Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site hou5d.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!hou3c!hocda!houxm!hogpc!houti!ariel!hou5f!hou5g!hou5h!hou5a!hou5d!mat From: mat@hou5d.UUCP Newsgroups: net.unix,net.unix-wizards Subject: Re: abnjh.490 Tapes on Unix Message-ID: <872@hou5d.UUCP> Date: Tue, 20-Mar-84 13:37:12 EST Article-I.D.: hou5d.872 Posted: Tue Mar 20 13:37:12 1984 Date-Received: Wed, 21-Mar-84 03:24:24 EST References: <509@abnjh.UUCP> Organization: AT&T Information Systems Laboratories, Holmdel, NJ Lines: 25 > Tape drives are a resource. Even small systems can benefit from good > resource allocation software. The current resource allocation software > for tape drives is inadequate not to say nonexistant. If you dont > need it, you dont have to use it, but there are some of us who feel The obvious solution is to build a ``user driver'' structure into the UN*X I/O architecture. Such things as tape allocation, special operator intervention, etc, can be inserted there, without changing the kernel, as local site needs dictate. Of course, someone could write a compiler for a special allocation language and ... There are some other gaps in the I/O system. Why can't a program present the same interface to another program that a terminal does? When I use programs that talk to other machines (over communication systems, not general dial-up lines) the programs that I run on the remote machine don't believe that they have a terminal; there is no ``who'' entry; opening /dev/tty fails, and others can't ``write(I)'' to me. Why can't there be user special files which trigger user I/O programs (great for deamons, locking, etc)? Why can't programs present a magtape interface to other programs? This would allow real device independence if, say, the backup program was suddenly given a read/write-once optical disk to play with. Mark Terribile hou5d!mat from Mole End