[Info-vax] Unexpected DECnet Phase IV functionality with possible captive account implications

[Stephen Hoffman]

On 2021-05-12 13:19:37 +0000, Arne Vajhj said:

> On 5/11/2021 4:57 PM, Stephen Hoffman wrote:
>> On 2021-05-11 18:30:01 +0000, Dave Froble said:
>>> Which of them allow:
>>> 
>>> Open "DFE90A::[DFE]DATA.DAT" For Input as File #1%
>>> 
>>> Assuming proxys are set appropriately.
>>> 
>>> Please don't reply with:
>>> 
>>> Open "DFE90A"DFE XXX"::[DFE]DATA.DAT" For Input as File #1%
>>> 
>>> If I even remember how to do that correctly ...
>> 
>> What you're doing with RMS and FAL is entirely feasible, though through 
>> different means.
>> 
>> MOUNT the remote system, and access it locally. With newer systems, 
>> that'd usually be an SMB mount, though OpenVMS lacks modern storage 
>> connections. On OpenVMS, it'd be NFS, or maybe DFS. Then aim SQLite at 
>> it, etc.
>> 
>> Or with newer applications, the access would be ODBC, or a message 
>> queue, or—closest to what you're doing—with the database directly e.g. 
>> MariaDB and the mysql -u RemoteUser -p -h 203.0.113.13 command, etc.
> 
> There are obviously many ways to access data on other servers.
> 
> But neither the ability to mount a remote file system or access a 
> remote database server is a 1:1 substitute for transparent file access 
> to remote file system.

I've encountered folks using FAL to access files within an OpenVMS 
Cluster, BTW. And sacrilegious as it might be, SMB shares aren't that 
far off of SCS MSCP served storage within a Cluster, either. Though 
that then descends into discussions of locking. Which then descends 
into discussions of why some RMS apps can't be migrated into 
network-remote-capable databases. Which descends into why 
new-to-OpenVMS folks just aren't picking OpenVMS for new app work. I've 
undoubtedly skipped a few intermediate steps in the usual discussion 
there, though.

And for the three or twelve folks still using this particular part of 
DECnet and RMS and FAL for remote direct and unencrypted database 
access, I'd suggest starting to work on refactoring and redesigning 
this particular part of the implementation. In this case, API and 
abstraction-related work toward removing this is also work toward 
allowing a migration to a different and more capable database than the 
features that RMS offers, too.

Encrypted SMB shares are endemic and inexpensive and effective, too. 
OpenVMS Clusters, and DECnet, not so much.

> But in the real world starting with a blank piece of paper is pretty rare.

Of the various app ports off of OpenVMS that I've worked and of those 
others I'm familiar with, I've met none blocked by a lack of FAL-like 
storage access.

I liked DECnet. Unfortunately, DEC technical and senior management, um, 
"missed the networking market", and we've all been dealing with the 
ensuing fallout from that era.

Nothing here precludes an IP-based FAL-like implementation, either. But 
I foresee little value implementing that, given file shares and given 
network-remote database access.



-- 
Pure Personal Opinion | HoffmanLabs LLC