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