[Info-vax] VMS version numbers, was: Re: DCL enhancements

[VAXman- at SendSpamHere.ORG]

In article <ruscbp$fit$1 at gioia.aioe.org>, helbig at asclothestro.multivax.de (Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)) writes:
>In article <rusbmg$sn5$1 at dont-email.me>, Simon Clubley
><clubley at remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP> writes: 
>
>> On 2021-01-27, VAXman-  @SendSpamHere.ORG <VAXman- at SendSpamHere.ORG> wrote:
>> > In article <388edf53-8ba9-4f66-aa86-00e6c6b1be4bn at googlegroups.com>, Jon Pinkley <jon.pinkley at gmail.com> writes:
>> >>
>> >>And setting the version to one is really an autopurge, it still creates new 
>> >>version numbers that will eventually get to ;32767 and then possibly cause
>> >>problems.  The point is ODS is not NTFS or some unix/linux versionless file
>> >>system.  And there are many vms applications that rely on versions.
>> >
>> > Purge and rename them back to start at ;1.
>> 
>> Which still gives you application failures if you don't catch it in
>> time and application downtime while you apply this fix.
>> 
>> I wonder how much effort would be involved in adding support to VMS
>> to automatically shuffle down the existing file versions when something
>> tries to create a new version after ;32767 is reached on a file ?
>
>Be careful what you wish for.  It is bad enough reaching ;32767.  
>Imagine a runaway application.  With ;32767, at least it stops.  With 
>reshuffling, it won't, and there will be the overhead of reshuffling.

I have had a few occasion where clients have hit the magic version number
wall and it caused sytem issues, but, typically, the versions numbers were
on log file that most never reviewed.

I have a REVERSION.COM procedure that allow wildcard or specific file names
to reversion.  ;32767 is not the "end-of-times" prognosticated by the Mayan
calendar. ;)



>> BTW, does anyone know how versions will be handled on the new filesystem ?
>> 
>> Will versions still be supported and if so, will they still be 16-bit
>> version numbers or will they be increased to at least 32-bits ?
>
>I really don't think anyone needs 32 bits here.  Yes, I know that Bill 
>Gates once said that 640k RAM should be enough to take us into the next 
>millennium (i.e. the one we are in now), but not everything increases 
>with time (as the actress said to the bishop).

Say what?  No, we need 64-bit version numbers.

-- 
VAXman- A Bored Certified VMS Kernel Mode Hacker    VAXman(at)TMESIS(dot)ORG

I speak to machines with the voice of humanity.