Conference 7.286::digital

Well, I'm on the road so Ziplink can't call me (like they did yesterday).
Hopefully they have other contacts...

    The issue with DEC UNIX's Advanced File System default parameters and 
    News and Mail Servers is well known.  Has been for years.  This should
    never have been allowed to bite a customer, if we paid any intention to
    what the customer's intended applications are.
    
    Who is the IRONMONGER clipping coupons here?
    
    FJP

    If it is well known that the defaults are wrong why haven't the
    defaults been changed, or multiple default classes created with the
    user given the option of selecting which class they want at install
    time?

    Greetings people,
    
    Have ANY of you read your recently mailed 1-3.5-9 plan? This is one 
    of the people and one of the operating systems we have decided to care 
    about (Unix and ISPs.) I would expect nothing but blurred fur at the
    mention of a problem by this customer. So everyone should write the
    outline 5 times then submit it all to Sid (who should check for
    spelling!)
    
    Fred

Thank heavens it was DEC unix that had the problem, instead of our 
DIGITAL UNIX. ;>)

Ultranet recently took delivery of an AlphaServer 4100 which it is using for
its news server (running Digital UNIX) and it is working very well.

				Steve

    Has anyone QARed this problem?  (Yes, I know you have to fight
    like a junkyard dog to get QARed problems fixed;  If I had $100
    for every "not reproducible, closed" message I've gotten and gone back
    to the mat about, I'd have a tidy sum.)
    

    There is nothing WRONG with Digital Unix and ADVFS. A DEFAULT
    parameter of ADVFS is based on a normal file system layout. News is not
    a normal layout. In News you have tens of thousands of files in a
    domain.  
    
    When you install an application you sometimes need to adjust ssytem
    defaults to suit your app. And the News problem is well documented, on
    teh net, in FAQ's and I think is even the subject of an example in the
    man pages.
    
    Whoever instaled this system did not do their homework before setting
    it up, and is simply pointing the finger at a 'bug' to cover their
    omission.

>               <<< Note 5163.8 by LEXSS1::GINGER "Ron Ginger" >>>
>
>    There is nothing WRONG with Digital Unix and ADVFS. A DEFAULT
>    parameter of ADVFS is based on a normal file system layout. News is not
>    a normal layout. In News you have tens of thousands of files in a
>    domain.  
>    
>    When you install an application you sometimes need to adjust ssytem
>    defaults to suit your app. And the News problem is well documented, on
>    teh net, in FAQ's and I think is even the subject of an example in the
>    man pages.
>    
>    Whoever instaled this system did not do their homework before setting
>    it up, and is simply pointing the finger at a 'bug' to cover their
>    omission.

Careful! Looks a lot like "blame the customer" to me.
"Doctor doctor, it hurts when I cough."
"Don't cough!".

This is the same sort of problem that OpenVMS systems have with Files-11.
But then we don't claim that Files-11 is an "advanced" file system.
Well it was when I first saw it, but that was twenty years ago :-)

Hey I've got a good idea ... how about we get the COMPUTER to change
the system defaults. Then we really could claim it to be an advanced
file system ... maybe get the computer to look at file systems and
see whether a file system is being used for the "right" thing. It could
fix the problem or at least give some warning, rather than having the
thing blow up in your face.

>Careful! Looks a lot like "blame the customer" to me.
>"Doctor doctor, it hurts when I cough."
>"Don't cough!".

Strange, it seemed he was saying, "This is an RTFM situation." 

If indeed this is a well-documented issue, then this ISP is to blame.  
Also, if this is the case, then the ISP has blamed Digital for their own 
mistake.

With this type of attitude, one can only sit back and wonder why we
don't have market share.  I mean, why should we be hearing gripes and
complaints when our competitors can easily take care of our customers
problems.

	Not only that, but one of the early notes in this string (which is only
1 day old) had someone state that the ISP had called them, but they were out of
town.... check out note .1


Glen

    Interesting,
    
    when I was setting up Linux, one of the comments raised was "if using
    Linux F/S for newsgroups, then uses this option (number of inodes),
    otherwise, accept the default".
    
    H

look in the ADVFS_SUPPORT conference for discussions about running news-servers
with advfs spools.

The suggested answer is to use UFS for news spools.

    I tried ADVFS once and will not set it up unless the customer insist
    that they want it. I've been burn't to many times by this and similar 
    "advanced" technology.

    Re: .15
    
    Then you are doing your customer a grave disservice. ADVFS is something
    you really do not want to live without, unless you system is just a
    workstation using most of its data remotely.
    
    Who is happy with a UNIX system that can take an hour to reboot after a
    power hit?
    
    Re: Earlier and UFS... Do not think that using UFS is a magic bullet
    for a filesystem hosting NEWS.  UFS has to be tuned here too, our you
    won't be able to use all the disk space on the partition.
    
    I like the Linux question about whether you plan to use the file system
    for news.!
    
    This should never be percieved as something that is the customer's
    fault.  You would hope that the potential "gotcha's" would be
    understood and dealt with in advance.  Now that we do a lot of business
    through VAR's, some of this may slip through the cracks.
    
    These kind of "known issues" ought to be thoroughly covered in our DUPS
    training.
    
    FJP

    I've forwarded this notes stream to the engineering manager for AdvFS,
    who suggests that part of the difficulty has been around "getting the
    word out" about AdvFS improvements/fixes as they have been made.  
    
    I think AdvFS wants to do the right thing here, and that this notes
    stream can be a contribution in that direction.  
    
    Opinion (mine): there is a cultural conflict between the traditional
    Unix way, which might be summarized as Let The Guru Have Full Control,
    and contemporary customer expectations (there's too much to read it
    all, products should configure themselves, defaults should be chosen in
    accordance with the principal of least surprise, I don't have time to
    RTFM).
    
    The Unix(es) that survive(s) (if any) will be non-traditional.

Re .14:

Interesting; one of the "advantages" of AdvFS is that (unlike UFS) it doesn't 
require fscking, which is particularly useful on filesystems with large numbers 
of files. However, when a filesystem with a large number of files is required, 
the recommendation is to use UFS. But UFS requires fscking, especially on 
filesystems with large numbers of files, so we should really be using AdvFS.

Do we wonder why our customers get confused?

Re .16: (UFS has to be tuned here too)

With UFS, you say "Hmm, I need a filesystem that can hold (say) 1.5 million 
files, so I'll create a filesystem that has at least 1.5 million inodes." This 
is really easy to do, and you can see exactly how many inodes you've got left 
at any time, so it's possible to do some proactive management. After that, you 
can leave it alone

With AdvFS, if you need 1.5 million files, you can set a parameter or two at 
filesystem creation time, but these parameters have no direct relation to the 
number of files you can put on the filesystem. (Apparently it also helps if 
you touch 1.5 million files and delete them again before you actually use 
the filesystem, but this takes many hours, and I'm not sure if it's 
recommended by AdvFS engineering or not.) Once you've created the filesystem, 
there's no way of telling how many more files you can put on the filesystem, 
until one day you start getting "out of space" errors. Of course, you can run 
"defragment" regularly to lessen the chance of this happening, but you still 
can't tell when it will happen. (By the way, you need to pay extra for the AdvFS 
Utilities to get defragment.)

In this area, the "Advanced" File System is a giant step backwards.

>    You would hope that the potential "gotcha's" would be
>    understood and dealt with in advance.

You would hope the potential "gotcha's" would be understood and dealt with in 
advance at the design stage.

(I've always wondered if the AdvFS designers and the Spiralog designers ever 
actually met each other, let alone swapped ideas.)

As for "how long ago were you burned?": there are AdvFS crashes in the Digital 
UNIX conference right up to last week, but I can't remember seeing any UFS crash 
reports. I personally have run across three AdvFS bugs (UUCP didn't work, NFS 
server didn't work, can't create large numbers of files) plus a variance from 
UFS (reuse of file generation number). Each of these were enough to force the 
customer back to UFS.

PJDM

    re: .0  The Worcester newspaper reported on Sat. March 1 that the old
    Honeywell-Bull computer was switched off.
    
    Mark

    There is another ISP in Texas (Internet America) that is having a
    problem with their system hanging for 20 seconds during a news expire
    function.  They were using UFS - suggestion from support - go to ADVFS. 
    We'll see.  
    
    bill

    RE: Any RTFM comments...
    
    A customer oriented company and approach dictates that an "RTFM" (Read
    The Foolish Manual) means that THE COMPANY failed to communicate the
    need to refer to the additional documentation/help.
    
    Windows/95 solves this by taking you to a help/troubleshooting screen
    when it detects a problem.  
    
    A few months back, I tried to muck with an Alfer server - and was
    AMAZED at the amount of "read me firsts" and absolutely CONFLICTING
    information about operating system set-up.  And, because it was NT V3.5
    it never worked until I got V4. 
    
    But, it took me a LONG time (working piece meal) to get it figured out.
    
    If I were a customer, my impression would be - Paperweight - go get
    another product.
    
    Intel is a commodity - Digital is  not - when you're the minority
    player you have to do an order of magnitude better to achieve parity.
    
    And that's the way it is.
    
    p.s. Parity can be even or odd. (grin)

    
>    Windows/95 solves this by taking you to a help/troubleshooting screen
>    when it detects a problem.  
    
For what it's worth, I have never, repeat never yet solved a single
problem in Windows/95 based on information provided by the help or
troubleshooting screens.  The treatment is so superficial!

I just found out that the Boston Better Business Bureau says that Digital
"has an unsatisfactory record with the Bureau.  Specifically, our records
show a pattern of no response to customer complaints brought to its
attention by the Bureau.

The Boston BBB's web page is http://www.bosbbb.org