Pathworks vs NFS - VMS

This is a discussion on Pathworks vs NFS - VMS ; We have been using Pathworks for several years now, serving about 1 TB of data to about 15,000 users. Some people here at my workplace are proposing a "Pathworks replacement" that entails a NetApps solution which, according to some NetApps ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 4 of 4

Thread: Pathworks vs NFS

  1. Pathworks vs NFS

    We have been using Pathworks for several years now, serving about 1 TB
    of data to about 15,000 users.

    Some people here at my workplace are proposing a "Pathworks replacement"
    that entails a NetApps solution which, according to some NetApps folk,
    implies NFS for serving the VMS-based files.

    To me, comparing Pathworks to NFS is barely comparing fruit to fruit,
    let alone apples to apples.

    Knowing that there is no shortage of any of these in this forum, I am
    soliciting opinions, attitudes, prejudices, flames and even some facts
    or pointers-to-facts regarding the use of NFS (with or without NetApps)
    as a replacement for Pathworks. In particular, issues of efficiency,
    performance, security and maintainability seem relevant here. Maybe
    there are other issues worth commenting on?

    Thanks in advance for any help with this, and in arrears for the many
    years of VMS-related information and entertainment that many of you have
    given me.

  2. Re: Pathworks vs NFS

    In article <-5udnWzGLsLB-rzanZ2dnUVZ_qqgnZ2d@giganews.com>, VMSQuest Reborn writes:
    > We have been using Pathworks for several years now, serving about 1 TB
    > of data to about 15,000 users.
    >
    > Some people here at my workplace are proposing a "Pathworks replacement"
    > that entails a NetApps solution which, according to some NetApps folk,
    > implies NFS for serving the VMS-based files.
    >
    > To me, comparing Pathworks to NFS is barely comparing fruit to fruit,
    > let alone apples to apples.


    I used PCNFS to connect PC's to Solaris systems. NFS has been known
    to have secutiry problems, many of which have been addressed, but
    NFS is still very UNIX-centric.

    You will have problems accessing VMS files from PCs and PC files from
    VMS since NFS doesn't understand anything but UNIX byte stream files.
    We had similar, but smaller, problems between Solaris' UNIX
    conventions and PCs. (PCs use simlilar byte stream files with
    different text line conventions). Pathworks knows about this and
    uses RMS extensions added primarily to support Windows to help deal
    with it. But you'll have little problem accessing VMS files from VMS
    and PC files from PCs.

    Windows has its own ideas of how to lock files from multiple access.
    NFS does not enforce such things on its own, but an application can
    ask it to. You need to verify that NetApps will enforce Windows'
    file locks (I suspect it does).

    And of course, choose your NFS server vendor for VMS wisely.


  3. Re: Pathworks vs NFS

    Bob Koehler wrote:
    > In article <-5udnWzGLsLB-rzanZ2dnUVZ_qqgnZ2d@giganews.com>, VMSQuest Reborn writes:
    >> We have been using Pathworks for several years now, serving about 1 TB
    >> of data to about 15,000 users.
    >>
    >> Some people here at my workplace are proposing a "Pathworks replacement"
    >> that entails a NetApps solution which, according to some NetApps folk,
    >> implies NFS for serving the VMS-based files.
    >>
    >> To me, comparing Pathworks to NFS is barely comparing fruit to fruit,
    >> let alone apples to apples.

    >
    > I used PCNFS to connect PC's to Solaris systems. NFS has been known
    > to have secutiry problems, many of which have been addressed, but
    > NFS is still very UNIX-centric.
    >
    > You will have problems accessing VMS files from PCs and PC files from
    > VMS since NFS doesn't understand anything but UNIX byte stream files.
    > We had similar, but smaller, problems between Solaris' UNIX
    > conventions and PCs. (PCs use simlilar byte stream files with
    > different text line conventions). Pathworks knows about this and
    > uses RMS extensions added primarily to support Windows to help deal
    > with it. But you'll have little problem accessing VMS files from VMS
    > and PC files from PCs.
    >
    > Windows has its own ideas of how to lock files from multiple access.
    > NFS does not enforce such things on its own, but an application can
    > ask it to. You need to verify that NetApps will enforce Windows'
    > file locks (I suspect it does).
    >
    > And of course, choose your NFS server vendor for VMS wisely.
    >


    Bob, apparently yours is the definitive response, since no one else has
    anything to add.

    But it was quite helpful to me, on several levels, so "many thanks" to you.

  4. Re: Pathworks vs NFS

    In article , VMSQuest Reborn writes:
    >
    > But it was quite helpful to me, on several levels, so "many thanks" to you.


    Glad to be of help.


+ Reply to Thread