| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 118.1 | DNS has advantages and disadvantages ... | AIMTEC::PORTER_T | Terry Porter, ALL-IN-1 Support, Atlanta CSC | Thu Feb 27 1992 16:34 | 42 |
| DNS is used to name partition in a hierarchical (X.500 like) way such that the
name of the partition is independent of it's location.
e.g. DEC:.SERVICES.CSC.ATLANTA.OAD could be the name of the partition used by
the OAD district of the Atlanta CSC, which would be called AIMTEC::"73="
if DNS naming was not used.
The advantages of DNS are ...
The FCSs that service a partition are stored in DNS and if they change (e.g.
a node name changes) then all the system maanger has to do is update DNS
and everything will be OK!
There can be more than one FCS per node as the DECnet object number is not
restricted to 73 (the customer can use any of the customer-definable DECnet
object numbers (128 to 255)). This allows for better scalability in very large
ALL-IN-1 systems.
The disadvantages of DNS are ...
ALL-IN-1 provides NO help for managing DNS, it just uses what is put there.
In order to be effective DNS must be implemented organization wide, there is no
point defining a naming structure for part of an organization as that restricts
use of DNS (and hence ALL-IN-1) to that part of the organization, or may result
in multiple and incompatable naming schemes throughout an organisation that
makes DNS a nightmare to manage.
The bottom line is that if the customer has DNS implemented across their
organisation then it will be trivial to add partitions and make use of it and
get the advantages.
If the customer does not already have DNS set up then it is a major project to
define, implement and maintain an organization wide naming structure and is
probably not worth it unless the customer has uses for DNS other than ALL-IN-1.
If DNS is not used, then the DNS sharable images must still be installed, but
DNS need not be started. I don't know the detailed technical reason for this,
but basically the FCS code needs some of the routines defined in these sharable
images.
Terry
|
| 118.2 | | SIOG::T_REDMOND | Thoughts of an Idle Mind | Thu Feb 27 1992 16:35 | 5 |
| I think this question has been answered earlier on in this conference.
DNS is referenced within the File Cabinet Server, so you need to
install the images.
Tony
|
| 118.3 | Reasons? | UTROP2::LANGENBERG_C | | Fri Feb 28 1992 08:39 | 10 |
|
Thanks for the answers.
Re -.2:
It is made clear in the documentation that DNS is referenced within the
FCS.
What I don't understand is why the FCS needs DNS; there seems to be no
need for it.
Clarie
|
| 118.4 | | SIOG::T_REDMOND | Thoughts of an Idle Mind | Fri Feb 28 1992 09:10 | 5 |
| The FCS can run with DECnet Phase V naming - you can have multiple
partitions within the namespace. And if you want to do this then you
need DNS. One image, two DECnet phases, one problem?
Tony
|
| 118.5 | See BCSE::OAFC$PUBLIC:*.PS | UTRTSC::SCHOLLAERT | Half Dutch - Half Belgium | Fri Feb 28 1992 10:33 | 71 |
| Hello,
There are a number of ALL-IN-1 File Cabinet related public documents
available on BCSE::OAFC$PUBLIC:
Chapter 2 "Naming and Distribution" of A1FS_OVERVIEW.PS is
a good starting point.
Happy reading,
Jan
$ Directory BCSE::OAFC$PUBLIC:
A1FS_OVERVIEW.PS;1 1989 20-AUG-1991 20:35:09.00
A1FS_PERF_SHARING.PS;1
232 17-MAY-1991 09:31:45.00
A1_IS_PERFORMANCE_REPORT.PS;2
976 4-APR-1989 08:53:43.00
FILECAB_FUNC_SPEC_V12.PS;1
833 8-SEP-1989 13:27:36.00
INSTALLATION-GUIDE.PS;9
245 13-MAR-1991 09:15:01.00
NAMING_T2_0_2.PS;1 3508 16-JAN-1992 15:48:37.00
OA$SECURITY_MODEL_43.PS;1
440 25-JUL-1990 13:20:14.00
OAFC$CSI_DESIGN.PS;1
1559 29-JAN-1992 15:11:05.00
OAFC$DEV_PLAN.PS;1 349 6-NOV-1990 09:13:47.00
OAFC$PERFORMANCE_MEMO.PS;1
384 25-OCT-1990 13:09:56.00
OAFC$PERFORMANCE_MEMORY_REQUIREMENTS.PS;1
272 3-APR-1991 10:36:30.00
OAFC$PERFORMANCE_MEMORY_UPDATE.PS;1
116 3-APR-1991 10:41:30.00
OAFC$SMUI_SPEC.PS;8
1427 13-SEP-1991 14:30:31.00
OAFC$SYSMAN_DESIGN.PS;2
413 16-JAN-1992 14:23:26.00
OAFC$SYSMAN_DESIGN.PS;1
191 9-JUL-1990 14:49:31.00
OAFC$TEST_PLAN.PS;2
272 12-DEC-1990 15:28:37.00
OAFC$TLV_DESIGN.PS;1
no privilege for attempted operation
OAFC_CDA_DESIGN.PS;1
153 27-NOV-1990 15:14:30.00
OAFC_COMM_PROTOCOL.PS;1
680 19-JAN-1989 15:48:57.00
OAFC_DEV_PLAN.PS;1 397 10-DEC-1990 12:34:45.00
OAFC_DNS_DESIGN.PS;5
304 16-JAN-1992 14:22:43.00
OAFC_DNS_DESIGN.PS;4
323 9-JUL-1990 14:47:48.00
OAFC_FUNCTIONAL_SPEC.PS;2
2016 2-MAY-1991 18:55:29.00
OAFC_GSM_DESIGN.PS;1
596 12-JUL-1989 09:54:01.00
OAFC_REFERENCE_MANUAL.PS;1
2333 18-NOV-1991 16:01:52.00
OAFC_SERVER_DESIGN.PS;1
859 9-JUL-1990 14:49:17.00
SYS$PROXY_FUNC_SPEC.PS;5
89 17-OCT-1991 08:01:17.00
SYS$PROXY_FUNC_SPEC.PS;4
88 14-MAY-1991 09:06:49.00
Total of 28 files, 21316 blocks.
|
| 118.6 | DNS only used at level 1 | CHRLIE::HUSTON | | Mon Mar 02 1992 16:28 | 19 |
|
re .3
>What I don't understand is why the FCS needs DNS; there seems to be no
>need for it.
THe FCS does not use DNS unless you are running the server at
distribution level 1 -- DNS naming. When the server is running
at distribution level 0 -- DECnet naming, no DNS calls are made.
The reason we require the DNS images to be installed is that we link
against the dns images so that the DNS calls are available should
you desire to run at dist level 1.
I would like to stress we DO NOT MAKE DNS CALLS at distribution
level 0
--Bob
|
| 118.7 | Why is the link compulsory? | SCOTTC::MARSHALL | Pearl-white, but slightly shop-soiled | Mon Mar 02 1992 16:58 | 10 |
| Hi,
A techy question...
Couldn't the link against DNS be "optional" (eg WEAK references), so that if the
customer only wants dist level 0, they don't have to worry about DNS in any
shape or form? There may be good reasons why this isn't done, I'm just
curious...
Scott
|
| 118.8 | It's early, does that make sense? | IOSG::STANDAGE | Oink...Oink...Mooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo | Tue Mar 03 1992 08:43 | 19 |
|
Scott,
It's very easy to switch the distribution level from 0 to 1 via
the ALL-IN-1 UI (although of course you have to stop the server
to pick up the new configuration).
ALL-IN-1 and the FCS provides that flexability, and it would be a bit
of a pain if customers had to relink with the DNS images to get dist
level 1 (I think). I guess it's easier just to have the two images
installed and linked against at installation time, and thus have the
options of which level to use more easily accessible.
IMHO,
Kevin.
~~~~~~
|
| 118.9 | Kevin is right | CHRLIE::HUSTON | | Tue Mar 03 1992 14:43 | 11 |
|
Scott,
I am not very familiar with a weak link reference, but Kevin is
correct. The way we do it allows a single server image to move from
level 0 to level 1 (no DNS to DNS) in order to not require dns$share
to be installed we would need two images for the server, one for
DNS use one for DECnet naming use.
--Bob
|
| 118.10 | More... | SCOTTC::MARSHALL | Pearl-white, but slightly shop-soiled | Tue Mar 03 1992 17:31 | 20 |
| re .8 and .9
Bob and Kevin,
Yes I agree with your point that if the system manager wants to move from level
0 to 1 (or vice-versa), then it's easier if they don't have to re-link, etc.
However, my comment was aimed at those systems where they will *never* want to
use DNS; why force them to link it in, with all the confusion it seems to be
causing?
Also, is it really trivial (or sensible) to switch levels? Maybe I'm being
ignorant, but isn't different information stored in the partition files
depending on the "level" (Phase IV vs DNS names)? IAMFI...
Scott
PS - Bob, a "weak" reference tells the compiler not to complain if it can't
resolve an external reference in the code. The symbol just gets set to zero.
ALL-IN-1 (and no doubt lots of other stuff) makes use of this at run-time to
work out whether some things are linked in and available or not.
|
| 118.11 | am I missing something? | IOSG::STANDAGE | Oink...Oink...Mooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo | Tue Mar 03 1992 18:13 | 23 |
|
Scott,
At the end of the day, Customers can do *anything*, and more often
than not they do !! Since ALL-IN-1 offers the switching capability,
it would seem to them to be a real inconvenience if they had to relink
the server to get the functionality they desired.
The vital DNS images (ones linked with the server) come with VMS.
So, if a customer wants to switch to distribution level 1 all they
have to do start up DNS, stop the server and change it's distribution
to "ON" (via the UI) and restart the server.
The way I see it, starting up DNS is a lot easier than relinking
the server and doing all the associated tasks.
Kevin.
~~~~~~
|
| 118.12 | I agree with Kevin. | CHRLIE::HUSTON | | Tue Mar 03 1992 19:24 | 20 |
|
Scott,
Thanks for the weak reference info.
Switching from level 0 to 1 is very trivial, as Kevin points out in .11
all it is is to change the dist level and restart the server. We
do nothing different with the partiiton file. There are only
2 differences when you run at level 1
1) We use the partition master file, it is there for level 0 but never
used.
2) You are allowed to do more sysman functions like create/delete
partitions and disable/enable partitons. You can't do these at
distribution level 0.
I agree with Kevin that forcing the relink is more of a hassle.
--BOb
|
| 118.13 | To conclude... | SCOTTC::MARSHALL | Pearl-white, but slightly shop-soiled | Wed Mar 04 1992 10:34 | 14 |
| Bob,
Thanks for the info on the differences between dist level 0 and 1.
I wasn't suggesting that we "force" *anyone* to relink *anything*. As the
required DNS images come "free" with VMS, most of the time the link will pick
them up and customers can then change "distribution level" (never did work out
why it was called that...) to their heart's content.
My suggestion was merely that *if* the customer doesn't want DNS, doesn't
have the images (removed to save disk space?), or has other problems, it is
wrong that that they are forced to link against them.
Scott
|
| 118.14 | Does this make sense ?? | IOSG::STANDAGE | Oink...Oink...Mooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo | Wed Mar 04 1992 11:10 | 43 |
|
Scott,
>>I wasn't suggesting that we "force" *anyone* to relink *anything*.
>>As the required DNS images come "free" with VMS, most of the time the link
>>will pick them up and customers can then change "distribution level"
>>(never did work out why it was called that...) to their heart's content.
OK, it looks like we're in agreement then. Doing things this way makes
sense, as the customers can then please themselves what they do and
which distribution level they adopt.
>>My suggestion was merely that *if* the customer doesn't want DNS,
>>doesn't have the images (removed to save disk space?), or has other
>>problems, it is wrong that that they are forced to link against them.
The diskspace would have to be pretty serious for them to delete these
two files in question !! :
DNS$RTL.EXE;1 34
DNS$SHARE.EXE;1 65
As these are VMS supplied images, I doubt that any system manager would
in their right mind delete them from SYS$SHARE. It is stated in the
release notes that these images should be present and INSTALLed, so
if they are missing for whatever reason then their local CSC would
probably have supply them.
As far as I know, there hasn't been an instance of these files actually
being missing from a system (?)
I think we have to satisfy the requirements of as many customers as
possible and give them the flexability and functionality they require
with the minimum of hastle. Linking WITH these images seems to me to
be the easiest way of achieving that objective.
Kevin.
~~~~~~
|