VMS_CHECK Download

[Thomas Simpson]

I was reading about the VMS_CHECK software and it sounds interesting. Unfortunately, the link to the kit is wrong. Where can I find the VMS_CHECK kit to download?

[Kris Clippeleyr]

Thomas,
Assuming you've read about VMS_CHECK in the VMS journal ( http://h71000.www7.hp.com/openvms/journal/v7/vms_check_tool.html ), I think you should follow the advice given in that article, i.e. contacting the author of the tool Kostas G. Gavrielidis, Master Technologist HP Services.
Regards,
Kris (aka Qkcl)

[Ian Miller.]

As there has been some interest in this, hp are looking into making VMS_CHECK available via the web site.

[John Abbott_2]

Excellent! Can this thread be updated when it's available (or other useful reach all means) ?

[John Abbott_2]

Thank you HP :-)

http://h71000.www7.hp.com/openvms/journal/v7/vms_check.zip

[Thomas Simpson]

I found it yesterday. Thanks to all that replied.

[Karl Rohwedder]

I gave it a try and noticed an ACCVIO on the monitor command (MONITOR... /AVE). This is reproducable without VMS_CHECK so I made a call to HP.

regards Kalle

[John Abbott_2]

It looks like you need a product called KavaChart installed on your pc under c:\kgglib to get the two charts to work.

[Wim Van den Wyngaert]

I would rename it to system_dump. It doesn't check anything.

I have a simular thing simply executing a number of commands and scripts, dumping it into a file that is showed via WASD in IE.

Primary usage is to get an idea of what is going on.

Some minusses.
1) There are hardcoded tests on GS320 where GS1280 should be present too
2) show que/all/fu is missing on first sight (this is where I get most problems from)
3) scripts are dumped where @ are used in. The @ path should be followed if possible. Idem for modparams include files.
4) diag show sum is done. Fine but requires a license. A dump of all errors would also be welcome.
5) I didn't ask HTML but got it anyway ?

Wim

[Robert_Boyd]

I downloaded VMS_CHECK and ran it on a cluster without requesting the detail report. I've looked at the results for a while. I'm finding that there is some of what is in VMS_CHECK that is excessive output. There's obviously a lot of hard work gone into getting it to where it is. I'd like to see the output reorganized some for the systems I support. It appears that the developer had priorities for information that either doesn't exist or I'm not that concerned about that I would prefer to see provided in a different order, or optionallyl dropped/included.

I'm not to the point yet where I can say specifically what I'd like to see different. I'm going to have to run it on 3 or 4 clusters and see how the results compare.

I used the TRU64 sys_check for several years and found it to be extremely valuable. I'm hoping that with feedback that VMS_CHECK will become at least as useful as that was.

Robert