On 22.5.2013 12:07, Mark Wickens wrote:
OK,
So obviously having asked the question I got further by examining the
BACKUP manual in greater detail.
It seems the command I need is:
BACKUP/VERIFY/LOG DKA400:[*...] DSA3:[MEDIA.VAX_MEDIA.VAXBINDEC95...]
The presence of the '*' in the input specifier causes the directory
structure to be preserved in the output directory.
*However* I still haven't solved the issue of timestamps. I'd like to
preserve the original file timestamps, but whether I use this version of
BACKUP or by saving to and then restoring from a SAVESET I still get
modification times of the current date.
Anyone know how to get round that issue?
Cheers, Mark.
.
BACKUP/IMAGE should bring everything as it is on the original medium.
Kari
OK,
So obviously having asked the question I got further by examining the BACKUP manual in greater detail.
It seems the command I need is:
BACKUP/VERIFY/LOG DKA400:[*...] DSA3:[MEDIA.VAX_MEDIA.VAXBINDEC95...]
The presence of the '*' in the input specifier causes the directory structure to be preserved in the output directory.
*However* I still haven't solved the issue of timestamps. I'd like to preserve the original file timestamps, but whether I use this version of BACKUP or by saving to and then restoring from a SAVESET I still get modification times of the current date.
Anyone know how to get round that issue?
Cheers, Mark.
Guys,
I'm trying to find the 'best' way to archive the contents of the CDROMs, and failing to find a solution.
Using COPY DKA400:[000000...]*.*;* DSA3:[MEDIA.VAX_MEDIA.path...]*.*;* works but doesn't preseve the timestamps.
The obvious solution is to use BACKUP, but a command such as:
BACKUP/VERIFY DKA400:[000000...] DSA3:[MEDIA.VAX_MEDIA.path...]
which is what the help would have you believe does the right thing doesn't work - you get a weird file structure where files in subdirectories are created in the top of the destination and the directory structure is only partially created.
Am I doing something obviously wrong here?
Cheers, Mark.
On 2013-05-20 23:34, Paul_Koning at Dell.com wrote:
On May 20, 2013, at 3:47 PM, G. wrote:
On Mon, 20 May 2013 21:10:18 +0200, Johnny Billquist wrote:
Using the various implementations in RSX, I can tell that it's not
RSTS/E-like, but TOPS-20.
Actually I do not really know which seems which: I based my assumptions on
something from Paul Koening I might have misread or misremembered... :P
Bit rotting is a big issue of mine :)
Thanks, but in this case the mistake is probably mine. I would have guessed that TOPS-10 used the RSTS flavor of RTERM. Johnny's experiment certainly says otherwise.
It does, but I would be careful about saying it's absolutely conclusive.
First of all, do RSTS/E have more than one remote terminal protocol implementation?
Second, the RRS application (which connects to RSTS/E systems) might be checking explicitly for RSTS/E, while it might otherwise have worked just fine against TOPS-10.
The TOPS-20 application did work just fine against TOPS-10. No denying that one. But I really do not know what the different programs do under the hood.
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
On May 20, 2013, at 3:47 PM, G. wrote:
On Mon, 20 May 2013 21:10:18 +0200, Johnny Billquist wrote:
Using the various implementations in RSX, I can tell that it's not
RSTS/E-like, but TOPS-20.
Actually I do not really know which seems which: I based my assumptions on
something from Paul Koening I might have misread or misremembered... :P
Bit rotting is a big issue of mine :)
Thanks, but in this case the mistake is probably mine. I would have guessed that TOPS-10 used the RSTS flavor of RTERM. Johnny's experiment certainly says otherwise.
paul
On 2013-05-20 21:51, Johnny Billquist wrote:
On 2013-05-20 21:47, G. wrote:
On Mon, 20 May 2013 17:20:22 +0200, Johnny Billquist wrote:
Port the Linux one to VMS?
Probably not something I'd recomment... :-)
Why not? I'm not a C expert at all (I mean I know almost nothing). Do you
think it would be unfeasible or overly clumsy? I wonder if there is
something
useful in the freeware or DECUS tapes... But it may took ages to find
it. :|
Well, first of all, the API as well as some basic paradigms are rather
different in Linux than in VMS. Porting anything non-trivial from Unix
to VMS often is headaches.
Second, while I have not looked at xterm/rterm specifically, I have had
big issues with DECnet applications in Linux in the past. They seem to
work fairly ok against VMS systems, but almost all have failed miserably
when I have tried them against an RSX system.
cterm/rterm, not xterm. :-)
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
On 2013-05-20 21:47, G. wrote:
On Mon, 20 May 2013 17:20:22 +0200, Johnny Billquist wrote:
Port the Linux one to VMS?
Probably not something I'd recomment... :-)
Why not? I'm not a C expert at all (I mean I know almost nothing). Do you
think it would be unfeasible or overly clumsy? I wonder if there is something
useful in the freeware or DECUS tapes... But it may took ages to find it. :|
Well, first of all, the API as well as some basic paradigms are rather different in Linux than in VMS. Porting anything non-trivial from Unix to VMS often is headaches.
Second, while I have not looked at xterm/rterm specifically, I have had big issues with DECnet applications in Linux in the past. They seem to work fairly ok against VMS systems, but almost all have failed miserably when I have tried them against an RSX system.
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
On Mon, 20 May 2013 17:20:22 +0200, Johnny Billquist wrote:
Port the Linux one to VMS?
Probably not something I'd recomment... :-)
Why not? I'm not a C expert at all (I mean I know almost nothing). Do you
think it would be unfeasible or overly clumsy? I wonder if there is something
useful in the freeware or DECUS tapes... But it may took ages to find it. :|
G.
On Mon, 20 May 2013 21:10:18 +0200, Johnny Billquist wrote:
Using the various implementations in RSX, I can tell that it's not
RSTS/E-like, but TOPS-20.
Actually I do not really know which seems which: I based my assumptions on
something from Paul Koening I might have misread or misremembered... :P
Bit rotting is a big issue of mine :)
G.
