ARCHERB@UMKCVAX1.BITNET (BARRY ARCHER) (01/29/88)
We currently have a LA120 printer set up as a service on a
DECserver 200/MC and have had it defined as a remote printer from our 8650
using the LAT services. Shortly after we went to VMS 4.7 the new multithreaded
LAT symbiont went into a resource wait state and stayed there. As I recall,
Digital told us that the problem was with a broken channel. We've received
a patched LTDRIVER and LATSYM from Digital, along with a warning that they
are experimental and not fully field tested. We appreciate the quick patch,
but still being somewhat new to LAT -> has anyone else had a similar problem
with LATSYM under 4.7 and, most importantly, has anyone else run the patched
versions yet?
Barry Archer
archerb@umkcvax1.bitnet
-------rrk@byuvax.bitnet (02/12/88)
We've had different problems with the LAT symbiont after VMS 4.7. We're
having to tell some sites to use our own version of the LAT symbiont which
doesn't seem to have any problems (I had to rewrite the original kludgy
single-threaded LAT symbiont into a multi-threaded and not-so-kludgey LAT
symbiont). DEC needs to fix a lot of things with respect to the LAT
symbiont. Also, now that the LAT software is supposedly "part of VMS" DEC
needs to put the LAT output routines into SMBSRVSHR so that user-modified
symbionts can output over a reverse-LAT port. Actually, a better (and probably
easier) thing for DEC to do would be to make the output routines smart enough
to detect when they are outputing to a LAT port and modify their behavior
accordingly. The whole concept of having a LATSYM should be just a very
temporary thing until it becomes debugged and part of VMS, but it almost
seems that DEC is inclined to make it permanent. I just hope that enough
of their own software starts getting screwed up by the bad situation they
have created so that they have to do something about it.
I guess this is less of an answer than a complaint. I am currently sumbitting
SPR's on about a dozen design problems with the spooler facility in general
with specific recommendations for correction.
If DEC is supplying a patch, then they must know there are problems. I
would be interested in seeing the patch.
Ray Whitmer