[comp.unix.ultrix] VAX/Ultrix connection

grr@cbmvax.commodore.com (George Robbins) (05/25/90)

In article <422@gca.UUCP> beaulieu@gca.UUCP (Larry Beaulieu) writes:

> Our unfriendly neighborhood Corporate Computing Center (General Signal
> Services a strictly VMS/MPE shop) has 'gracefully' offered to provide the
> VAX/Ultrix Connection in order to hold the user files for these Unix boxes.

> The comments I have seen the last few months on usenet have generally implied
> negative impression, although if anyone outright slammed the product I didn't
> see it.  I didn't see anyone compliment it, either.

We've been going through the UCX experience here, for somewhat the same
reasons - half our shop is committed to VMS and run by a VMS manager who
hoped to serve everything possible from our VMS cluster.  Since UCX handled
the basic need and came from DEC, it was selected although we were already
using Wollengong software for TCP support on the cluster.

The bottom line is that UCX 1.2 is usable, but it is also not complete, not
fully debugged, not comprehensive and not competitive.  The VMS person went
to some DECUS sessions and is now displaying lots of interest in TGV Multinet,
which is the product I had originally been considering to replace the
Wollengong software with.

From all acounts Multinet does more, is better thought out and works well.
Exactly how well we won't really know unless we install it and live with it
for a while.

1) Why did you buy this product?

	above

2) What (briefly) are the configurations of the server and clients?

	a 6420/6210/8600 cluster serving files and diskspace to a group about
	half a dozen sparcstations and a Sun 4 server/compute engine.

3) What is the net performance of the product?   Is it a CPU/memory hog?
How many clients can it comfortably support, in your opinion, in your
configuration?

	No hard facts here, but if cost/performance is an issue, the Sun 4
	with a good controller does better.  It doesn't seem to hurt the VMS
	cluster performance although bugs (fixed) have caused problems.

4) Bugs?

	There have been some, even in the production 1.2 release.  DEC seems
	to be providing fixes.

5) quality of support from DEC?

	ok (by observation)

6) Would an Ultrix uVAX 3100 as a boot node, with a Sun 3/480 server handling
   the user files be a better choice.

	Yes, if the only issue is providing a file server for disk space and
	backup.   I'm assuming you already have the 3100, otherwise I'd just
	put some drives on one of the DS5000's for "boot support only".  I'm
	not a "diskless workstation" fan in any case.  Our (one) DS3100 has
	root/swap/var on a local disk and runs off shared /usr and user files
	exported by a 5810.

7) Does it offer the full  functionality you need/like? If not, what else
   would you like?

	UCX is currently uni-directional, so VMS users can't access files
	being exported from other NFS servers (except Ultrix systems via
	DECnet remote access).  It doesn't offer any default support for the
	problem that VMS text files aren't created by default in the Unix
	compatible "stream/LF" format.  UCX "internet" support is also more
	limted than Wollengong or Multinet when it comes to making a VMS
	system act like a network peer or central TCP service host.

8) Are the files stored/accessible from native VMS?  

	UCX has two modes, one for access to native VMS files and one for
	storing Unix files more or less transparently in VMS "Container" file
	structures.  The first doesn't seem to offer very good performance as
	a file server and with the second, there is no simple access to the
	Unix files from VMS.  You end up having to do both.

9) Would you buy the product again?  Why/why not?  If not, what would you
   suggest as an alternative?

	Not in it's current form.  People who have used Multinet seem rather
	universal in its praise.  It does more and attention has been paid to
	making it do what the users need for convenience and transparency.
	I haven't heard much about the current Wollongong product or other
	competitors.

I personally would install one of these products only to provide network access
to files sharable by VMS and Unix users.  Unix based fileservers provide better
price/performance and better cost/G-byte than any DEC VMS systems.  The only
reason I would see for recommending server mode as opposed to access mode would
be where the VMS side offers lots of disk to you "for free" or if they have
better backup provisions what you want to tie into.

If you pursue this, insist that the VMS folks evaluate the competitive product
instead of just "buying DEC" and that they obtain references from both UCX
and alternative product users.

I personally feel that providing networked access across unix/VMS lines is
important when there is a big enough intersection between the unix and VMS
applications and user community, but it should also be considered as part of
an overall effort that includes providing text editors (vi, edt/tpu, emacs)
that are compatible on both sides and also possibly emulating shells or other
user aids that let the user concentrate on the job rather than forcing them
to "learn it both ways".
 
-- 
George Robbins - now working for,     uucp:   {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!grr
but no way officially representing:   domain: grr@cbmvax.commodore.com
Commodore, Engineering Department     phone:  215-431-9349 (only by moonlite)