V2002A@TEMPLEVM.BITNET ("The Radio Gnome") (04/19/88)
Hi,
Having just finished setting up a vanilla uVAX II VMS/Allin1
system for a user, we are faced with a dilemma. This user currently
has a dedicated PDP-11/34 (RSTS/E v7.1) running a turnkey application
that acts as a data collection system. Six terminals are controlled
by a single job which opens the terminals as slave devices. A second
job communicates with the first to verify the data entry and update
the master files. It runs detached.
My questions are if we port this thing to the uVAX...
1) Will the six slave terminals be counted as a single user
if under the control of the master program?
2) If the answer to 1 is yes, then will this conflict with the
8 user license agreement? These slave terminals will be
operating in addition to up to 7 Allin1 users. So in
theory we could have 13 'users' on an 8 user system.
I believe a 'SHOW USERS' would show 7 Allin1 users and
a 'CONTROL' user. The control user would have a sub-process
(the data verification and file update) and six devices
under its wing.
We would be porting from BASIC-PLUS to VAX BASIC and using
FMS forms for data entry.
I'm sure there are many applications like this out there
in VAXland. I'd appreciate any experiences, suggestions, warnings
etc.
In case you're wondering, the user doesn't have the money for
a 16 user key, but has the money for an additional dhv11.
uVAX II VMS 4.5 1 rd53 1 dzq11
2 rc25 1 dhv11
Thanx in advance!
Andy Wing Temple Health Sciences Center
V2002A%TEMPLEVM.BITNET@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU
{whatever,link,pleases,you}psuvm1!templevm.bitnet!v2002a
-------nagy%warner.hepnet@LBL.GOV (Frank J. Nagy, VAX Wizard & Guru) (05/12/88)
> 1) Will the six slave terminals be counted as a single user > if under the control of the master program? The slave terminals do NOT count as separate users. They are just I/O devices in use by a program. If the program is running from a batch job or is a detached process, then even that program does not count as an interactive user. The N-user license only counts against "interactive users". An interactive user is one who has LOGGED IN via: - SET HOST - a terminal multiplexor line - a LAT connection - (only on a VAXStation) the main display screen Network jobs (like file accesses), batch jobs, subprocesses and detached processes are NOT counted against the license limit. = Frank J. Nagy "VAX Guru & Wizard" = Fermilab Research Division EED/Controls = HEPNET: WARNER::NAGY (43198::NAGY) or FNAL::NAGY (43009::NAGY) = BitNet: NAGY@FNAL = USnail: Fermilab POB 500 MS/220 Batavia, IL 60510
levy@ttrdc.UUCP (Daniel R. Levy) (05/17/88)
In article <880512061915.20807ca9@LBL.Gov>, nagy%warner.hepnet@LBL.GOV (Frank J. Nagy, VAX Wizard & Guru) writes: # > 1) Will the six slave terminals be counted as a single user # > if under the control of the master program? # # The slave terminals do NOT count as separate users. They are just # I/O devices in use by a program. If the program is running from # a batch job or is a detached process, then even that program does # not count as an interactive user. # # The N-user license only counts against "interactive users". An # interactive user is one who has LOGGED IN via: # # - SET HOST # # - a terminal multiplexor line # # - a LAT connection # # - (only on a VAXStation) the main display screen # # Network jobs (like file accesses), batch jobs, subprocesses and # detached processes are NOT counted against the license limit. # = Frank J. Nagy "VAX Guru & Wizard" But what about: - a batch process which does a $SPAWN /IN=terminal: /OUT=terminal: ??? We use a variation on that here to implement a quick-and-dirty callback facility (a batch job on the VAX allocates the terminal, calls the user [on an outward-dial-only line], then SPAWNs DCL to the terminal). Of course we have a full VMS license; we aren't trying to cheat nor do we suggest that anyone else should (cheat). An F$MODE() invoked from that session returns "INTERACTIVE" (no surprise?!). So I presume that it might be impossible anyhow to cheat on the interactive limit using that method, as the system seems to believe the session to be interactive, though it doesn't show up on a SHOW USERS. If there is any PD or shareware callback software out there I'd like to hear about it, incidentally. SPAWN is crufty, slow, and doesn't offer password protection. Though the user who submitted the callback job, of course, had to first log in the usual way, he supplied the phone number, and the line used to call out can't be dialed in on. So I am presuming the HACKER risk to be small short of someone tampering with the phone or terminal lines, or an authorized user giving a wrong number that calls a waiting HACKER. (Any HACKERs or WIZARDs out there who can think of anything I've forgotten please reply, preferably NOT by deleting all my files... :-). VMS mail if you bust in... :-). -- |------------Dan Levy------------| Path: ihnp4,<most AT&T machines>!ttrdc!levy | AT&T | Weinberg's Principle: An expert is a | Data Systems Group | person who avoids the small errors while |--------Skokie, Illinois--------| sweeping on to the grand fallacy.