News Group Posts

FACTS on SCO inodes

From: dcmartin@affinitycorp.com (Dan Martin)
Subject: Re: FACTS on SCO
Date: 24 Oct 2002 07:26:40 -0700
References: <3DB6AF9A.8090206@pcunix.com>
<7BFt9.2426$YJ1.5242557@ruti.visi.com>
<20021023183956.64072@tegan.com>
<ap8iom$2ik$1@pcls4.std.com> 

Tony Lawrence <tony@pcunix.com> wrote in message news:<ap8iom$2ik$1@pcls4.std.com>...
> Tom Parsons wrote:
> > Dave Gresham enscribed:
> > | In article <3DB6AF9A.8090206@pcunix.com>,
> > | Tony Lawrence  <tony@pcunix.com> wrote:
> > | >Probably a lot of you have never heard of FACTS on Unix, but it used to 
> > | >be fairly common.  I'm hoping that somebody remembers or still uses this 
> > | >and might shed some light on this:
> > | >
> > | >History:  heavily customized FACTS on SCO since 3.2v4.2, currently 
> > | >5.0.6, proper patches, good new hardware.
> > | >
> > | 
> > | I have worked on Facts for several years.  How long ago did you
> > | upgrade to 5.0.6? Also, do you know what version of BBx you are
> > | working with?
> > | 
> > | If you are running anything less that Pro/5 you could be running
> > | into limitations of such an old Bbx engine. It has been a few
> > | years since I did any conversions of BBx from 3.2.4.2 to Openserver
> > | 5.0.x, however I seem to recall a rather nasty bug.
> > | 
> > | I just remembered the bug, it didn't know how to handle inodes
> > | properly in 5.0.x, and there was the possibility that it could
> > | start writing to a file other than the one the program tried
> > | to open.
> > 
> > It had nothing to do with being unable to handle inodes properly
> > in OSR5.  For some silly reason, BBx was written in such a manner
> > that it could not handle inodes greater that just less than 64K.
> > It has no issue with inode numbers below that ceiling.
> > 
> > I wouldn't call that a bug, I'd call it a feature of a very old product.
> > BBx and Pro5 have more than enough bugs without getting blamed for this.
> > 
> > Having said all of this, I upgraded several BBx customers to OpenServer
> > and some are still running the old BBx.  It's no big deal, just make
> > the filesystems with mkfs and restrict the number of inodes to under
> > 64K.  It was some time ago but I think I made the filesystems EAFS.
> 
> Ahah!
> 
> That certainly could be the issue

Dear Tony,

I wish I had more to offer on this.

You probably want to try your post on basis.bbx-list

If you run "pro5" from the shell prompt, in the 
directory that contains the config.bbx file, you should
get a banner screen with serial number, version and release
number.  This will be helpful to the folks on the bbx list.
Substitute "bbx4" for "pro5" if their stuff is really old,
in which case, an upgrade might provide an immediate fix.

You can also search the knowledge base at www.basis.com
where I found this, which discusses the inode problem:

<a href="http://www.basis-knowledgebase.com/kb00686.html">
http://www.basis-knowledgebase.com/kb00686.html
</a>

Brian White is an expert in FACTS, and Pat Welch certainly
knows his way around bbx, though I don't know if he has worked
with FACTS.  Maybe they'll chime in.

Good luck, 
Dan
 

Comments?

Jump to Comments

Many of the products and books I review are things I purchased for my own use. Some were given to me specifically for the purpose of reviewing them. I resell or can earn commissions from the sale of some of these items. Links within these pages may be affiliate links that pay me for referring you to them. That's mostly insignificant amounts of money; whenever it is not I have made my relationship plain. I also may own stock in companies mentioned here. If you have any question, please do feel free to contact me.

Specific links that take you to pages that allow you to purchase the item I reviewed are very likely to pay me a commission. Many of the books I review were given to me by the publishers specifically for the purpose of writing a review. These gifts and referral fees do not affect my opinions; I often give bad reviews anyway.

We use Google third-party advertising companies to serve ads when you visit our website. These companies may use information (not including your name, address, email address, or telephone number) about your visits to this and other websites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services of interest to you. If you would like more information about this practice and to know your choices about not having this information used by these companies, click here.