[Info-vax] openvms and xterm

[David Goodwin]

In article <v1jrg2$v90k$4 at dont-email.me>, devzero at nospam.com says...
> 
> On 5/9/24 23:25, David Goodwin wrote:
> > In article <v1d7p6$38li0$1 at dont-email.me>, devzero at nospam.com says...
> >>
> >> On 5/4/24 07:57, Single Stage to Orbit wrote:
> >>> On Sat, 2024-05-04 at 02:11 +0000, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> >>>>> Oracle gets money that would otherwise likely go to Red Hat ...
> >>>>
> >>>> Interesting that they won?t offer their own ZFS next-generation
> >>>> filesystem product with it, preferring to bundle btrfs instead. Vote
> >>>> of confidence in your own product over rivals, much?
> >>>
> >>> My experience with btrfs was awful. It's fortunate I only tested it and
> >>> took backups, and it kept losing data. Turned to ZFS and it has been
> >>> rock solid. Ten years.
> >>
> >> Yes, ZFS here since the very early versions of Solaris 10. Absolutely
> >> rock solid and has never lost any data here, nor had a situation
> >> that was not recoverable. Why use anything else ?.
> >>
> >> FreeBSD was the only alternative os to offer their own clean room
> >> zfs many years ago, but they moved to OpenZFS. Again, rock solid
> >> and would not choose any other fs, other than for quick hacks, or
> >> testing.
> >>
> >> Back on topic, who remembers the dec advfs  for Tru64 ?. Never
> >> actually used it, but what were it's advantages / usp ?...
> > 
> > Late last year I had a go at building GCC 4.7.4 for Tru64 5.1B on my
> > trusty AlphaServer 800 (notes here for anyone interested in doing it:
> > https://www.zx.net.nz/vc/dunix/gcc.shtml)
> > 
> > During this process I ran out of disk and ended up having to slot
> > another drive in the machine which led me to interacting with the AdvFS
> > management tools. And it turns out its a pretty impressive filesystem
> > for its age. Its got the whole storage pools thing that ZFS does which
> > is pretty nice.
> > 
> > No COW or Checksumming that I can see though, but despite that it seems
> > to be a more capable filesystem than whats normally been used on linux
> > for the past decade or two. Its a shame HP never released their Linux
> > port of it.
> 
> Older versions of gcc, 2.7.2, for example, were not too difficult to
> build and have built gcc cross, even on a Sun 3. Modern
> versions are more difficult, needing obscure math libraries resident,
> and a whole raft of gnu infrastructure in place. Gnu is still a great
> set of tools though and more than anything else, sounded the death
> knell of expensive and locked down proprietary tools...

Yeah, building 4.7.4 required building quite a pile of libraries. Even 
had to build GNU tar as DEC tar couldn't untar the GCC archive properly. 
And DEC C couldn't build GCC 4.7 so I had to build an older version of 
GCC first. Whole thing took at least 40 hours. It was kind of a shame to 
turn off the machine after that - its unlikely to ever achieve three 
days uptime again.

IIRC the whole reason I did it was wanting to run the p7zip benchmark to 
see how the 500MHz EV5 compared to other machines I'd run it on. And DEC 
C and the old version of GCC on the freeware CD couldn't build p7zip. 
Though building it with GCC rather than DEC C probably makes it less of 
a fair test