On Thu, 3 Dec 2009 12:14:32 -0800, you wrote:
Does a COPY KNOWN NODES FROM xxx remove nodes in your local database that
aren't listed any more?
Just add WITH PURGE at the end! :-)
G.
Actually, I'm not entirely sure (I don't use VMS much nowadays), but I think it might remove all previous definitions before doing the copy.
But that is easy to test. Just add a definition for some odd node that don't exist, and then do a copy.
Johnny
Ian McLaughlin wrote:
Does a COPY KNOWN NODES FROM xxx remove nodes in your local database that aren't listed any more?
It's fairly easy to run a COPY KNOWN NODES command once in a while. I guess the only piece missing is an automated way for MIM to get updates from everyone else.
Ian.
On 2009-12-03, at 12:10 PM, Sampsa Laine wrote:
The only (and this is a very minor) benefit that I can see in a distributed naming system is that this way each owner of say an area could update the name database for his network and have it automagically propagate, rather than a centralised system we have right now which requires your time to keep up to date.
But it's not really that big a benefit to warrant the effort - just automate the periodic copying of the database from MIM would be my suggestion as well...
Sampsa
On 3 Dec 2009, at 20:07, Johnny Billquist wrote:
Sridhar Ayengar wrote:
Johnny Billquist wrote:
Node list don't even get transmitted within the same area.
Node names are local to each machine, and it is perfectly valid to have
different names for the same node number on different machines (although
perhaps confusing).
How hard would it be to write software as equivalent to DNS? Not necessarily for general-purpose use, but just for HECnet?
For what? Just copying the nodename database between machines? The
software can already do that, so it would just be a question of
automating it a bit.
If you'd like to get a name lookup done from some central place at each
nodename lookup would be almost impossible. You'd need the source code
for DECnet, and the ability to recompile it for that to be possible. Not
likely, I'm afraid.
Johnny
--
Johnny Billquist || "I'm on a bus
|| on a psychedelic trip
email: bqt at softjar.se <mailto:bqt at softjar.se> || Reading murder books
pdp is alive! || tryin' to stay hip" - B. Idol
---
Filter service subscribers can train this email as spam or not-spam here: http://my.email-as.net/spamham/cgi-bin/learn.pl?messageid=E4AFF6EEE04711DE9…
--
Johnny Billquist || "I'm on a bus
|| on a psychedelic trip
email: bqt at softjar.se || Reading murder books
pdp is alive! || tryin' to stay hip" - B. Idol
You need to use the "with purge" option for this to happen - at least in
VMS anyway.
-Steve
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-hecnet at Update.UU.SE [mailto:owner-hecnet at Update.UU.SE] On
Behalf Of Johnny Billquist
Sent: Thursday, December 03, 2009 15:21
To: hecnet at Update.UU.SE
Subject: Re: [HECnet] DECnet area router configuration
Actually, I'm not entirely sure (I don't use VMS much nowadays), but I
think it might remove all previous definitions before doing the copy.
But that is easy to test. Just add a definition for some odd node that
don't exist, and then do a copy.
Johnny
Ian McLaughlin wrote:
Does a COPY KNOWN NODES FROM xxx remove nodes in your local database
that aren't listed any more?
It's fairly easy to run a COPY KNOWN NODES command once in a while. I
guess the only piece missing is an automated way for MIM to get
updates
from everyone else.
Ian.
On 2009-12-03, at 12:10 PM, Sampsa Laine wrote:
The only (and this is a very minor) benefit that I can see in a
distributed naming system is that this way each owner of say an area
could update the name database for his network and have it
automagically propagate, rather than a centralised system we have
right now which requires your time to keep up to date.
But it's not really that big a benefit to warrant the effort - just
automate the periodic copying of the database from MIM would be my
suggestion as well...
Sampsa
On 3 Dec 2009, at 20:07, Johnny Billquist wrote:
Sridhar Ayengar wrote:
Johnny Billquist wrote:
Node list don't even get transmitted within the same area.
Node names are local to each machine, and it is perfectly valid to
have
different names for the same node number on different machines
(although
perhaps confusing).
How hard would it be to write software as equivalent to DNS? Not
necessarily for general-purpose use, but just for HECnet?
For what? Just copying the nodename database between machines? The
software can already do that, so it would just be a question of
automating it a bit.
If you'd like to get a name lookup done from some central place at
each
nodename lookup would be almost impossible. You'd need the source
code
for DECnet, and the ability to recompile it for that to be possible.
Not
likely, I'm afraid.
Johnny
--
Johnny Billquist || "I'm on a bus
|| on a psychedelic trip
email: bqt at softjar.se <mailto:bqt at softjar.se> ||
Reading
murder books
pdp is alive! || tryin' to stay hip" - B. Idol
---
Filter service subscribers can train this email as spam or not-spam
here:
http://my.email-as.net/spamham/cgi-bin/learn.pl?messageid=E4AFF6EEE04711
DE98D9899E93ED0201
--
Johnny Billquist || "I'm on a bus
|| on a psychedelic trip
email: bqt at softjar.se || Reading murder books
pdp is alive! || tryin' to stay hip" - B. Idol
Oh, no doubt it would be nice to have a distributed name service, but DECnet phase IV simply don't have it.
And adding it means going into the DECnet code, which I suspect, most people don't have. So it basically can't be done.
Note that the API (atleast in RSX, but I'm pretty sure it's true for other systems as well) actuall use node names, and not node numbers. So it's not like you could add another layer at the application program, that would make a query, and then use that information for the calls that build the connection block.
The name translation to a node number all happens internally in the DECnet code.
Johnny
Sampsa Laine wrote:
The only (and this is a very minor) benefit that I can see in a distributed naming system is that this way each owner of say an area could update the name database for his network and have it automagically propagate, rather than a centralised system we have right now which requires your time to keep up to date.
But it's not really that big a benefit to warrant the effort - just automate the periodic copying of the database from MIM would be my suggestion as well...
Sampsa
On 3 Dec 2009, at 20:07, Johnny Billquist wrote:
Sridhar Ayengar wrote:
Johnny Billquist wrote:
Node list don't even get transmitted within the same area.
Node names are local to each machine, and it is perfectly valid to have
different names for the same node number on different machines (although
perhaps confusing).
How hard would it be to write software as equivalent to DNS? Not necessarily for general-purpose use, but just for HECnet?
For what? Just copying the nodename database between machines? The
software can already do that, so it would just be a question of
automating it a bit.
If you'd like to get a name lookup done from some central place at each
nodename lookup would be almost impossible. You'd need the source code
for DECnet, and the ability to recompile it for that to be possible. Not
likely, I'm afraid.
Johnny
--
Johnny Billquist || "I'm on a bus
|| on a psychedelic trip
email: bqt at softjar.se || Reading murder books
pdp is alive! || tryin' to stay hip" - B. Idol
--
Johnny Billquist || "I'm on a bus
|| on a psychedelic trip
email: bqt at softjar.se || Reading murder books
pdp is alive! || tryin' to stay hip" - B. Idol
A simple batch job will take care of this. Include in the batch job a "resubmit" so that you do not have to remember to run the procedure in the future. You might do it monthly or maybe even weekly.
The other direction is a bit more work, but certainly possible. At this point Johnny has to ensure that no one creates a namespace collision by using the same node name twice.
-Steve
From: owner-hecnet at Update.UU.SE [mailto:owner-hecnet at Update.UU.SE] On Behalf Of Ian McLaughlin
Sent: Thursday, December 03, 2009 15:15
To: hecnet at Update.UU.SE
Subject: Re: [HECnet] DECnet area router configuration
Does a COPY KNOWN NODES FROM xxx remove nodes in your local database that aren't listed any more?
It's fairly easy to run a COPY KNOWN NODES command once in a while. I guess the only piece missing is an automated way for MIM to get updates from everyone else.
Ian.
On 2009-12-03, at 12:10 PM, Sampsa Laine wrote:
The only (and this is a very minor) benefit that I can see in a distributed naming system is that this way each owner of say an area could update the name database for his network and have it automagically propagate, rather than a centralised system we have right now which requires your time to keep up to date.
But it's not really that big a benefit to warrant the effort - just automate the periodic copying of the database from MIM would be my suggestion as well...
Sampsa
On 3 Dec 2009, at 20:07, Johnny Billquist wrote:
Sridhar Ayengar wrote:
Johnny Billquist wrote:
Node list don't even get transmitted within the same area.
Node names are local to each machine, and it is perfectly valid to have
different names for the same node number on different machines (although
perhaps confusing).
How hard would it be to write software as equivalent to DNS? Not necessarily for general-purpose use, but just for HECnet?
For what? Just copying the nodename database between machines? The
software can already do that, so it would just be a question of
automating it a bit.
If you'd like to get a name lookup done from some central place at each
nodename lookup would be almost impossible. You'd need the source code
for DECnet, and the ability to recompile it for that to be possible. Not
likely, I'm afraid.
Johnny
--
Johnny Billquist || "I'm on a bus
|| on a psychedelic trip
email: bqt at softjar.se || Reading murder books
pdp is alive! || tryin' to stay hip" - B. Idol
---
Filter service subscribers can train this email as spam or not-spam here: http://my.email-as.net/spamham/cgi-bin/learn.pl?messageid=E4AFF6EEE04711DE9…
Does a COPY KNOWN NODES FROM xxx remove nodes in your local database that aren't listed any more?
It's fairly easy to run a COPY KNOWN NODES command once in a while. I guess the only piece missing is an automated way for MIM to get updates from everyone else.
Ian.
On 2009-12-03, at 12:10 PM, Sampsa Laine wrote:
The only (and this is a very minor) benefit that I can see in a distributed naming system is that this way each owner of say an area could update the name database for his network and have it automagically propagate, rather than a centralised system we have right now which requires your time to keep up to date.
But it's not really that big a benefit to warrant the effort - just automate the periodic copying of the database from MIM would be my suggestion as well...
Sampsa
On 3 Dec 2009, at 20:07, Johnny Billquist wrote:
Sridhar Ayengar wrote:
Johnny Billquist wrote:
Node list don't even get transmitted within the same area.
Node names are local to each machine, and it is perfectly valid to have
different names for the same node number on different machines (although
perhaps confusing).
How hard would it be to write software as equivalent to DNS? Not necessarily for general-purpose use, but just for HECnet?
For what? Just copying the nodename database between machines? The
software can already do that, so it would just be a question of
automating it a bit.
If you'd like to get a name lookup done from some central place at each
nodename lookup would be almost impossible. You'd need the source code
for DECnet, and the ability to recompile it for that to be possible. Not
likely, I'm afraid.
Johnny
--
Johnny Billquist || "I'm on a bus
|| on a psychedelic trip
email: bqt at softjar.se || Reading murder books
pdp is alive! || tryin' to stay hip" - B. Idol
---
Filter service subscribers can train this email as spam or not-spam here: http://my.email-as.net/spamham/cgi-bin/learn.pl?messageid=E4AFF6EEE04711DE9…
The only (and this is a very minor) benefit that I can see in a distributed naming system is that this way each owner of say an area could update the name database for his network and have it automagically propagate, rather than a centralised system we have right now which requires your time to keep up to date.
But it's not really that big a benefit to warrant the effort - just automate the periodic copying of the database from MIM would be my suggestion as well...
Sampsa
On 3 Dec 2009, at 20:07, Johnny Billquist wrote:
Sridhar Ayengar wrote:
Johnny Billquist wrote:
Node list don't even get transmitted within the same area.
Node names are local to each machine, and it is perfectly valid to have
different names for the same node number on different machines (although
perhaps confusing).
How hard would it be to write software as equivalent to DNS? Not necessarily for general-purpose use, but just for HECnet?
For what? Just copying the nodename database between machines? The
software can already do that, so it would just be a question of
automating it a bit.
If you'd like to get a name lookup done from some central place at each
nodename lookup would be almost impossible. You'd need the source code
for DECnet, and the ability to recompile it for that to be possible. Not
likely, I'm afraid.
Johnny
--
Johnny Billquist || "I'm on a bus
|| on a psychedelic trip
email: bqt at softjar.se || Reading murder books
pdp is alive! || tryin' to stay hip" - B. Idol
Sridhar Ayengar wrote:
Johnny Billquist wrote:
Node list don't even get transmitted within the same area.
Node names are local to each machine, and it is perfectly valid to have
different names for the same node number on different machines (although
perhaps confusing).
How hard would it be to write software as equivalent to DNS? Not necessarily for general-purpose use, but just for HECnet?
For what? Just copying the nodename database between machines? The
software can already do that, so it would just be a question of
automating it a bit.
If you'd like to get a name lookup done from some central place at each
nodename lookup would be almost impossible. You'd need the source code
for DECnet, and the ability to recompile it for that to be possible. Not
likely, I'm afraid.
Johnny
--
Johnny Billquist || "I'm on a bus
|| on a psychedelic trip
email: bqt at softjar.se || Reading murder books
pdp is alive! || tryin' to stay hip" - B. Idol
Kari Uusim ki wrote:
There is already DECdns in DECnet Phase V aka DECnet-Plus.
If you want to use it, you can just create the database and then
populate it e.g. from the MIM's nodelist.
But is there any similar method available for Phase IV?
Peace... Sridhar
Sridhar Ayengar wrote:
Johnny Billquist wrote:
Node list don't even get transmitted within the same area.
Node names are local to each machine, and it is perfectly valid to have
different names for the same node number on different machines (although
perhaps confusing).
How hard would it be to write software as equivalent to DNS? Not necessarily for general-purpose use, but just for HECnet?
Peace... Sridhar
.
There is already DECdns in DECnet Phase V aka DECnet-Plus.
If you want to use it, you can just create the database and then populate it e.g. from the MIM's nodelist.
