Richard

I read and read again the doc and I found and tested the standard translate 
table through the openvm mount command.
That does the work like FTP with binary option. During the transfer I 
cut/pasted one that was finished to move it in an other windows folder... All 
the others transfers failed in a rc=686
I did all the work again without touching anything and all worked perfectly. As 
you said, it's a brittle methid...

Thanks
Alain

 
Le 22 oct. 2010 à 15:40, Richard Troth a écrit :

> The syntax you indicate for the BFS stage is wrong.  Did it get pasted
> into the message incorrectly?
> 
> You can FTP to/from BFS just fine.  I forget off the top of my head
> just how to activate it.
> 
> You can mount NFS filesystems into a BFS tree.  I have used that for
> years.  It is really teriffic.  When you mount the filesystem, you
> must pay attention to whether or not character set translation is in
> effect.  I ALWAYS turn it on or off for the whole hierarchy being
> mounted.  (There is a "list" option, which I believe is the default,
> where translation can be applied based on the filename.  it gets
> messy.)
> 
> DO NOT use NFS for general file transfer.  It looks appealing.  But it
> has never worked well.  The design of the network filesystem protocols
> has never been tuned for bulk transfer.  This has nothing to do with
> the implementation, CMS or some other.  The underlying NFS protocol is
> not well suited to heavy content transport.
> 
> -- R;   <><
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 02:56, Alain Benveniste <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Hi,
>> 
>> I'm looking for a way to reduce a step to send a file.
>> The long method is :
>> "pipe tape !> a a a1" then use FTP in binary mode to send it to windows
>> 
>> The short method I would like to see it working :
>> "pipe tape ! bfs a a a1 " (avoid to create file to use FTP) to send it to NFS
>> 
>> I tried many options like doing a openvm mount with translate posix and 
>> adding a a 'specs 1-* 1
>> x0d15 n' before the bfs step. I have a set input/output off too. But the 
>> structure of the output files
>> when comparing them is not the same.
>> 
>> Any idea ?
>> 
>> Alain
>> 

Reply via email to