Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!rutgers!bellcore!faline!ulysses!ggs
From: ggs@ulysses.homer.nj.att.com (Griff Smith)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.wizards
Subject: Re: ACCESS TO SHARED TAPEDRIVES
Message-ID: <3254@ulysses.homer.nj.att.com>
Date: Sat, 5-Dec-87 14:36:54 EST
Article-I.D.: ulysses.3254
Posted: Sat Dec  5 14:36:54 1987
Date-Received: Thu, 10-Dec-87 19:43:44 EST
References: <10542@brl-adm.ARPA> <271@cunixc.columbia.edu> <6740@brl-smoke.ARPA>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill
Lines: 44
Summary: brief summary of a working allocator

In article <6740@brl-smoke.ARPA>, gwyn@brl-smoke.UUCP writes:
> 
> Long ago, I designed a public resource allocator that dealt with these
> issues.  (However, I never implemented it.)

I proposed one about three years ago and finally got it working last month.

> UNIX has long needed a standardized facility like this, and it ought to
> be much more general than merely an interface to magtape drives.

I guess I'm on the right track.  My system deals with files as
resources:  a resource is a set of file names and associated system
names.  One can allocate a resource on a system and all the associated
files will be given to the requestor.  Any files associated with
alternate access points on other systems are marked "busy".  The
allocator also deals with the problems of simultaneous requests for
resources and resolves conflicts.

As for availability: that could be a problem.  I built it for 4.[23]BSD
using C++.  Since I work for AT&T and we are pushing another brand of
UNIX System, I probably have to port all the Berkeley network and
select stuff before there is any hope of turning it into a product.
This does not look easy.  I also have to convince management that there
is actually a market for this thing; the current attitude is that no
one wants or needs it.  For example: the Murray Hill Computer Center is
running UTS-370 on a mainframe, and it comes with a fairly decent tape
allocation and mount request system.  They have removed the feature.
Another example:  when I installed the allocator in my center the
operators noted that root could bypass the 000 permissions, so they
dismissed the allocator as an unnecessary nuisance.  I have some hopes
that the system will become useful when I build a operator tape mount
service, but the initial reaction from the operators is that they would
revolt if they had to be available to mount tapes on demand.  I fear
the old days are dead.

I would like to get some idea of real demand for resource allocation
software.  Would anyone actually pay for it, or must it be freeware?
Is it worth my time to submit a paper to USENIX, or would it get
scheduled for the Friday, 4:30, session if accepted?
-- 
Griff Smith	AT&T (Bell Laboratories), Murray Hill
Phone:		1-201-582-7736
UUCP:		{allegra|ihnp4}!ulysses!ggs
Internet:	ggs@ulysses.uucp