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