INFO-VAX Sat, 08 Nov 2008 Volume 2008 : Issue 605 Contents: Re: /SYSTEM and /FOREIGN on a disk on the same MOUNT command Re: /SYSTEM and /FOREIGN on a disk on the same MOUNT command Re: /SYSTEM and /FOREIGN on a disk on the same MOUNT command Re: OVMS Integrity BASIC LTU Getting only 1 user at cost of $2400.00??? Re: OVMS Integrity BASIC LTU Getting only 1 user at cost of $2400.00??? Re: OVMS Integrity BASIC LTU Getting only 1 user at cost of $2400.00??? Re: Variable record format but used with fixed lenght data ? Re: Variable record format but used with fixed lenght data ? Re: Variable record format but used with fixed lenght data ? Re: Who is left at VMS engineering ? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 8 Nov 2008 03:42:28 -0800 (PST) From: IanMiller Subject: Re: /SYSTEM and /FOREIGN on a disk on the same MOUNT command Message-ID: <856b9b15-ebed-4082-a76d-103e10b0f950@a3g2000prm.googlegroups.com> On 7 Nov, 22:10, Arne Vajh=F8j wrote: > R.A.Omond wrote: > > etmsr...@yahoo.co.uk wrote: > >> Just had an interesting one... > > >> I'd always taken that /SYSTEM and /FOREIGN were mutually exclusive - > >> you wouldn't be allowed to mount a volume system wide if you were > >> mounting it foreign as you'd only want one thread/process to be able > >> to squirt data at the disk. > > >> A colleague just tried doing the two qualifiers on the same command > >> and it worked. =A0Odd in my view! > > >> Is this a bug or have I got it the wrong way round in my head? > > > I see no reason whatsoever to even begin to consider this a bug. > > > Why should you not be able to do that ? > > Because for a couple of decades you could not. > > Arne It's an improvement then :-) Allthough I wonder why. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 08 Nov 2008 12:13:24 +0000 From: "R.A.Omond" Subject: Re: /SYSTEM and /FOREIGN on a disk on the same MOUNT command Message-ID: <49158268$0$90262$14726298@news.sunsite.dk> IanMiller wrote: > On 7 Nov, 22:10, Arne Vajhøj wrote: >> R.A.Omond wrote: >>> etmsr...@yahoo.co.uk wrote: >>>> Just had an interesting one... >>>> I'd always taken that /SYSTEM and /FOREIGN were mutually exclusive - >>>> you wouldn't be allowed to mount a volume system wide if you were >>>> mounting it foreign as you'd only want one thread/process to be able >>>> to squirt data at the disk. >>>> A colleague just tried doing the two qualifiers on the same command >>>> and it worked. Odd in my view! >>>> Is this a bug or have I got it the wrong way round in my head? >>> I see no reason whatsoever to even begin to consider this a bug. >>> Why should you not be able to do that ? >> Because for a couple of decades you could not. > > It's an improvement then :-) > Although I wonder why. Oh yes, it's very much an improvement. I'd go as far to say it's fixed an, ahem, "misfeature". I think it *might* have something to do with official support for Jur's LD (Logical Disk) ... ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 08 Nov 2008 16:56:15 +0100 From: "Martin Vorlaender" Subject: Re: /SYSTEM and /FOREIGN on a disk on the same MOUNT command Message-ID: R.A.Omond wrote: > Ian Miller wrote: >> Arne Vajhøj wrote: >>> R.A.Omond wrote: >>>> etmsr...@yahoo.co.uk wrote: >>>>> Just had an interesting one... >>>>> I'd always taken that /SYSTEM and /FOREIGN were mutually exclusive - >>>>> you wouldn't be allowed to mount a volume system wide if you were >>>>> mounting it foreign as you'd only want one thread/process to be able >>>>> to squirt data at the disk. >>>>> A colleague just tried doing the two qualifiers on the same command >>>>> and it worked. Odd in my view! >>>>> Is this a bug or have I got it the wrong way round in my head? >>>> >>>> I see no reason whatsoever to even begin to consider this a bug. >>>> Why should you not be able to do that ? >>> >>> Because for a couple of decades you could not. >> >> It's an improvement then :-) >> Although I wonder why. > > Oh yes, it's very much an improvement. I'd go as far to say > it's fixed an, ahem, "misfeature". > > I think it *might* have something to do with official support > for Jur's LD (Logical Disk) ... I'd think it does have to do with the Infoserver utility. From the V8.3 New Features, section 6.1.2, "CREATE SERVICE": Usage rules: - All devices must be mounted systemwide to prevent them from being dismounted when a process logs out. - A device that has read/write service must be mounted /FOREIGN so that it is not visible to OpenVMS. - A device that has read-only service must be mounted with either the /NOWRITE qualifier or the /FOREIGN qualifier so that no one can change it locally. cu, Martin -- One OS to rule them all | Martin Vorlaender | OpenVMS rules! One OS to find them | work: mv@pdv-systeme.de One OS to bring them all | http://vms.pdv-systeme.de/users/martinv/ And in the Darkness bind them.| home: martin.vorlaender@t-online.de ------------------------------ Date: 8 Nov 2008 12:53:11 GMT From: billg999@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) Subject: Re: OVMS Integrity BASIC LTU Getting only 1 user at cost of $2400.00??? Message-ID: <6nlgdmFm4tcqU1@mid.individual.net> In article <00A8247E.E4E037C0@sendspamhere.org>, VAXman- @SendSpamHere.ORG writes: > In article <0003e74f$0$26284$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com>, JF Mezei writes: >>John Reagan wrote: >> >>> I've been staying out of the discussion since I don't even understand them. >>> That part of the productizing of the compilers is above my pay grade as they >>> say. >> >>But Shirley, you guys could add a couple of IF statements in your >>compilers to check the status of the licence check call and exit >>gracefully when it is not good ? >> >>And a better thing would be to put the licence check in a loop with a 10 >>second timer. If the licence is already "in use", wait 10 seconds and >>try again. This way, as soon as the other compile is done, this one can >>begin. (this loop could be controlled though some logical name whose >>value would be the maximum amount of time to wait for licence to become >>available) > > Polling? How unixy. :) Since when? Version 6? bill -- Bill Gunshannon | de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n. Three wolves billg999@cs.scranton.edu | and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. University of Scranton | Scranton, Pennsylvania | #include ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 08 Nov 2008 06:38:28 -0800 From: "Tom Linden" Subject: Re: OVMS Integrity BASIC LTU Getting only 1 user at cost of $2400.00??? Message-ID: On Fri, 07 Nov 2008 13:19:01 -0800, JF Mezei wrote: > John Reagan wrote: > >> I've been staying out of the discussion since I don't even understand >> them. >> That part of the productizing of the compilers is above my pay grade as >> they >> say. > > But Shirley, you guys could add a couple of IF statements in your > compilers to check the status of the licence check call and exit > gracefully when it is not good ? > > And a better thing would be to put the licence check in a loop with a 10 > second timer. If the licence is already "in use", wait 10 seconds and > try again. This way, as soon as the other compile is done, this one can > begin. (this loop could be controlled though some logical name whose > value would be the maximum amount of time to wait for licence to become > available) I used a C compiler on a Sun box about 20 years ago, and if someone had used the compiler, you had to wait a half hour, because that useer had preemptive rights for that period, we ended up expanding the license to 2 users. -- PL/I for OpenVMS www.kednos.com ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 08 Nov 2008 15:22:45 GMT From: VAXman- @SendSpamHere.ORG Subject: Re: OVMS Integrity BASIC LTU Getting only 1 user at cost of $2400.00??? Message-ID: <00A82514.67CBCF1B@SendSpamHere.ORG> In article <6nlgdmFm4tcqU1@mid.individual.net>, billg999@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) writes: >In article <00A8247E.E4E037C0@sendspamhere.org>, > VAXman- @SendSpamHere.ORG writes: >> In article <0003e74f$0$26284$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com>, JF Mezei writes: >>>John Reagan wrote: >>> >>>> I've been staying out of the discussion since I don't even understand them. >>>> That part of the productizing of the compilers is above my pay grade as they >>>> say. >>> >>>But Shirley, you guys could add a couple of IF statements in your >>>compilers to check the status of the licence check call and exit >>>gracefully when it is not good ? >>> >>>And a better thing would be to put the licence check in a loop with a 10 >>>second timer. If the licence is already "in use", wait 10 seconds and >>>try again. This way, as soon as the other compile is done, this one can >>>begin. (this loop could be controlled though some logical name whose >>>value would be the maximum amount of time to wait for licence to become >>>available) >> >> Polling? How unixy. :) > >Since when? Version 6? Bill, you never cease to amaze me in the lack of humor department. ;) -- VAXman- A Bored Certified VMS Kernel Mode Hacker VAXman(at)TMESIS(dot)COM ... pejorative statements of opinion are entitled to constitutional protection no matter how extreme, vituperous, or vigorously expressed they may be. (NJSC) Copr. 2008 Brian Schenkenberger. Publication of _this_ usenet article outside of usenet _must_ include its contents in its entirety including this copyright notice, disclaimer and quotations. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 08 Nov 2008 11:55:00 GMT From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jan-Erik_S=F6derholm?= Subject: Re: Variable record format but used with fixed lenght data ? Message-ID: Hein RMS van den Heuvel wrote: > On Nov 7, 2:02 pm, koeh...@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob > Koehler) wrote: >> In article , =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jan-Erik_S=F6derholm?= writes: >>> Hi. >>> While analyzing some old indexed RMS datafiles >>> that I *know* always are used with fixed size >>> records (from COBOL apps), I've noticed that >>> they are created with : >>> RECORD >>> CARRIAGE_CONTROL carriage_return >>> FORMAT variable >>> SIZE 280 >>> Question is, why not use "fixed" when all records >>> are fixed size anyway ? My best guess is that it is >>> like this just becuse "variable" is the default, and >>> noone has ever thought about changing it to "fixed"... >>> Is there any drawback having the files beeing set to >>> variable record format when one is always using fixed >>> sized records anyway ? >> There's a tiny overhead for entering the record length >> at the begining of each record. I suspect no one ever >> bothered to "fix" it. You might actually see a performance >> improvement if you change it, but you might also find >> that you need a way to maintain upward compatability with >> at least reading archived data.- Hide quoted text - >> >> - Show quoted text - > > Guys guys... why speculate and guess? > Jan wrote INDEXED files. Ther eare no alllignment bytes for indexed > files. > And more often then not indexed file records have date or key > compression in which case RMS will have to have a record length word > no matter what. So the overhead is zero. > For fixed length record, with no compression there is the 2 byte > overhead... but that only makes a difference if the you can store > fewer records in a bucket... Given a particular bucket size that's a > matter of math, not speculation. > > IN any case this will be totally minor compared to the typical Indexed > file usage errors sutch as lack of compression or inadequet bucket > sizes. > > Cheers, > Hein. OK, thanks all. For the time beeing I concider this as an non-issue. I guess the default rec-fmt "variable" wasn't changed when the files was created from the beginning (sometimes mid-80's I guess). I'm now creating "field", "record", "RMS-database" and "database" definitions in CDD to be used by the Rdb Gateway for RMS. I've never used CDD before. Fun ! :-) Jan-Erik. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 8 Nov 2008 06:42:06 -0800 (PST) From: yyyc186 Subject: Re: Variable record format but used with fixed lenght data ? Message-ID: <46edd19e-8714-44d7-a1e3-6e778afbf134@q26g2000prq.googlegroups.com> The best thing I ever found to work across both RMS files and relational databases was Cognos PowerHouse. On Nov 6, 5:18=A0pm, Jan-Erik S=F6derholm wrote: > Hi. > While analyzing some old indexed RMS datafiles > that I *know* always are used with fixed size > records (from COBOL apps), I've noticed that > they are created with : > > RECORD > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0CARRIAGE_CONTROL =A0 =A0 carriage_return > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0FORMAT =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 variable > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0SIZE =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 280 > > Question is, why not use "fixed" when all records > are fixed size anyway ? My best guess is that it is > like this just becuse "variable" is the default, and > noone has ever thought about changing it to "fixed"... > > Is there any drawback having the files beeing set to > variable record format when one is always using fixed > sized records anyway ? > > (Apart from the one I do know about. "Rdb Transparent > Gateway to RMS" has some restrictions on variable > records formated indexed RMS files, but as I read it, > it is no issue if the records are all the same size > anyway...) > > B.t.w, this is part of a project to setup DBI and > the "Rdb Transparent Gateway to RMS" to be able to > run SQL queries against the RMS files and also run > joins between the RMS files and between the RMS files > and the Rdb database. It all looks just fine right now. > I'm currently entering field, record and database > definitions into CDD to get some metadata for the > RMS files (about 20 files). > > Jan-Erik. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 08 Nov 2008 16:58:56 GMT From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jan-Erik_S=F6derholm?= Subject: Re: Variable record format but used with fixed lenght data ? Message-ID: Could/can it join RMS and Rdb in the same SQL SELECT statement ? yyyc186 wrote: > The best thing I ever found to work across both RMS files and > relational databases was Cognos PowerHouse. > > > On Nov 6, 5:18 pm, Jan-Erik Söderholm > wrote: >> Hi. >> While analyzing some old indexed RMS datafiles >> that I *know* always are used with fixed size >> records (from COBOL apps), I've noticed that >> they are created with : >> >> RECORD >> CARRIAGE_CONTROL carriage_return >> FORMAT variable >> SIZE 280 >> >> Question is, why not use "fixed" when all records >> are fixed size anyway ? My best guess is that it is >> like this just becuse "variable" is the default, and >> noone has ever thought about changing it to "fixed"... >> >> Is there any drawback having the files beeing set to >> variable record format when one is always using fixed >> sized records anyway ? >> >> (Apart from the one I do know about. "Rdb Transparent >> Gateway to RMS" has some restrictions on variable >> records formated indexed RMS files, but as I read it, >> it is no issue if the records are all the same size >> anyway...) >> >> B.t.w, this is part of a project to setup DBI and >> the "Rdb Transparent Gateway to RMS" to be able to >> run SQL queries against the RMS files and also run >> joins between the RMS files and between the RMS files >> and the Rdb database. It all looks just fine right now. >> I'm currently entering field, record and database >> definitions into CDD to get some metadata for the >> RMS files (about 20 files). >> >> Jan-Erik. > ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 8 Nov 2008 01:10:29 -0800 (PST) From: Jerry Eckert Subject: Re: Who is left at VMS engineering ? Message-ID: <8e457455-c73e-4dec-bc55-be5d6ab441bb@x16g2000prn.googlegroups.com> On Oct 26, 11:54=A0am, David J Dachtera wrote: > "Complaints" are like pain: they tell us when something is wrong. Sometimes. Or they can just be an itch that wants to be scratched. Some, an itch that won't go away. ------------------------------ End of INFO-VAX 2008.605 ************************