jlg@lanl.ARPA (02/21/85)
> 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.