demillo@uwmacc.UUCP (Rob DeMillo) (10/09/86)
Hello. I need to talk with someone who has had a fair amount
of success making a uucp connection with EUNICE. I am interested
in doing something similar, and I want to know what problems I am
going to encounter.
--
--- Rob DeMillo
Madison Academic Computer Center
usenet: {ihnp4,harvard,seismo,topaz,decvax}!uwvax!uwmacc!demillo
ARPA: demillo@unix.macc.wisc.edu (now isn't that easier?)
----------------------------------------
"I am not so sure
what you want me for! 'War Games'
Either your machine is a - Crosby, Stills and Nash
fool, or me..."ceh@homxb.UUCP (C.HAILEY) (10/29/86)
> 4.2 works fairly well, compared to what I saw in 4.1. If you > can, read the manual that they send along with it, several times. > VMS is bizarre, Unix is simple so that makes Eunice Simply bizarre. ^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^ ?? ??!! (I don't think I can agree here) I am running uucp under eunice 4.2 without any problems other than typical Unix oddities. Eunice is not really more bizarre than Unix, just a little different for SA tasks, the uucp stuff is the same except for cron and rc. It is important to note that uucp does NOT work under 4.1, the file hashing scheme broke under VMS 4.0; uucp was fixed in the second release. I had to make some changes to uucp.com and rc to make it work right, but everything else works as advertised. One footnote: Eunice 4.2 on a VAX outperforms Berkley 4.2! >>at this point, I don't even know if anybody out there even >>reads this newsgroup any more. I sure would like to get information >>from a source OTHER than the list of hand-picked customer >>references from TWG. Yes! Eunice is an odd world, I wish there was more info in this group. Chris H
jin@hropus.UUCP (Jerry Natowitz) (10/29/86)
Hello out there! I just started reading this group and please
pardon me if this topic has been discussed letely but here goes:
We are running VMS V3.7 with Release 3.2 of Eunice. Our site management
want to upgrade to VMS V4.3 and whatever the latest version of
Eunice is. My questions are:
1) Will the old Eunice run under VMS V4.3?
2) What problems will we encounter with the new Eunice?
I act as a consultant to the site management, I do not support the software
nor do I even use Eunice (I prefer VMS).
--
Jerry Natowitz (HASA - A division)
Bell Labs
HR 2A-214
201-615-5178 (no CORNET yet)
ihnp4!houxm!hropus!jin (official)
ihnp4!opus!jin (better)jbuck@epimass.UUCP (Joe Buck) (11/01/86)
In article <756@hropus.UUCP> jin@hropus.UUCP (Jerry Natowitz) writes: >We are running VMS V3.7 with Release 3.2 of Eunice. Our site management >want to upgrade to VMS V4.3 and whatever the latest version of >Eunice is. My questions are: > >1) Will the old Eunice run under VMS V4.3? No, it won't. >2) What problems will we encounter with the new Eunice? You want Eunice version 4.2 (nothing to do with 4.2bsd; it still looks like 4.1bsd). It works pretty well, considering it's Eunice (the 4.1 Eunice release was so buggy that it was unusable). The filename hashing scheme has changed. Both your Eunice and VMS users may encounter problems because when a program with SYSPRV privilege creates a file, it's owned by the owner of the directory the file is created in. This causes some problems for Eunice mail (a mailbox will suddenly become owned by the SYSTEM account, if a user deletes some, but not all, of his/her mail) and other privileged utilities. UUCP works, sort of. I find that uuxqt hangs up a lot and I have to run it by hand occasionally to get mail and news delivered. uucico itself has no problems talking to "epimass", a Masscomp 5600 running (roughly) 4.2bsd UUCP. Oh yes, news. I did the Eunice 2.11 news implementation, which is part of the standard distribution. Check out Appendix C of the news installation guide, now being distributed on mod.sources. A beta version is up and running on site "epicen" (I still have to bring up the "official" version and see if it still runs). It will not run on the old (version 3.x VMS) Eunice. There may still be some problems with it; if anyone installs it on a Eunice system and has problems I'd like to hear about it. > >I act as a consultant to the site management, I do not support the software >nor do I even use Eunice (I prefer VMS). >-- > Jerry Natowitz (HASA - A division) > Bell Labs > HR 2A-214 > 201-615-5178 (no CORNET yet) > ihnp4!houxm!hropus!jin (official) > ihnp4!opus!jin (better) -- - Joe Buck {hplabs,ihnp4}!oliveb!epimass!jbuck Entropic Processing, Inc., Cupertino, California
jbuck@epimass.UUCP (Joe Buck) (11/01/86)
In article <2092@homxb.UUCP> ceh@homxb.UUCP (C.HAILEY) writes: > One footnote: Eunice 4.2 on a VAX outperforms Berkley 4.2! You must be joking. Try "ls -l" on a large directory, and take a long coffee break on Eunice (of course, this isn't nearly as bad as it was under Eunice 3.x with lots of hashnamed files in the directory). Or try doing a task with lots of forks and execs. It takes VMS tens or even hundreds of times as long as Unix to read a directory or create a new process. If you're talking about number-crunching though, the time should be exactly the same as for 4.1bsd, since the same C compiler (essentially) is used and you're running the same machine instructions. > Yes! Eunice is an odd world, I wish there was more info in > this group. Since news 2.11 will run on Eunice, maybe that will increase this group's traffic a bit (Chip Rosenthal at Intel got 2.10.2 news to run on Eunice v3.2, but his code was never widely distributed). -- - Joe Buck {hplabs,ihnp4}!oliveb!epimass!jbuck Entropic Processing, Inc., Cupertino, California