[Info-vax] Cutting down on routing nodes

[H Vlems]

On 4 aug, 15:10, "John E. Malmberg" <wb8... at qsl.network> wrote:
> H Vlems wrote:
> > On 3 aug, 22:54, CY <christ... at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > If I understand you well then these are your requirements:
> > -You're running all the DECnet machines in one area
> > -All nodes run phase IV
> > -You'd rather run without routing because the overhead involved is a
> > concern
>
> > It is quite possible to run a DECnet environment without a router at
> > all, as you've tried and proved.
> > While doing that, you're effectively blind. So the choice seems to be
> > between running (at least) one
> > router or implementing a tool to figure out what is alive in area 5.
> > The overhead of running a circuit router is minimal, even on a
> > microVAX II. Using a DECnet 'ping' is
> > something you need to schedule and will impose some kind of additional
> > load on the target nodes.
> > (if you're rinning PDP--1 systems, shouldn't it be TYPE
> > <node>::NL: ?).
>
> > Converting an endnode system to a router node is no longer in
> > NETCONFIG. The manual procedure is:
>
> > $ MC NCP
> > NCP> DEF EXEC TYPE ROUT IV
> > NCP> SET EXEC STATE OFF
> > NCP> EXIT
> > $!
> > $ @SYS$STARTUP:NETSTART
>
> One other thing to be taken into consideration is that all nodes in a
> cluster that need to answer to a DECNET cluster alias need to have
> routing enabled.
>
> When my job was managing VMS systems, the reason not to have additional
> Phase IV routing nodes is because the license was significantly higher
> priced than for an end node.
>
> -John
> wb8... at qsl.network
> Personal Opinion Only- Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht niet weergeven -
>
> - Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht weergeven -

License cost is a serious issue. I got the idea that the OP did have a
couple of DVNETRTG licenses.
He described his problem as the overhead that DECnet routing might
present to an older system compared to endnode functionality.
So he tried running a DECnet environment without any router at all.
Which worked, technically at least, but presented the OP with a new
problem, viz. the management of the DECnet nodes. Without a router
you're driving blindfolded. The solutions to this problem are possibly
incurring a higher load on the systems than just running a routing
layer on one node :-). Apparently the OP figured that the easy way out
would be to switch routing back on. That's about it, right?