm: christian rovsing a/s af 1984, denmark
kurt nybroe-nielsen
our ref: cps/104/tlx/0242
subject: monitor version 2.25
-----------------------------
bug 7.97 - bad performance
in your telex no. 5 nov 1984-3 you ask for a test setup.
As our test environment is fairly complicated it is
not possbile for cr to describe the whole test in details.
However, in our opinion the description given below
should enable you to duplicate the bug.
Mode of operation: 2400 bps, 7 bits/char, odd parity,
block mode, format mode, block size (host to VDU) typically
110 cahracters.
Initial screen setup: Three 80 column splits are defined:
split 0: row 5
split 1: row 1-4
split 2: row 6-27
our test concentrates on split 2.
in row 6-8 some text and 3 fields of size 4 are defined.
in row 9 column 12 a field of size 4 is defined.
in row 10-12 some text, 2 fields of size 1 and 1 field
of size 4 are defined.
test description:
row no 9 is duplicated 30 times. With mon. vers. 2.22
this operation was finished in 15 seconds. With mon.
vers. 2.25 this operation was finished in 23 seconds.
row no. 9 is duplicated as follows.
STX 0E CD 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 0E A7 40
08 0E A7 C4 CE 0E A8
C1 B0 B0 34 0D 0E CD 20 20 20 20 -- ETX BCCH BCCL (about
110 chars)
Observations and measurements:
2.22:
----
host to VDU: STX "duplicate row 9" ETX
BCCH BCCL
VDU to host: wait ack
host immediately to VDU: enq
vdu to host after 1.6 seconds: ack
2.25:
-----
host to VDU: STX "duplicate row 9" ETX
BCCH BCCL
VDU to host: wait ack
host immediately to VDU: enq
vdu to host after 2.0 seconds: wait ack
host immediately to VDU: enq
vdu to host after 1.0 seconds: ack
The times indicated are worst cases but they were observed
several times during the insertion of the 30 new lines.
Conclusion:
the above described test is only an example of the decreased
performance of mon. vers. 2.25. As a whole cr is not
satisfied with the perfomance of the delta vdu. even
with vers. 2.22 it requires 23 seconds to duplicate a
line 30 times. For an operator this is a very long time
to wait. as said before we have a very urgent need for
correction of this bug. so please tell us as soon as
possible whether this new information enables you to
duplicate the problem or not.
kind regards,
CHRISTIAN ROVSING A/S af 1984
Kurt nybroe-Nielsen
Item no. 1:
-----------
the explanations given in ref c) are the result of a
large number of thorough investigations of system logs
and dumps. the corrective actions are described below:
LOAD TEST SWITCHOVER AND SYSTEM CLOSE LOG…01…-------------------------------------------------
No. DATE TIME ACTION TDS COMMENTS
-------------------------------------------------------------------
1 840716 16.03 MANUAL X Error
in
VDU
Simulator
SW
2 840717 14.27 MANUAL NICS-TARE
FW
error
3 840717 19.06 Change
of
Process
Priorities
4 840718 09.14 AUTOMATIC NICS-TARE
FW
error
5 840718 11.57 AUTOMATIC NICS-TARE
FW
error
6 840720 08.51 AUTOMATIC NICS-TARE
FW
error
7 840720 13.27 MANUAL NICS-TARE
FW
error
8 840722 09.54 Ordered
Close
Down
for
Testing
Warm
Start
9 840723 08.33 MANUAL NICS-TARE
FW
error
10 840723 16.12 AUTOMATIC/ Operator
Error,
Wrong
TCI
MANUAL Command for Process
Priority
11 840723 17.56 AUTOMATIC/ Operator
Error
Power
Off
Active
MANUAL TDX-Bus
12 840724 09.46 AUTOMATIC Resource
Threshold
exceeded
13 840724 14.23 AUTOMATIC X Error
in
VDU-Simulator
SW
14 840724 15.17 AUTOMATIC/ Operator
Error,
Write
MANUAL Protection on Master
Disc
Without Fully Dualized
System
15 840725 14.14 AUTOMATIC/ Operator
Error
Wrong
TCI
MANUAL Command for Process
Priority
16 840725 15.25 AUTOMATIC HW
Error
on
Master
Disk
which
was
not
fully
dualized
17 840726 10.25 MANUAL NICS-TARE
FW
error
18 840726 11.22 MANUAL X Error
in
VDU-Stimulator
SW
19 840726 14.23 AUTOMATIC NICS-TARE
FW
error
20 840726 15.50 MANUAL X Error
in
VDU-Stimulator
SW
21 840727 10.50 AUTOMATIC Forced
VDU
error
in
crate
1
(ACTIVE-TDX)
resulted
in
switchover
22 840810 10.57 AUTOMATIC Resource
Threshold
exceeded
Additional comments and corrective actions:
1) The system was hanging in a IO cancel operation
call, due to too long response times between
handler and copsy.
when this occurs the system is "hanging" and a forced
switchover needed to recover the situation.
This situation is covered by item no. 9 in ref d.
2) The system stop caused troubles with the nics-tare
ltu. When this occurs a forced switchover is
needed to recover the situation. This situation
is covered by item no. 9 in ref d.
3) Introducing new process priorities - switchover
was done to have the system running with the
new priorities. this was no error but a tuning
action.
4) As 2).
5) As 2).
6) As 2).
7) As 2).
8) System closed for test purpose by operator.
9) As 2)
10) Due to wrong priority introduced in 3), a switchover
occurred, because a transport process was at
a too low priority level and therefore did not
answer request fast enough. this has been corrected.
11) The active tdx bus controller was powered off
by the operator. When this happens the system
shall perform a switchover.
12) Resource threshold was exceeded and therefore
gave a switchover.
This situation is covered by item 7,8,10 in ref d.
13) as 1).
14) A write protection was forced by the operator
on the master disk. If the system is not fully
dualized, this will cause switchover. This is
no error.
15) as 10).
16) A HW error on the master disk. the reaction
of the system is described in 14).
17) As 2).
18) As 1).
19) As 2).
20) As 1).
21) Problem with delta data fw. this is covered
by item 5 in ref d.
22) As 12).
Item No. 28:
------------
There is according to the requirements possibility for
one response message. CRS is willing to change the text
for the response line. please specify the wanted phrasing.
item No. 29:
------------
CRS has offered shape the choice of two solutions. Please
specify which one you decide on.
Kind regards,
CHRISTIAN ROVSING SYSTEMS A/S
Kurt Nybroe-Nielsen
1984-07-11 knb/vhn
to: Harris, oslo
att.: Mr. ken baker
fm: christian rovsing a/s, denmark
knud benkjer
our ref: xfx/101/tlx/0055
subject: mpf project status
---------------------------
1. In accordance with minutes of meeting dated
840620 nodeca/harris should by now have established
a strategy and a schedule which would lead to
successful completion of the mpf project. no
such strategy nor schedule has yet been presented
to cr.
also cr did expect to participate in a meeting this
week in oslo, during which cr were ready to discuss
compensation for the latest and previous delays and
comment proposed strategy/schedule. This meeting has
apparently been cancelled.
Below we summarize our present situation
- we delivered our documents timely in accordance
with the contractual schedule.
- we worked in parallel with revised requirements
and design in order to limit the delay of the
total cross fox program.
- by now we should be ready to proceed with detailed
design, but have no baseline at all
- we have no schedule for the future
- no agreement exists regarding compensation for
delay
It is necessary that strategy, schedule, and compensation
are settled as soon as possible.
In the following we discuss
- the past history of the MPF
- our financial situation
- our compensation requirements
2. throughout the period october 1983 until today
the requirements to the mpf continously have
been changed. the following record of event
examples clearly illustrates the defective state
of the original IFB.
831004 - (831117)
-----------------
cr raised the total of 66 questions for clarification
to the original ifb of which 27 were left open after
clarification meeting 831116 - 831117.
831011
------
received amendment/clarification to ifb by letter xf-l033-83
containing 26 issues of which the 5 had financial impact
(ref. ifb 1) and left open.
831116
------
received during meeting update pages to the ifb regarding
routing and screening/vetting (ref. ifb 2). IFB 2 was
withdrawn during the meeting.
840102
------
received ifb draft update (ref. ifb 3) by letter xf-l126-84
containing revised ifb 2 plus new log and retrieval
requirements. 9 cn's were closed and other 5 cn's re-opened,
leaving 23 still open clarification notes.
840130-840203
-------------
conducted srd review meeting where the total of 43
dn's were left open, 19 of which were related to cr
proposal of 840206 because of financial impact, 12
were related to other areas of ifb 3, and the remaining
were associated with ship shore, broadcast and mrl
procedures not yet coordinated with the users.
840301
------
received ifb update pages (ref. ifb 4) by letter xf-l179-84
regarding ship shore, broadcast and mrl procedures.
screening/vetting procedures were again changed.
840306-840307
-------------
participated in meeting in oslo during which the outstanding
srd dn's should have been resolved and closed. In stead
a revision of ifb 4 (ref. ifb 5) was handed over together
with discussion notes regarding changed log and retrieval
requirements.
840322
------
Received ifb revision 2 (ref. ifb 6) also containing
revision of previous closed clarification notes. during
the following meeting 840404, the result was additional
34 open nodeca items.
840413
------
participated in meeting in haag (stc) where routing
principles changed by ifb 6 were discussed and closed.
a schedule was set up which by 840622 should lead to
a baseline for detailed design by approval of the srd,
icd's, and sds.
840620-840622
-------------
by the end of the combined mpf system requirements
and design review meeting where 8 dn's to the srd were
treated, nodeca/stc stated that they had more comments
to the srd and also intended to review all icd's and
the sds. they also intended to review all closed dn's
from the srd review meeting 840130 - 840203 and reserved
the right to change previous resolutions.
840711
------
refer to initial description of today's situation.
3. in accordance with the contractual payment plan,
the payment for 4th quarter = d.kr. 5,270,510
should have been invoiced by 30. june 1984.
cr has not done so because the milestone is associated
with delivery of detailed design documentation.
besides from being a payment milestone with cashflow
impact, above figure also illustrates the "cost-overrun"
of the mpf project per 30. june 1984, since the payment
plan is structured such that cr's cost is covered throughout
the lifetime of the mpf project.
4. as initially stated cr has delivered documents
timely in accordance with the contract, and
when that no longer was possible due to missing
approval we then agreed to continue at risk
into the next phase.
the approach previously being taken can no longer be
maintained. The MPF is in a definite halt situation,
where a decision must be taken whether we shall
- un-man the project to the necessary limit, or
- keep the project staffed until the necessary
baselines exist.
we consider the last solution most acceptable to all
parties involved and, therefore, we will raise our
compensation requirements based on this assumption.
The total delay for which cr will have to claim compensation
is the previous delay and the future delay.
a) the previous delay did occur during february
to may 1984 and would be limited to 2 months
provided that the srd/icd/sds baselines were
accomplished by 22. june 1984.
our cost overrun is for the previous delay period
d.kr. 2,500,000 which amount we will have to
claim in compensation in addition to the contract
value.
The actual cost overrun is equal to half of
4th quarter's payment, because the future detailed
design schedule and the future in-plant testing
schedule both have been extended with 1 month.
if the payment plan had been revised, 4th quarter
would as an example show 2,500,000, which again
will be pushed into another quarter together
with the ongoing delay.
b) regarding the future delay which will be calculated
from 22. june 1984 on a day by day slip until
srd/icd/sds are baselined and appproved, our
compensation requirement is calculated as follows
per calendar month:
manpower and house rent d.kr. 1,200,000
travel and meeting expenses d.kr. 50,000
---------------
monthly compensation d.kr. 1,250,000
it shall be emphasized that he manpower ressources
above have been decreased with the manpower
not affected by the delay as for example hardware.
All future scheduled activities will be pushed
concurrently with the ongoing future delay.
5. cr is looking forward to a continued good cooperation
with Harris in order to make a successful program.
kind regards,
christian rovsing a/s
knud benkjer121 Til: KNN, JAL, URH, IJO, KNB,
VHN
L̲I̲S̲T̲E̲ ̲O̲V̲E̲R̲ ̲F̲E̲R̲I̲E̲ ̲I̲ ̲A̲F̲D̲.̲ ̲3̲1̲1̲0̲ ̲+̲ ̲3̲1̲4̲0̲ ̲S̲O̲M̲M̲E̲R̲ ̲1̲9̲8̲4̲
A̲L̲F̲A̲B̲E̲T̲I̲S̲K̲ ̲O̲R̲D̲E̲N̲
F̲e̲r̲i̲e̲ ̲f̲r̲a̲:̲ F̲e̲r̲i̲e̲ ̲t̲i̲l̲:̲
Benkjer Knud KNB 25/6 10/8
Bredahl Ole Hervik OHE 12/6 29/6
Elleboe Flemming FLE 3/9 21/9
Frederiksen J]rn J[F 9/7 20/7
Goldman Thomaz TJG 1/8 14/8
Gudjonsson Oddur Jens OJG 16/7 3/8
Hansen Dorte DHH 16/7 27/7
Hansen Jens E. Heldbo JHH 11/7 31/7
Hansen Ole Krag OKH 16/7 3/8
Holm Jan JHO 25/6 29/6
9/7 13/7
Holgersen Erik EHO ? ?
Holst Uffe R]nnenkamp URH 9/7 10/8
Jacobsen Keld KEJ 9/7 3/8
Jensen Cay Holst CHJ 9/7 27/7
Jensen Ejler K`rvang EKJ 16/7 20/7
30/7 10/8
Jensen Johnny Lysbjerg JLJ 9/7 20/7
Johannsen Niels NJO 16/7 3/8
Johansen Ib IJO 9/7 27/7
Juhl Keld Dandanell KJU 30/8 21/9
J]rgensen Finn FNJ 23/7 10/8
Kongshammer Betty BKO 2/7 13/7
Kristensen Henning D HDK 16/7 3/8
Larsen Djon DL 16/7 3/8
Larsen Poul POL 20/8 7/9
Lauridsen Jan JAL 3/9 14/9
Mortensen Peter PFM 2/7 20/7
Nielsen Lars LN 19/7 31/8
Nielsen Vini Hauris VHN 30/7 17/8
Nybroe-Nielsen Kurt KNN 23/7 10/8
Petersen Allan AAP 6/7 24/8
Pihl Jesper HJP 29/7 10/8
Porotnikoff Michael MP 9/8 22/8
Rosendahl J]rgen JRD 13/7 27/7
Schmidt Lise Rerup LRS 23/7 10/8
Serup Jens J]rgen JJS 27/8 14/9
Simonsen Flemming FLS 2/7 6/7
30/7 10/8
Siomka J]rgen Bjarne JBS 16/7 3/8
Str]m-Nielsen Marianne MSN
9/7 27/7
S]nder Finn FS[ 23/7 3/8
Ultved Peter PU 20/7 10/8
Villadsen Carsten CSV 25/6 17/7
Verwohlt Hans HW ? ?
Waldhauer Poul Erik PEW 9/7 27/7
Wunsch Erik EPW 9/7 27/7
L̲I̲S̲T̲E̲ ̲O̲V̲E̲R̲ ̲F̲E̲R̲I̲E̲ ̲I̲ ̲A̲F̲D̲.̲ ̲3̲1̲1̲0̲ ̲+̲ ̲3̲1̲4̲0̲ ̲S̲O̲M̲M̲E̲R̲ ̲1̲9̲8̲4̲
K̲R̲O̲N̲O̲L̲O̲G̲I̲S̲K̲ ̲O̲R̲D̲E̲N̲
F̲e̲r̲i̲e̲ ̲f̲r̲a̲:̲ F̲e̲r̲i̲e̲ ̲t̲i̲l̲:̲
J̲U̲N̲I̲
Bredahl Ole Hervik OHE 12/6 29/6
Benkjer Knud KNB 25/6 10/8
Holm Jan JHO 25/6 29/6
9/7 13/7
Villadsen Carsten CSV 25/6 17/7
J̲U̲L̲I̲
Kongshammer Betty BKO 2/7 13/7
Mortensen Peter PFM 2/7 20/7
Simonsen Flemming FLS 2/7 6/7
30/7 10/8
Petersen Allan AAP 6/7 24/8
Frederiksen J]rn J[F 9/7 20/7
Holst Uffe R]nnenkamp URH 9/7 10/8
Jacobsen Keld KEJ 9/7 3/8
Jensen Cay Holst CHJ 9/7 27/7
Jensen Johnny Lysbjerg JLJ 9/7 20/7
Johansen Ib IJO 9/7 27/7
Str]m-Nielsen Marianne MSN
9/7 27/7
Waldhauer Poul Erik PEW 9/7 27/7
Wunsch Erik EPW 9/7 27/7
Hansen Jens E. Heldbo JHH 11/7 31/7
Rosendahl J]rgen JRD 13/7 27/7
Gudjonsson Oddur Jens OJG 16/7 3/8
Hansen Dorte DHH 16/7 27/7
Hansen Ole Krag OKH 16/7 3/8
Jensen Ejler K`rvang EKJ 16/7 20/7
30/7 10/8
Johannsen Niels NJO 16/7 3/8
Kristensen Henning D HDK 16/7 3/8
Larsen Djon DL 16/7 3/8
Siomka J]rgen Bjarne JBS 16/7 3/8
Nielsen Lars LN 19/7 31/8
Ultved Peter PU 20/7 10/8
J]rgensen Finn FNJ 23/7 10/8
Nybroe-Nielsen Kurt KNN 23/7 10/8
Schmidt Lise Rerup LRS 23/7 10/8
S]nder Finn FS[ 23/7 3/8
Pihl Jesper HJP 29/7 10/8
Nielsen Vini Hauris VHN 30/7 17/8
A̲U̲G̲U̲S̲T̲
Goldman Thomaz TJG 1/8 14/8
Porotnikoff Michael MP 9/8 22/8
Larsen Poul POL 20/8 7/9
Serup Jens J]rgen JJS 27/8 14/9
Juhl Keld Dandanell KJU 30/8 21/9
Elleboe Flemming FLE 3/9 21/9
Lauridsen Jan JAL 3/9 14/9
Holgersen Erik EHO ? ?
Verwohlt Hans HW ? ?
1…86…1 …02… …02… …02… …02… …02…
