[Info-vax] Orphaned processes on OpenVMS

[Paul Sture]

In article <irkkki$dc8$1 at Iltempo.Update.UU.SE>,
 Johnny Billquist <bqt at softjar.se> wrote:

> On 2011-05-25 19.01, Wendell wrote:
> > On May 23, 6:08 am, koeh... at eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob
> > Koehler) wrote:
> >> In article<ir740v$3l... at Iltempo.Update.UU.SE>, Johnny 
> >> Billquist<b... at softjar.se>  writes:
> >>
> >>     The only thing I've heard substantially influenced by UNIX, and also
> >>     attempted various ways in earlier DEC operating systems, was the
> >>     now ubiquitous nesting of directories inside directories in a file
> >>     hierarchy.  Even then, there were influences that lead VMS to a
> >>     per-disk hierarchy, rather than UNIX style mount points.
> >
> > What were the perceived advantages of the per-disk hierarchy? The Unix
> > way seems obviously cleaner to me, but it seems that Darwin/OS X has
> > gone over to something more like VMS.
> 
> Well, you do get into the obvious problems of interdependency when you 
> have mount points inside the file system. You cannot unmount disk a, 
> because you have disk b mounted on disk a.

And one advantage of "the VMS way" was demonstrated to me in a real 
disaster recovery situation.  Various disks and controllers didn't come 
back to life after a nasty power outage.  Our VMS systems came back OK 
with the help of duplicate-everything and volume shadowing.

I don't know exactly what happened on our Unix systems, but we heard 
tales that they were restoring complete file systems to get back to a 
coherent state.

-- 
Paul Sture