[Info-vax] The best VMS features, was: Re: openvms renaming file

[Dave Froble]

On 5/28/2018 12:41 AM, Stephen Hoffman wrote:
> On 2018-05-27 23:32:18 +0000, Simon Clubley said:
>
>> On 2018-05-27, Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)
>> <helbig at asclothestro.multivax.de> wrote:
>>>
>>> Certainly in the top-ten list of most useful VMS features.  Off the
>>> top of my head, others would be:
>>> HBVS,
>>
>> Yes
>
> Sort of.  For specific configurations and requirements, definitely. For
> many other common configurations, no.   Outside of multiple paths across
> multiple hosts, hardware RAID solved what HBVS provides long ago.  HBVS
> is simple and synchronous and inefficient approach toward replication.
> For single-path access, file shares and hardware RAID all work fine, and
> various of those configurations can be replicated. Which reduces the
> cases and the configurations that really want and need HBVS.  Other
> platforms replicate data differently.  And some apps want or need asynch
> replication.  Or want to avoid the overhead of whole-disk replication.
> Or the overhead of synchronous write-thru I/O, whether due to geographic
> latencies or otherwise.
>
>>> clustering,
>>
>> Yes (big time)
>
> There's a whole lot of work necessary here.
>
> On OpenVMS, I'd suspect that the pricing killed clustering.

Well, yes ....

> An integrated DLM is handy, but clustering and its APIs and management
> and integration is far too firmly stuck in the 1990s.  No job
> management.  No LDAP integration past authentication.

The DLM is a really useful tool.  Not just for clustering.  I use it on 
stand alone systems for multiple things.

> On other platforms, there are add-on packages that provide distributed
> coordination, file shares, replication, backups and other features.
> Which reduces the numbers of combinations where clustering really still
> shines.
>
>>> logical names,
>>
>> Yes
>
> Logical names?  Definitely not.  Logical names are a disaster, in most
> of the ways that they're commonly used.   There are better ways to do
> most or all of what logical names are used for, too.  Just not as easily
> on OpenVMS, unfortunately.   They're complete dreck when used for app
> settings, flags and related configuration data.

As Bill might say, don't blame the tool for the shoddy workmen.

Logical names can be very useful.  As one example I've used, a logical 
name to point to data, and logical names used at multiple levels.  So, 
with the same code one can use the test database, or the live database. 
  For this one example, it's the easiest thing to do the job.

Yes, you don't like the use of logical names in the C language, and I 
agree completely with you.  But poor usage doesn't mean the tool is poor.


> DECnet is dead.

As a network transport tool, you are correct.  However some of the 
utilities that use DECnet are quite good.  Let's not throw out the 
utilities because of the transport.