[Info-vax] DFU for x86-64?

[Carl Friedberg]

I made daily use of DFU for a long time; it was great to monitor the
number of versions very quickly. Each day, a batch job ran DFU to
search every disk volume for any file with version number greater than
15,000; the user and system manager were notified, and usually  took
action on their own. I never made use of any of the features which
would modify anything on the disk volume, as DFU was unsupported. I
once wrote to Jurg, and he replied quickly with a suggestion for me,

I am not in a position to support this tool; but if I were, I would
rename it for x86 functions and only support read-only mode (perhaps
DFURO, although that sounds wonky). This is a great opportunity for
someone interested in the internals of the file system.
Carl
On Thu, Apr 6, 2023 at 6:30 AM Ian Miller via Info-vax
<info-vax at rbnsn.com> wrote:
>
> On Thursday, April 6, 2023 at 6:58:02 AM UTC+1, Jan-Erik Söderholm wrote:
> > Den 2023-04-05 kl. 15:29, skrev Arne Vajhøj:
> > > On 4/5/2023 9:21 AM, Dave Froble wrote:
> > >> On 4/5/2023 4:35 AM, Jan-Erik Söderholm wrote:
> > >>> Just heard a rumor that there is no plan for DFU on x86-64.
> > >>> Any comments on that?
> > >>
> > >> Perhaps the thought is that everyone is now using SSDs, and not so much
> > >> need for DFU?
> > >
> > > Many DFU features sounds relevant for SSD as well (just not defrag).
> > >
> > > And even for defrag then VSI has ported DFG to x86-64 per:
> > >   https://vmssoftware.com/products/disk-file-optimizer/
> > >
> > > Arne
> > >
> > We (and the source where I heard this) only uses DFU for non-update
> > tasks. There are many nice search and report features in DFU. And
> > at least my source has a strict ban against using DFU for anything
> > that updates disk data.
> >
> > My source is a major VMS user in Sweden that is in the work of their
> > IA64 to x86-64 migration. They goes through all their 3-party tools
> > and DFU has been "red-flagged".
> >
> > My source wrote:
> >
> > "DFU is unfortunately flagged red. Its a freeware and the maintainer
> > is not interested in porting this to x86-64. We have asked VSI but
> > have not got any positive answer. They are probably fully occupied
> > with their own software, and there might be parts of DFU that VSI
> > might not want to take responsability for, like DEFRAGMENT, MODIFY,
> > UNDELETE and VERIFY".
> >
> > I have no idea if they actually have been in contact with the DFU
> > maintainer, or if that is hearsay. Or if they have got any other
> > reply from VSI apart from a "positive" one.
> >
> > Probably not a show-stopper for the x86-64 migration (I think they
> > definitely will migrate), but might need rewrite of a few routines.
> >
> > So, I guess the question is if there is someone else that would like
> > to pick up the DFU sources and try a x86 build...
>
> Such are the risks of relying on freeware maintained by one person even if it is a useful too like DFU. IIRC Jur saved DFU by taking it over from the original author and improving it. Perhaps it's time again.
> _______________________________________________
> Info-vax mailing list
> Info-vax at rbnsn.com
> http://rbnsn.com/mailman/listinfo/info-vax_rbnsn.com



-- 
www.comets.com