Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site lanl.ARP
Path: utzoo!utcs!lsuc!pesnta!zentec!
From: jlg@lanl.ARPA
Newsgroups: net.arch
Subject: Re: RMS useful!!!!!!!! (flame warning)
Message-ID: <21908@lanl.ARPA>
Date: Wed, 20-Feb-85 19:57:49 EST
Article-I.D.: lanl.21908
Posted: Wed Feb 20 19:57:49 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 23-Feb-85 09:27:20 EST
References: <105@endot.UUCP> <1399@uscvax.UUCP> <248@scgvaxd.UUCP> <20079@lanl.ARPA> <1547@uscvax.UUCP> <20969@lanl.ARPA> <1644@uscvax.UUCP 21 Feb 85 00:57:49 GMT
Sender: newsreader@lanl.ARPA
Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory
Lines: 32

> If you're so bloody interested in efficiency, then why the h*** don't you
> just bypass the operating system entirely and read and write disk blocks
> directly. Oh, I forgot, you want everything done for you but you want it
> easy so that you can understand it. VMS RMS has all the features you need
> for ANY file organization and does not cost too much if you have the
> intelligence to use it properly. If you want your simple primatives,
> there are ways to do this in RMS. You need only do them once to get
> UNIX style I/O. Sit down with the manuals and READ THEM. Don't bitch
> about how big they are.
> 
> (Boy that felt good)
> 
> 					Random
> 					Research Triangle Institute
> 					...!mcnc!rti-sel!rcb

Good.  I'm glad that makes you feel better.  It still doesn't change the
fact that moving to VMS is one of the two most difficult porting problems I
face (the other being NOS).  I also realize (and have always said) that I
think it's probably possible to do what I want in RMS - just bloody obscure
and difficult to find and implement.  This still doesn't address the
efficiency issue (which some benchmarks say is a factor of 6).

As for bypassing the operating system: if you had read the previous
articles you will have found that I intended to do just that (or bypass RMS
anyway, using direct QIO calls).  The problem is that I DON'T want
everything done for me at all - in fact I don't want most of what RMS does
'for' me.

J. Giles

A user should NEVER have to pay overhead for a feature he doesn't use.