🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <4362@mitech.com>, gjc@mitech.com (George J. Carrette) writes:
> How are people managing their sources now that there are two VMS
> platforms, VAX and ALPHA?
> 
> For example, I would love to be able to access my CMS libraries
> that are sitting on my VAX directly from my ALPHA machines.
> However, CMS does not support any network operations, and mixed vms
> clusters are not something that claim to be supported.
> 

Well, I don't have an Alpha (yet), but the word on the street is that you can
cluster VAX and Alpha. 'and anonymous official from our favorite computer
company" said that it would work, it just was 'not supported'. 

Does anyone have a mixed cluster working? (Or aren't you allowed to say?)
Letting us know that you are not allowed to say, will of course tell us that
it works :) 

Other options are said to be DFS and DQS. Any comments?

Of course if all of this wrong, please say so! (before I start wading in the 
deep do-do!)

regards,   jasper

Jasper Rees
Oxford University Molecular Biology Data Centre
and The Sir William Dunn School of Pathology

jasper@molbiol.ox.ac.uk  
jasper@vax.path.ox.ac.uk

In article <1993Jan7.195359.1@vax.path.ox.ac.uk>, jasper@vax.path.ox.ac.uk writes:
> Well, I don't have an Alpha (yet), but the word on the street is that you can
> cluster VAX and Alpha. 'and anonymous official from our favorite computer
> company" said that it would work, it just was 'not supported'. 

Well, I for one would not want to see my disks containing 98% of the
intellectual property of the company (source code, customer lists,
documentation, marketting info) suddently all screwed up and unavailable just
because of some little bug in the vms cluster code that exists on alpha.

Point of PEEVE: is that the source code analyzer has some kind
of SCA$SERVER decnet object so you can evidently use it via regular decnet.

-gjc

>> How are people managing their sources now that there are two VMS
>> platforms, VAX and ALPHA?
>> 
>> For example, I would love to be able to access my CMS libraries
>> that are sitting on my VAX directly from my ALPHA machines.
>> However, CMS does not support any network operations, and mixed vms
>> clusters are not something that claim to be supported.
>> 
>>gjc@mitech.com (George J. Carrette)

 >Well, I don't have an Alpha (yet), but the word on the street is that you can
 >cluster VAX and Alpha. 'and anonymous official from our favorite computer
 >company" said that it would work, it just was 'not supported'. 
 >Does anyone have a mixed cluster working?
 >
 >jasper@vax.path.ox.ac.uk (Jasper Rees)

yeah, NPRI has a flamingo clustered in with all the vaxes.  we keep all
of our CMS libraries on one of the vax disks and the reference-directories
are all under one tree on another vax disk, so i just mirrored all of
the [SRC...] directories from the reference disk onto the axp disk,
so we essentially have _two_ reference directories for each CMS library
(one on vax, one on axp).  guess i should mention that we always use
a command procedure i wrote to RESERVE and REPLACE elements, so it was
easy to add a COPY command after the CREATE and REPLACE commands.

it's worked pretty well.  so well, in fact, that i test-build on axp
before building on vax!  loooooove that DECC compiler!!

ok
dpm
-- 
murphy@npri6.npri.com 602 Cameron St. Alexandria, VA 22314 (703) 683-9090

              When every one is dead the Great Game is finished.  Not before.
                              --- Hurree Babu, "Kim"

In article <1993Jan7.195359.1@vax.path.ox.ac.uk>, jasper@vax.path.ox.ac.uk writes:
|> In article <4362@mitech.com>, gjc@mitech.com (George J. Carrette) writes:
|> > How are people managing their sources now that there are two VMS
|> > platforms, VAX and ALPHA?
|> > 
|> > For example, I would love to be able to access my CMS libraries
|> > that are sitting on my VAX directly from my ALPHA machines.
|> > However, CMS does not support any network operations, and mixed vms
|> > clusters are not something that claim to be supported.
|> > 
|> o o o
|>
|> Other options are said to be DFS and DQS. Any comments?

DQS (Distributed Queueing Services) would not, per se, provide a shared
filesystem, but simply a method for submitting jobs cross-network.

DFS (Distributed File System) provides a shared filesystem approach, but at
least as of a couple years ago (circa 1990-1991) it did not support shared
access to modifiable files (that is, it didn't support record locking).  In
the same timeframe, such a modifiable file was at the heart of a CMS library,
and hence using DFS would restrict you to a single CMS library access at a
time (if memory serves).

Things may have changed in either CMS or DFS;  I suggest that you just get 
a very clear answer before you buy (although I don't recall a reference to 
CMS, the limitations on filesharing were outlined pretty clearly in the DFS 
documentation).

Lloyd Wheeler
wheeler@kpc.com
Former VAX/VMS dude

In article <1993Jan12.153551.15221@kpc.com>, wheeler@thorn.kpc.com (Lloyd
Wheeler) writes:

|>In article <1993Jan7.195359.1@vax.path.ox.ac.uk>, jasper@vax.path.ox.ac.uk
|>writes:
|>|> In article <4362@mitech.com>, gjc@mitech.com (George J. Carrette) writes:
|>|> > How are people managing their sources now that there are two VMS
|>|> > platforms, VAX and ALPHA?
|>|> > 
|>|> > For example, I would love to be able to access my CMS libraries
|>|> > that are sitting on my VAX directly from my ALPHA machines.
|>|> > However, CMS does not support any network operations, and mixed vms
|>|> > clusters are not something that claim to be supported.
|>|> > 
|>|> o o o
|>|>
|>|> Other options are said to be DFS and DQS. Any comments?
|>
|>DQS (Distributed Queueing Services) would not, per se, provide a shared
|>filesystem, but simply a method for submitting jobs cross-network.
|>
|>DFS (Distributed File System) provides a shared filesystem approach, but at
|>least as of a couple years ago (circa 1990-1991) it did not support shared
|>access to modifiable files (that is, it didn't support record locking).  In
|>the same timeframe, such a modifiable file was at the heart of a CMS library,
|>and hence using DFS would restrict you to a single CMS library access at a
|>time (if memory serves).
|>
|>Things may have changed in either CMS or DFS;  I suggest that you just get 
|>a very clear answer before you buy (although I don't recall a reference to 
|>CMS, the limitations on filesharing were outlined pretty clearly in the DFS 
|>documentation).

My understanding of the CMS docs is that DFS is what you are intended to use for
sharing CMS in that manner. Don't know how though...

Certainly the VMSy bits must have been pruned to get it running on the ULTIX
boxen.

--

Phill Hallam-Baker