[Info-vax] Pathworks or one of its descendants on x86

[Kerry Main]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Info-vax [mailto:info-vax-bounces at rbnsn.com] On Behalf Of
> Stephen Hoffman via Info-vax
> Sent: February 21, 2018 2:17 PM
> To: info-vax at rbnsn.com
> Cc: Stephen Hoffman <seaohveh at hoffmanlabs.invalid>
> Subject: Re: [Info-vax] Pathworks or one of its descendants on x86
> 
> On 2018-02-20 12:37:47 +0000, Kerry Main said:
> > For something like Samba, the native file system and TCPIP stack are
> > critical components of the overall solution.
> 
> Um, can anybody name a modern general-purpose operating system
> that
> doesn't have both a file system and an IP network stack?  Even
> embedded
> operating systems all have both a file system and IP networking, though
> some might allow subsetting.
> 
> > Lets not forget that an entirely new, more modern TCPIP stack and file
> > system will also be part of the upcoming OpenVMS X86-64 equation, so
> > comparing OpenVMS Samba X86-64 performance to the past is not
> likely
> > much of a comparison.
> >
> > New OpenVMS file system notes:
> > <http://www.hp-
> connect.se/SIG/New_File_System_VMS_Boot%20Camp_2016.pdf>
> 
> We'll see what the IP stack and file system performance will be when it
> all arrives.   If I'm worried and in a hurry for better performance,
> I'll toss an SSD underneath it all.  Yeah, that'd require VAFS for one
> of those newfangled 30 TB SSDs due to the capacity limits inherent in
> ODS-5.
> 
> > As someone else stated, PathWorks is NT4 technology, so hardly worth
> > looking at for the future. That's the equivalent of looking at 386 or
> > 486 PC technology for hardware deployment.
> 
> PATHWORKS Server was deprecated an aeon or three ago, and it's very
> insecure.  It was replaced with Advanced Server.   Which is insecure.
> The OpenVMS Samba port is the replacement for the Advanced Server
> package, though the available Samba port for OpenVMS is an old port of
> Samba and is itself also very insecure.
> 
> All three of these are SMB / SMB1 / SMB 1.0 / CIFS-era packages,
> insecure, and none of these will pass a typical security audit, and
> newer systems will have to be reconfigured and security downgraded to
> allow connections into an SMB1 era server.
> 
> The Microsoft business manager for SMB (Ned Pyle) very strongly
> recommends against the continued use of any SMB 1.0 / CIFS-era clients
> or servers.
> 
> Current Samba is far more secure and SMB 3.1.1 (current) and with its
> own Active Directory (AD) implementation now available, though Samba
> switched from GPLv2 to GPLv3, and which usually which constrains its
> incorporation into the base system of a closed-source operating system.
>  There are alternative SMB stacks available from third-party providers.
> 
> The production release of OpenVMS for x86-64 isn't due out until ~2020,
> based on the current VSI roadmap.    I expect we'll learn more about
> this area and about the particular version(s) involved in any
> open-source ports, and more about many other areas over the next year
> or two.  This as VSI gets away from the base system and more cycles
> with the layered products and open source packages, and gets some
> time
> to test the performance of the various changes to OpenVMS,
> networking,
> and the layered products.
> 
> As a potential workaround for a requirement for a file share that's
> compatible with other operating system platforms, WebDAV might get
> you
> where you want, and Apache on OpenVMS does offer that capability.
> NFS
> is another option, as well.
> 
> Related:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Server_Message_Block
> https://medium.com/@petergombos/lm-ntlm-net-ntlmv2-oh-my-
> a9b235c58ed4
> https://blogs.technet.microsoft.com/filecab/2016/09/16/stop-using-
> smb1/
> 

All this discussion about file servers may be somewhat mute for any traditional OS platform as many med-large customers are now deploying appliance CIFS/NFS solutions.

😊


Regards,

Kerry Main
Kerry dot main at starkgaming dot com