- Community Home
- >
- Servers and Operating Systems
- >
- Operating Systems
- >
- Operating System - OpenVMS
- >
- Re: Two IPC_Shr Images
Categories
Company
Local Language
Forums
Discussions
Forums
- Data Protection and Retention
- Entry Storage Systems
- Legacy
- Midrange and Enterprise Storage
- Storage Networking
- HPE Nimble Storage
Discussions
Discussions
Discussions
Forums
Forums
Discussions
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
- BladeSystem Infrastructure and Application Solutions
- Appliance Servers
- Alpha Servers
- BackOffice Products
- Internet Products
- HPE 9000 and HPE e3000 Servers
- Networking
- Netservers
- Secure OS Software for Linux
- Server Management (Insight Manager 7)
- Windows Server 2003
- Operating System - Tru64 Unix
- ProLiant Deployment and Provisioning
- Linux-Based Community / Regional
- Microsoft System Center Integration
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Community
Resources
Forums
Blogs
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Mark Topic as New
- Mark Topic as Read
- Float this Topic for Current User
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Printer Friendly Page
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО03-30-2011 04:37 AM
тАО03-30-2011 04:37 AM
Two IPC_Shr Images
I was working with TCPIP services the other day and was confronted two images in system:
TCPIP$IPC_SHR.EXE and UCX$IPC_SHR.exe.
Why are there two IPC_shr exes in an openVMS system?
As far as I remember(correct me if I am mistaken), UCX was previously used to provide various services on OpenVMS, which are now provided by TCPIP.
It is more of a curiosity than an issue faced by me.
Would appreciate if anyone can throw some light on this.
Cheers,
Almond
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО03-30-2011 04:58 AM
тАО03-30-2011 04:58 AM
Re: Two IPC_Shr Images
I think one could get rid of ucx$ipc_shr, and either make an alias directory entry or define a logical name to use older programs linked to ucx$ipc_shr.
The makers of the TCPIP product kit probably are just lazy or don't know it better ...
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО03-30-2011 08:12 AM
тАО03-30-2011 08:12 AM
Re: Two IPC_Shr Images
Perhaps there might have been a better way to maintain compatibility, but that's the way the UCX/TCPIP group did it.
-Jeff
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО03-30-2011 12:57 PM
тАО03-30-2011 12:57 PM
Re: Two IPC_Shr Images
>I think one could get rid of ucx$ipc_shr,
>and either make an alias directory entry or
>define a logical name to use older programs
>linked to ucx$ipc_shr.
True, but logical names are a finite resource, and increasing the number of definitions in a logical name table will increase the cost of logical name lookups (even if only infinitessimal). They also need to be defined somewhere before they can be used.
To impose a cost, however small, on ALL TCPIP users for all time for the sake of the dwindling minority of those who still have UCX legacy code sounds like a bad trade-off to me. Remember that logical name lookup is a very high frequency event, so even small costs add up over time.
Also true, the same effect could be achieved with an alias entry, but, unlike Unix, file aliases tend to be very rare in OpenVMS. Indeed the ONLY alias used in most OpenVMS installations I can think of is that of VMS$COMMON on the system disk (and think of all the trouble that's caused over the years!). I can definitely see why TCPIP engineering would avoid introducing aliases.
>The makers of the TCPIP product kit
>probably are just lazy or don't know it
>better ...
I think that's an unfair assessment.
For the sake of a few hundred disk blocks and an automatic COPY operation in the build, I'd say they've picked the simplest and most robust mechanism for maintaining compatibility. They've also given themselves a simple way to leave UCX frozen in time and change the equivalent TCPIP image in the future, should it become necessary.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО03-30-2011 03:06 PM
тАО03-30-2011 03:06 PM
Re: Two IPC_Shr Images
If the images are identical (with the exception of the filename), then I will, with all due respect, disagree with John with respect to using logical names to map TCPIP$IPC_SHR.EXE and UCX$IPC_SHR.EXE into a single file.
If expansion of the interface is needed, then it is a simple matter to add entry points to the end of the transfer vector, with no ill effects on any existing binary images, so long as the API to the pre-existing entry points is maintained.
With regards to the overhead of extra logical names, with the exception of privileged images, there is no reason why such a logical name need be in a global table, it can be in the process, job, or group tables, as well as any other logical name table that is included in the appropriate search path used by the image activator (I do not have my IDSM within reach at this instant).
- Bob Gezelter, http://www.rlgsc.com