[Info-vax] CRTL and RMS vs SSIO

[Dave Froble]

On 10/8/2021 8:04 PM, Greg Tinkler wrote:
> <snip>
>>>> The optional parameter might be a "lock type", and if not present,
>>>> existing logic would be used, and if present, new code could be executed
>>>> to process the new lock type.  Stuff a couple of quadwords into the
>>>> resource name for the numeric range.  It would add one new piece of data
>>>> to the DLM data structure(s).
>
> What would be useful is a name space for the lock e.g. RMS ...
>
> Well there is the group id from UIC, and there is $set_resource_domain(), both can be useful but not a solution.
>
> Having a name space that can be local machine or cluster wide could be very useful for some applications.  But that is a much longer term idea.
>
> At present the resource name is limited to 31 char, ok in the 32 era but in 64 bit era and looking at GFS2 for peta byte moving into the exabyte and possibly the Zettabyta range, if VMS is to survive the next 40 years it needs to prepare.
>
> First lets move onto X86_64.   Yes it would be good to have easier building of open source code, and the main issues as I understand it are
>
>     file IO, moving to RMS will fix most if not all of that
>     fork
>         for fork/exec - spawn is fine, no modern systems a bit of CPU...
>         for file access more of problem, but not often used
>     directory and filenaming
>         some work is in place for this
>
> So the main issue is file IO, so change CRTL to use RMS.
>
> gt
>

Let me ask this as a question, because I really don't know.

Doesn't C already use RMS for file I/O ?

It has been my impression that all the VMS languages use RMS for file 
I/O.  But I don't get out much.

-- 
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