- Community Home
- >
- Servers and Operating Systems
- >
- Operating Systems
- >
- Operating System - OpenVMS
- >
- Alternavie to 90M+ Terminal Servers
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
Forums
Discussions
Discussions
Discussions
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
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
05-12-2008 06:31 AM
05-12-2008 06:31 AM
Alternavie to 90M+ Terminal Servers
We are using dec server 90M+ and we want to test alternative terminal servers which has 16 or 32 ports.
In our system.trp file naming convention is like ;
LTA7508 means 8th port of dec server 750.
When we switch to 32 port dec servers what should be the naming convention ?
For example what would it be when i want to set a printer on port 25 of a 32 port dec server ?
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
05-12-2008 07:19 AM
05-12-2008 07:19 AM
Re: Alternavie to 90M+ Terminal Servers
logical names, so you can call them (pretty
much) whatever you want to call them?
(What/who is "dec server 750"?)
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
05-12-2008 07:26 AM
05-12-2008 07:26 AM
Re: Alternavie to 90M+ Terminal Servers
Welcome to the OpenVMS Forum!
My standard recommendation to clients for many years has been to use logical names, and use the LATCP CREATE PORT /LOGICAL (documented in the HELP text) to create a LAT port with an automatically assigned unit number and store the result in a Logical Name (table, name, and access mode specifiable in the command). This is a far safer alternative than trying to assign numbers.
I have seen many accidents when statically created numbers were used. Logical names are far, far safer.
- Bob Gezelter, http://www.rlgsc.com
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
05-12-2008 07:29 AM
05-12-2008 07:29 AM
Re: Alternavie to 90M+ Terminal Servers
http://www.vnetek.com/s-211-decserver.aspx
Purely Personal Opinion
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
05-13-2008 12:47 AM
05-13-2008 12:47 AM
Re: Alternavie to 90M+ Terminal Servers
Anyway ,
Can the naming of a LTA be like "LTABB25" ? "BB" is for dec server ID and "25" is for the port number.
The way we use is , "LTA7502" which means that dec server ID 750 and port ID is 2. And the restriction in a file is that the logic says first 3 char is for dec ID and the last char is for port ID.
The dec servers we use are all 8 port dec servers and we want to use 32 port dec servers but naming conventions restrict us to use these servers.
We will change the logic that "if terminal server id is BB , use 2 and 2 , not 3 and 1"
I want to know that if i could use letters for LTA naming in order to prevent overlapping ...
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
05-13-2008 01:06 AM
05-13-2008 01:06 AM
Re: Alternavie to 90M+ Terminal Servers
rehards Kalle
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
05-13-2008 02:13 AM
05-13-2008 02:13 AM
Re: Alternavie to 90M+ Terminal Servers
As has been observed, the LTAxxxx numbering scheme is limited to decimal digits. The xxxx is directly derived from a numeric field in the Unit Control Block for the particular LAT device.
Thus, the ability to create a numbering scheme as described in the original post depends upon the fortuitous [lucky!] circumstance that a) the port numbers on a given server did not exceed 8; and b) that the number of servers did not involve more than could be fit in three decimal digits.
For programming, such a naming convention is not often needed, although as implied by the original posting, it does have advantages for operational support (which is often the case with numbering conventions).
One can represent 16 and 32 port servers as TWO servers for the purposes of your configuration, although it will be necessary to do some changes to set up the correct port numbers when using LATCP, to wit:
LTA1008 (terminal server 100, port 8)
LTA1010 (terminal server 100, port 9)
LTA1018 (terminal server 100, port 16)
While the above numbers can be decoded by sight, it is admittedly not as obvious as your existing scheme.
The F$GETDVI also provides the Terminal Server and Port information using the TT_ACCPORNAM parameter. This, combined with removing the explicit numbering from the port creation procedure would PROBABLY IMHO, be the best choice.
Finally, one can also create logical names as the LAT ports are created (using the CREATE PORT /LOGICAL, as mentioned previously) and generate the name of the form LATTERMINAL_
IMHO, using F$GETDVI (or the corresponding SYS$ call) to get information about server and port is far better than decoding the number. If programs need to be able to address lines by some form of PORT/SERVER, I would create logical names using the CREATE PORT/LOGICAL in a proforma way as described above.
- Bob Gezelter, http://www.rlgsc.com