[Info-vax] New filesystem mentioned

[Dave Froble]

On 5/16/2019 9:48 AM, Bob Koehler wrote:
> In article <qbhjkp$qn$3 at dont-email.me>, Simon Clubley <clubley at remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP> writes:
>> For example, there is no conceptual reason I can see why there couldn't
>> be a cluster-aware FAT32 filesystem driver even through on some other
>> operating systems such a thing would never be required.
>
>     OK, on VMS that would be a FAT32 ACP and would have to have the DLM
>     calls in it.  But concpetually, FAT32 has no place to keep a lot of
>     the information that VMS depends on.  Where in FAT32 is there a place
>     for VMS ACLs, the last BACKUP date, the record type?
>

Well .........

ACLs, BACKUP date, record type ....

Those are not really part of VMS.  They are part of the filesystem, I'd 
think.  That mentioned, yes, there are tools, utilities, and such 
bundled with VMS to make use of such information.  Outside of such 
utilities and tools, no, VMS does not depend on such filesystem information.

If VMS was to support a FAT32 filesystem, such utilities would either 
not work with that filesystem, or, would know what to expect from each 
filesystem.

I guess it all comes down to how an individual defines the VMS 
environment.  There could be the argument that it's all one thing, no 
pieces.  But that would make it very hard to be modified, updated, and 
such.  Perhaps better to look at the individual parts, and, to hope for 
the parts to be as modular, like black boxes, as possible.

Don't want to give Steve, Simon, et;al heart failure or a stroke, but, I 
personally feel that VMS would be better off to be as modular as 
possible, without getting performance hits and such.  It would make 
modifications to some things easier.  Such as filesystems.

-- 
David Froble                       Tel: 724-529-0450
Dave Froble Enterprises, Inc.      E-Mail: davef at tsoft-inc.com
DFE Ultralights, Inc.
170 Grimplin Road
Vanderbilt, PA  15486