Inter-Office Memorandum To Distribution Date September 11, 1983 From Ed Taft Location PARC Subject Replacing Maxc services Organization CSL XEROX Filed on: [Indigo]ReplacingMaxcServices.tioga Distribution: Birrell, Brown, Lampson, Ornstein, Schroeder, Taft, Taylor, Weaver Bob has asked me to prepare a memo summarizing the issues surrounding our plans to shut down Maxc, and has designated this group of people to consider the matter. A few weeks ago, I sent out a message requesting people to consider the impact that shutting down Maxc would have on their work. As I expected, there were many responses, some of which expressed very strongly-held opinions. I sent the message to AllPA^.pa (about 500 people) and received responses from about 60. I have saved all the messages and will be happy to make them available to anyone who is interested. This memo enumerates all the Maxc services identified by the people who responded to my message, in descending order of (my perception of) importance. For each, I list some users or user groups who depend on the service, and then discuss possible ways of replacing it. Of course, the decision whether or not to replace a Maxc service (and who is to do the work) remains to be made. Services we already plan to replace Here is a summary of the Maxc services we (CSL) are already planning to replace. Mail forwarding to and from the Arpanet will be provided using the Cedar TCP/IP implementation and mail header translator that were done by David Nichols, along with SMTP software that we hope Dan Craft will do this fall. I consider this task to be well under control, and I do not anticipate any difficulty in completing it between now and the end of the year. Magnetic tape access will continue to be possible after Maxc is gone, since the tape drives are connected to an independent Alto server. Software for accessing the tape server exists in the form of a Cedar tape streams package done by Ed McCreight and an Alto/Mesa-based utility done for the VLSI group by Al Paeth (who has since left PARC). However, additional work will be required to implement all the tape formats and conversions provided by existing Maxc programs; and we don't have any immediate plans to do this work. Being able to read the old Maxc archive tapes will be essential, and I am sure CSL people will need this capability. I believe writing a program to do this will be a simple task for any experienced Cedar programmer (using the tape streams package just mentioned). Note that I am talking only about a program to recover files from the existing tapes, and not a complete replacement for the Maxc archive system (archiving of new files, maintenance and querying of on-line archive directories, etc.) However, several users have suggested that we should keep the existing archive directories on-line anyway so as not to preclude some future facility for browsing through them. Lyle Ramshaw already intends to produce a Cedar version of TEX (this was the original reason for his work on the Pascal-to-Cedar translator). He thinks this will require relatively little work, and can easily be done in the necessary time frame. But of course you have to have a machine that runs Cedar in order to use it, and Terry Winograd asserts that this would be terribly inconvenient. Arpanet FTP and Telnet access Many people state that they require continued access to the Arpanet for file transfers and terminal connections and that a mail-only connection is unacceptable. I agree, and I don't think we can seriously consider decommissioning Maxc until some replacement has been arranged; my intent in threatening to do so was to provoke more users into responding to my survey. In CSL, Jim Horning makes extensive use of both FTP and Telnet access in his work with John Guttag. Leo Guibas and other members of the algorithms group regularly use the Arpanet to access Macsyma and to work on joint papers with outside members of the ARPA community. Dan Swinehart points out that FTP access to at least one PARC server from outside is required to support the university grant program. Elsewhere in PARC, Bob Sproull requires Arpanet access to PARC for his work with ISL (e.g., Interpress). Terry Winograd frequently needs to shift files back and forth between Stanford and PARC and accesses Stanford computers while at PARC. A number of other consultants and part-time people express similar concerns. XSIS uses Maxc to distribute Interlisp-D releases to qualified ARPA sites. More generally, people are concerned that failing to implement full-fledged FTP and Telnet access would make PARC a second-class Arpanet citizen and close off important avenues of collaberation with researchers at other ARPA sites. In addition to inconveniencing a number of people at PARC, this would be bad public relations for us among the ARPA community. What do we do? I see four plausible alternatives at the moment: 1. Implement FTP and Telnet ourselves, in Cedar, using the existing TCP/IP software as a base (i.e., provide a protocol translation gateway for the FTP and Telnet application protocols, much as we intend to do for electronic mail). This is technically straightforward but a substantial amount of work; FTP in particular is quite a complicated protocol. Furthermore, the server providing these gateway capabilities would also have to implement authentication, access control, and logging in order to maintain adequate information security. Finally, providing what amounts to a limited time-sharing service would undoubtedly stress the TCP/IP software and the underlying Cedar system more severely than the mail forwarding function, and technical problems would likely surface. My guess is that it would take 3 to 4 months for an experienced Cedar programmer to get this completely working. 2. Same as (1), but get someone outside CSL/ISL/IDL to do the work. Since Cedar is presently not available outside our community, this means doing it in some other language, which in turn means that they need to implement the TCP/IP software as well as the application gateway services on top. 3. Connect GSL's VAX to the Arpanet and install TCP/IP software available from any of several sources. There is a company that sells a complete VMS TCP/IP package (including FTP and Telnet) for $19K, but of questionable quality according to Forest Baskett. Or we could run the Berkeley Unix TCP/IP software on top of Eunice, which simulates Unix on top of VMS and which we already have. We would also need to beef up the VMS Pup software, which is somewhat weak at present. Bob Bachrach seems receptive to this idea. 4. Acquire another VAX running Berkeley Unix, Berkeley TCP/IP software, and (presumably) Stanford Pup code. Larry Masinter suggests that this might fit in with the plans now being made by Brian Smith and Terry Winograd to set up some sort of consortium among PARC, Stanford, and SRI (?I'm very sketchy on the facts of this; does anyone know more?) A minimum configuration VAX 750 costs about $50K, and Xerox already has a Unix license for the software. Each alternative has advantages and disadvantages. The advantage of (1) is that we get to control it and decide how it's to be done, but the disadvantage that we have to do all the work. Approach (2)'s advantages and disadvantages are the reverse of (1)'s, but I don't really have any way of evaluating the proposal since everything about it is hypothetical. The advantage of (3) is that we use existing hardware and available software, but the disadvantages that we have to do a fair amount of work (since GSL has no in-house VAX software support people) and GSL ends up calling the shots. The advantage of (4) is that we might be able to get some other group to do all the work, but the disadvantage that it would probably take a long time since this consortium (or whatever it is) is still in the preliminary planning stages. Tape archiving The continuing ability to archive new files to tape likewise appears to be essential. The only alternatives are a vast increase in the capacity of our file servers, which is costly and wasteful and of course solves the problem only for a limited time, or some sort of manual disk archiving arrangement such as is used in SDD, which is cumbersome and a burden on operational personnel. For example, Jim Horning estimates that he has 5 to 10 times as much (useful) data archived on tape as kept on-line. Stu Card generates enormous amounts of experimental data; the data he has already archived from Maxc would never fit on an existing file server. All the CSL blue-and-white reports and a number of other reports and papers get archived so as to be available for reprinting in the indefinite future. Terry Winograd has the source files for an entire book archived; he has nowhere near enough room to keep all the files he needs on-line, despite having an unusually large disk allocation. Several people assert that we should be archiving more than we already do. In particular, systems that are distributed outside PARC or outside Xerox (e.g, Mesa, Interlisp-D, Smalltalk-80) should have snapshots taken of every formal release. Keeping a machine-readable record of a project can be useful for historical purposes, especially if Xerox is ever involved in a software related lawsuit. So if anything, we should make archiving more convenient than it is now rather than less so. The following potential solutions have emerged: 1. Implement an archive server ourselves, in Cedar, using McCreight's tape streams package for actually accessing the tape drives. The amount of work required depends on our level of ambition. The minimum facility, suggested by Butler, would interact with users via the message system for both archival and retrieval requests. The server would keep no permanent on-line directory of archived files; instead, users would be responsible for keeping track of files. The server would be self-contained and not require integration with file servers (IFS or Alpine). My guess is that an experienced Cedar programmer could implement this minimum solution in a month. 2. Same as (1), but get someone outside CSL/ISL/IDL to do the work. Since Cedar is presently not available outside our community, this means implementing an equivalent of the Cedar tape streams package; but the protocol is simple and that task shouldn't be very hard. 3. Use the GSL VAX's archive system, in much the same way as Maxc's archive system is used now. That is, users would be assigned accounts on the VAX and would manually store files for archiving using FTP. This approach is questionable since the VAX VMS archive system is quite primitive and apparently doesn't work very reliably, according to Ron Weaver. 4. If a VAX running Berkeley Unix were installed to support Arpanet access, with suitable hardware additions it could also be used for tape archiving. The Unix archive system is reputed to be in somewhat better shape than VMS's, but I don't have enough information on which to make an informed judgement. Mail access from home terminals A number of users keep their mailboxes on Maxc and access them (using MSG or other programs) from home terminals or from other Arpanet sites. They feel that the capabilities and performance of the Lily (Ernestine) servers are inadequate. Absence of filing facilities and of private distribution lists are most frequently mentioned deficiencies. A substantial increase in Lily usage might be an operational headache for the Palo Alto Grapevine administrators as well, since the load on Grapevine servers would be increased. Also, replicating the Lily service would require minor changes to the DLS software to implement the Grapevine resource location algorithm. Miscellaneous People have mentioned various PDP-10 programs that they occasionally run on Maxc, such as Pascal and Snobol. These computing services could be obtained from other PDP-10 sites on the Arpanet, presuming we provided the necessary FTP and Telnet access. There is a data analysis system called IDL that was implemented at PARC in Lisp and presently runs only on Maxc. Stu Card and Bob Ladner state that they depend on it. I do not know why it can't be run on Interlisp-D or how much work would be required to convert it. Peter Deutsch asserts that Interlisp-D is not an adequate substitute for Lisp on Maxc because it isn't available from home terminals. Anne Chiang says that she and others who use Icarus require a couple of Maxc programs called PGT and EBCDIC (written in Sail) for writing tapes used to generate IC masks. She has no programmer support for implementing a replacement. The Multi-project chip (MPC) system receives submissions by reading from a Maxc mailbox. Some programming would be required to change it to read from Grapevine mailboxes instead. MPC also occasionally uses the EBCDIC program to receive projects submitted in tape form. In addition to using Maxc to distribute 1100 software to ARPA sites, XSIS writes Tops-20 distribution tapes from Maxc. (Incidentally, Marty Raim suggested that the 1100 program might contribute some programmer cycles to help implement the services on which the program depends.) Terry Winograd says that a Maxc program called Hardcopy is the only Bravo-to-plain-text conversion program known to him, and he uses it a lot. Several secretaries (including Subhana) say that they use some Maxc program for preparing sorted address labels. I do not know anything about this program. Summary The first two Maxc services described, Arpanet FTP and Telnet access and tape archiving, are required by many people. In my opinion, adequate replacements must be available before we can decommission Maxc. The other services are either required by only a few people or are matters of convenience rather than necessity. It is conceivable that we could discontinue them without replacement. But it is important that we do so in such a way as not to incur unfavorable public relations consequences for CSL. We should find out more about this Xerox/Stanford/SRI consortium (or whatever it is), since it is conceivably a source of both machine capacity and programmer resources.