| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 27 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 38:51:37 |
| Calls: | 631 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 1,187 |
| D/L today: |
23 files (29,781K bytes) |
| Messages: | 174,060 |
VSI has published final agenda:
-a-a-a https://events.vmssoftware.com/bootcamp-2025/agenda
VSI has published final agenda:
-a-a-a https://events.vmssoftware.com/bootcamp-2025/agenda
VSI has published final agenda:
https://events.vmssoftware.com/bootcamp-2025/agenda
On 2025-10-08, Arne Vajh|+j <arne@vajhoej.dk> wrote:
VSI has published final agenda:
https://events.vmssoftware.com/bootcamp-2025/agenda
That's a very interesting range of topics. It's starting to feel
like the old DECUS conferences of yesteryear.
One thing of special interest is that the rewrite of the TCP/IP stack
is back on the WIP list. This was tried in the past by VSI and then
dropped. Interesting that the FreeBSD stack was chosen as the starting
point for this.
On the device driver front, I see there's still nothing about being
able to unload and reload drivers without having to reboot the system. :-)
On a more serious note, I wonder where things currently stand with implementing a new filesystem to address ODS-2/ODS-5 limitations ?
PS: It might be a good idea to delete anything critical about the
current US government before you travel to the US however. :-)
PPS: $ set response/mode=good_natured (for the humour-impaired)
On 10/9/2025 08:29, Simon Clubley wrote:I hope that should read as "VSI is currently prioritizing
On a more serious note, I wonder where things currently stand with
implementing a new filesystem to address ODS-2/ODS-5 limitations ?
Also not going to happen.
On 2025-10-08, Arne Vajhoj <arne@vajhoej.dk> wrote:
VSI has published final agenda:
https://events.vmssoftware.com/bootcamp-2025/agenda
That's a very interesting range of topics. It's starting to feel
like the old DECUS conferences of yesteryear.
One thing of special interest is that the rewrite of the TCP/IP stack
is back on the WIP list. This was tried in the past by VSI and then
dropped. Interesting that the FreeBSD stack was chosen as the starting
point for this.
On 10/9/2025 08:29, Simon Clubley wrote:
On 2025-10-08, Arne Vajh|+j <arne@vajhoej.dk> wrote:
VSI has published final agenda:
https://events.vmssoftware.com/bootcamp-2025/agenda
That's a very interesting range of topics. It's starting to feel
like the old DECUS conferences of yesteryear.
One thing of special interest is that the rewrite of the TCP/IP stack
is back on the WIP list. This was tried in the past by VSI and then
dropped. Interesting that the FreeBSD stack was chosen as the starting
point for this.
On the device driver front, I see there's still nothing about being
able to unload and reload drivers without having to reboot the system. :-)
Not going to happen.
On a more serious note, I wonder where things currently stand with
implementing a new filesystem to address ODS-2/ODS-5 limitations ?
Also not going to happen.
PS: It might be a good idea to delete anything critical about the
current US government before you travel to the US however. :-)
PPS: $ set response/mode=good_natured (for the humour-impaired)
It's not particularly funny for those of us that live here; especially
if you are not white.
Trump and his ilk are really bad people.
In article <10c89re$2n78q$1@dont-email.me>,
Simon Clubley <clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP> wrote:
On 2025-10-08, Arne Vajhoj <arne@vajhoej.dk> wrote:
VSI has published final agenda:
https://events.vmssoftware.com/bootcamp-2025/agenda
That's a very interesting range of topics. It's starting to feel
like the old DECUS conferences of yesteryear.
One thing of special interest is that the rewrite of the TCP/IP stack
is back on the WIP list. This was tried in the past by VSI and then >>dropped. Interesting that the FreeBSD stack was chosen as the starting >>point for this.
I'm curious as to your thoughts on the FreeBSD stack. My sense
is that it is one of the better implementations out there, and
has had a ton of work done on it (including recently). It also
has a permissive license that makes it suitable for integration
into a proprietary system like VMS.
On 2025-10-10, Dan Cross <cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net> wrote:
In article <10c89re$2n78q$1@dont-email.me>,
Simon Clubley <clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP> wrote:
On 2025-10-08, Arne Vajh|+j <arne@vajhoej.dk> wrote:
VSI has published final agenda:
https://events.vmssoftware.com/bootcamp-2025/agenda
That's a very interesting range of topics. It's starting to feel
like the old DECUS conferences of yesteryear.
One thing of special interest is that the rewrite of the TCP/IP stack
is back on the WIP list. This was tried in the past by VSI and then
dropped. Interesting that the FreeBSD stack was chosen as the starting
point for this.
I'm curious as to your thoughts on the FreeBSD stack. My sense
is that it is one of the better implementations out there, and
has had a ton of work done on it (including recently). It also
has a permissive license that makes it suitable for integration
into a proprietary system like VMS.
That's exactly my point. It's an excellent starting point for
a VMS-specific TCP/IP stack.
It's vastly better than the original UCX disaster area and looks to
be far better than whatever they used for the UCX 5 (TCP/IP Services) rewrite.
On 2025-10-10, Dan Cross <cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net> wrote:
In article <10c89re$2n78q$1@dont-email.me>,
Simon Clubley <clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP> wrote:
On 2025-10-08, Arne Vajhoj <arne@vajhoej.dk> wrote:
VSI has published final agenda:
https://events.vmssoftware.com/bootcamp-2025/agenda
That's a very interesting range of topics. It's starting to feel
like the old DECUS conferences of yesteryear.
One thing of special interest is that the rewrite of the TCP/IP stack
is back on the WIP list. This was tried in the past by VSI and then >>>dropped. Interesting that the FreeBSD stack was chosen as the starting >>>point for this.
I'm curious as to your thoughts on the FreeBSD stack. My sense
is that it is one of the better implementations out there, and
has had a ton of work done on it (including recently). It also
has a permissive license that makes it suitable for integration
into a proprietary system like VMS.
That's exactly my point. It's an excellent starting point for
a VMS-specific TCP/IP stack.
It's vastly better than the original UCX disaster area and looks to
be far better than whatever they used for the UCX 5 (TCP/IP Services) >rewrite.
In article <10cauq9$20cl$1@dont-email.me>,
Simon Clubley <clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP> wrote:
On 2025-10-10, Dan Cross <cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net> wrote:
In article <10c89re$2n78q$1@dont-email.me>,
Simon Clubley <clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP> wrote:
On 2025-10-08, Arne Vajh|+j <arne@vajhoej.dk> wrote:
VSI has published final agenda:
https://events.vmssoftware.com/bootcamp-2025/agenda
That's a very interesting range of topics. It's starting to feel
like the old DECUS conferences of yesteryear.
One thing of special interest is that the rewrite of the TCP/IP stack
is back on the WIP list. This was tried in the past by VSI and then
dropped. Interesting that the FreeBSD stack was chosen as the starting >>>> point for this.
I'm curious as to your thoughts on the FreeBSD stack. My sense
is that it is one of the better implementations out there, and
has had a ton of work done on it (including recently). It also
has a permissive license that makes it suitable for integration
into a proprietary system like VMS.
That's exactly my point. It's an excellent starting point for
a VMS-specific TCP/IP stack.
It's vastly better than the original UCX disaster area and looks to
be far better than whatever they used for the UCX 5 (TCP/IP Services)
rewrite.
Agreed. Where does Process Software fit in all of this?
Multinet always seemed very good.
- Dan C.
In article <10cauq9$20cl$1@dont-email.me>,
Simon Clubley <clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP> wrote:
On 2025-10-10, Dan Cross <cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net> wrote:
In article <10c89re$2n78q$1@dont-email.me>,
Simon Clubley <clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP> wrote:
On 2025-10-08, Arne Vajh|+j <arne@vajhoej.dk> wrote:
VSI has published final agenda:
https://events.vmssoftware.com/bootcamp-2025/agenda
That's a very interesting range of topics. It's starting to feel
like the old DECUS conferences of yesteryear.
One thing of special interest is that the rewrite of the TCP/IP stack
is back on the WIP list. This was tried in the past by VSI and then
dropped. Interesting that the FreeBSD stack was chosen as the starting >>>> point for this.
I'm curious as to your thoughts on the FreeBSD stack. My sense
is that it is one of the better implementations out there, and
has had a ton of work done on it (including recently). It also
has a permissive license that makes it suitable for integration
into a proprietary system like VMS.
That's exactly my point. It's an excellent starting point for
a VMS-specific TCP/IP stack.
It's vastly better than the original UCX disaster area and looks to
be far better than whatever they used for the UCX 5 (TCP/IP Services)
rewrite.
Agreed. Where does Process Software fit in all of this?
Multinet always seemed very good.
On 10/11/25 6:35 AM, Dan Cross wrote:
In article <10cauq9$20cl$1@dont-email.me>,
Simon Clubley-a <clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP> wrote:
On 2025-10-10, Dan Cross <cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net> wrote:
In article <10c89re$2n78q$1@dont-email.me>,
Simon Clubley-a <clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP> wrote: >>>>> On 2025-10-08, Arne Vajh|+j <arne@vajhoej.dk> wrote:
VSI has published final agenda:
-a-a-a-a-a https://events.vmssoftware.com/bootcamp-2025/agenda
That's a very interesting range of topics. It's starting to feel
like the old DECUS conferences of yesteryear.
One thing of special interest is that the rewrite of the TCP/IP stack >>>>> is back on the WIP list. This was tried in the past by VSI and then
dropped. Interesting that the FreeBSD stack was chosen as the starting >>>>> point for this.
I'm curious as to your thoughts on the FreeBSD stack.-a My sense
is that it is one of the better implementations out there, and
has had a ton of work done on it (including recently).-a It also
has a permissive license that makes it suitable for integration
into a proprietary system like VMS.
That's exactly my point. It's an excellent starting point for
a VMS-specific TCP/IP stack.
It's vastly better than the original UCX disaster area and looks to
be far better than whatever they used for the UCX 5 (TCP/IP Services)
rewrite.
Agreed.-a Where does Process Software fit in all of this?
Multinet always seemed very good.
That's the thing Simon mentioned that had been dropped. VSI announced a
new TCP/IP stack based on Multinet but later withdrew it.-a As far as I
know, it's still available independently from Process Software.
I believe the existing DEC/Compaq/HP(E)/VSI stack is based on BSD, but
BSD from 25+ years ago, so it does make sense to update to current,
which after that much time is probably a complete rewrite.
Hopefully the Bootcamp talk will explain what exactly is getting redone.
-aIs it only the socket libraries, and the layer that does QIOs to the
LAN driver and the management interfaces will stay the same?-a Or are
they revisiting VCI 2.0, an update to the LAN driver that was planned
and canceled during the HP(E) era and would have overhauled how the TCP/
IP stack interfaces with networking hardware (and without which,
networking speed on VMS will probably never be competitive)?
That's the thing Simon mentioned that had been dropped. VSI announced a
new TCP/IP stack based on Multinet but later withdrew it.-a As far as I
know, it's still available independently from Process Software.
On 10/11/25 7:29 AM, Craig A. Berry wrote:
On 10/11/25 6:35 AM, Dan Cross wrote:
In article <10cauq9$20cl$1@dont-email.me>,
Simon Clubley-a <clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP> wrote:
On 2025-10-10, Dan Cross <cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net> wrote:
In article <10c89re$2n78q$1@dont-email.me>,
Simon Clubley-a <clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP> wrote: >>>>>> On 2025-10-08, Arne Vajh|+j <arne@vajhoej.dk> wrote:
VSI has published final agenda:
-a-a-a-a-a https://events.vmssoftware.com/bootcamp-2025/agenda
That's a very interesting range of topics. It's starting to feel
like the old DECUS conferences of yesteryear.
One thing of special interest is that the rewrite of the TCP/IP stack >>>>>> is back on the WIP list. This was tried in the past by VSI and then >>>>>> dropped. Interesting that the FreeBSD stack was chosen as the starting >>>>>> point for this.
I'm curious as to your thoughts on the FreeBSD stack.-a My sense
is that it is one of the better implementations out there, and
has had a ton of work done on it (including recently).-a It also
has a permissive license that makes it suitable for integration
into a proprietary system like VMS.
That's exactly my point. It's an excellent starting point for
a VMS-specific TCP/IP stack.
It's vastly better than the original UCX disaster area and looks to
be far better than whatever they used for the UCX 5 (TCP/IP Services)
rewrite.
Agreed.-a Where does Process Software fit in all of this?
Multinet always seemed very good.
That's the thing Simon mentioned that had been dropped. VSI announced a
new TCP/IP stack based on Multinet but later withdrew it.-a As far as I
know, it's still available independently from Process Software.
I believe the existing DEC/Compaq/HP(E)/VSI stack is based on BSD, but
BSD from 25+ years ago, so it does make sense to update to current,
which after that much time is probably a complete rewrite.
Hopefully the Bootcamp talk will explain what exactly is getting redone.
-aIs it only the socket libraries, and the layer that does QIOs to the
LAN driver and the management interfaces will stay the same?-a Or are
they revisiting VCI 2.0, an update to the LAN driver that was planned
and canceled during the HP(E) era and would have overhauled how the TCP/
IP stack interfaces with networking hardware (and without which,
networking speed on VMS will probably never be competitive)?
I had the timeline wrong on VCI 2.0. It was very much on the roadmap in
the VSI era. Here is a technical description from 2015 of what it was >intended to be:
https://www.connect-community.de/drupal/sites/default/files/10%20LAN%20Performance%20Improvements.pdf