11 Jun
1998
11 Jun
'98
12:40 p.m.
But the VAX-philopsophy was extreme CISC, and that
extended to the
VAX/VMS filesystem as well: record-based, with a zillion different
file
attributes, built-in file versioning, etc. It was hierarchial, but
mixed with a clunky "volume" concept (something like DOS "C:", but
with
longer names).
I wouldn't call it "clunky". In fact with VMS you can combine drives
into a volume set if you want the filesystem spread across multiple
drives, or you can treat each drive as an isolated filesystem. As a
system admin, I prefer the separate volumes, makes it easier to manage
overnight backups. In our VMScluster individual disks are backed up in
parallel across several tape drives (as many as four tapes in operation
at the same time, depending on day of week), a trivial task in VMS but a
bit more elaborate on a Unix system.
As for the RMS file attributes and versioning, they are a dream for
programmers, compared to PC or Unix systems. We have NT or W95
workstations at every desk, but we still keep a VMScluster running,
partly for financial apps, and partly for coding. When you start
dealing with larger apps (i.e 3K-5K users per week, 300-500 at any one
time in a 24 hour day, all accessing the same files) you start to
appreciate what VMS can do.
BTW, one nice advantage of filesystem per disk is drive shadowing in
VMS. You can mirror two drives during the day, then break the set,
remount the mirrored drive as a separate disk, back it up, then
reconnect it back to the shadow set. Instant snapshot backup without
shutting down applications, all the database files are intact as of the
moment you broke the shadow set, no updates during the backup.
Jack Peacock
11 Jun
11 Jun
5:58 p.m.
On Thu, 11 Jun 1998, Jack Peacock wrote:
As for the RMS file attributes and versioning, they
are a dream for
programmers, compared to PC or Unix systems. We have NT or W95
workstations at every desk, but we still keep a VMScluster running,
partly for financial apps, and partly for coding. When you start
dealing with larger apps (i.e 3K-5K users per week, 300-500 at any one
time in a 24 hour day, all accessing the same files) you start to
appreciate what VMS can do.
It depends on your philosophy, I guess. Both DEC and Microsoft are in the
"everything belongs in the OS" camp, whereas Unix came from the "simple is
beautiful" school. The latter assumes that database vendors are probably
better at building database engines than OS vendors are.
Have you ever used a product called ClearCase? It basically maps a
database engine / version control system to a Unix filesystem. It's very
powerful, but I wouldn't want to use it or have the overhead associated
with it if I didn't actually need it. Most people don't need it.
-- Doug
12 Jun
12 Jun
4:21 a.m.
Have you ever used a product called ClearCase? It
basically maps a
database engine / version control system to a Unix filesystem. It's very
powerful, but I wouldn't want to use it or have the overhead associated
with it if I didn't actually need it. Most people don't need it.
I did an internship at Siemens Business Communication Systems, Inc.
(which was Siemens ROLM at the time). We used ClearCase on a bunch of Suns
running SunOS. It was a pretty slick program, though it used a kernel
device driver to do its magic (I don't know much about UNIX loadable kernel
modules -- perhaps my suspicion has leaked over from my MS-DOS experience).
Unfortunately, the project that we all were using ClearCase for was cancelled,
and I started work on another project, which did NOT use ClearCase. The 2nd
project was a rather slovenly bunch of code with a simpleminded makefile.
(And comments in German.) On that project I got to experience the joy of a
cross-debugger running on TI DSP hardware and a so-so C compiler (and an odd
linker, though that was actually OK).
When I finally tracked down the manual for the debugger (to see how to get it
to work under "real" X Windows -- most everyone else was using OpenLook -- it
had all kinds of ominous notices like "Preliminary" and "The following
routines
SHOULD work." (It was a third-party product.) It also gave me the option of
using SunView. :)
BTW, I hate the way OpenLook adheres to the X (Athena?) conventions except when
it doesn't. The way it abuses resource files is shameful, especially since
resources are one of the great things about X. Of course, the ugly apps don't
help matters at all.
These two packages may have been a big factor in ROLM's sticking with the old
Sun set-up they had. I think they're using PC's now, though.
Yes, I know this message isn't really about ClearCase... but I thought my
story might be worth sharing. I hope it isn't typical but I suspect it is.
-- Derek
9543
days inactive
9544
days old
2 comments
3 participants
participants (3)
-
dpeschel＠u.washington.edu -
peacock＠simconv.com -
yowza＠yowza.com