Re: How did multi-node boards work?

On 4/3/24 20:47, Marc Lewis wrote:
> Hello All.

Hi Marc,

> Grant, I may have replied to this in the past, but somehow I have 
> lost track of that response, if it actually existed...

Thank you for the reply.  You did send something in late '20, but I 
think it's better to be sure and it looks like this might be more 
detailed response.

> I can only refer to how my system under OS/2 does it. Each node of 
> the BBS (mu setup had 4 running simultaneously) is in it's own memory 
> space. I run a software called Maximus (the version specifically for 
> OS/2). The closest equivalent I can think of was when I was running 
> the DOS version under DesqView; ieach node ran independently, but 
> could actually "see" a user under the other node so a "Chat" could 
> take place between them.  I suppose to make it a little more clear, 
> there is ONE Maximus directory with each "node" having it's own user 
> "directory" e.g \Maximux
>                                               \0
>                                               \1
>                                               \2
> Where the user information is stored for who is on, and the "door" 
> infomation files fo rthe various games and functions.

Are those three (sub)directories for the current connected user on a 
given node?  Or are they actual user directories; e.g. Mark & Grant?  -- 
  I'm going to assume the former unless / until you correct me.

> The command file (BBS.CMD) that runs the whole thing is driven by the 
> front end. It's a lengthy file; if you'd like to see a copy just ask 
> and I'll post it in a reply message. It's been over 2 decades since 
> I wrote that .cmd file.  It came into being with the graduation from 
> DesqView to OS/2' it was done rather differently back then.

I'm getting the impression that each instance of the BBS is sort of run 
in isolation but can look in specific locations / directories to see if 
there is status from other instances that should be integrated into what 
the local instance is doing.

> Inasmuch as each node is on the same machine; each node can "see" 
> the other and who is on

What I'm not yet clear on is how users on separate nodes would chat with 
each other.  Do the nodes literally store the typed message into a file 
that the other node sees and presents to it's user in a relatively real 
time fashion?

> Yes. A data call immdiately identifies itself to the front end by 
> certain group of data commands that it carries sends when it "hears" 
> an answer by the system.  On my system a human caller, not sending 
> that data, is prompted to and then presses the escape key to initiate a 
> session of the BBS; then he/she logs into the BBS or sets up an account 
> if he/she is a first-time caller. A caller can also log in as a Guest 
> and not set up an account; they're limited to what BBS functions are 
> available, i.e. they cannot send certain kinds of messages and can 
> only download a certain byte count of files from the files directories.

ACK

> No. See my prior paragraph.
> 
> Not possible; if a file is in use, the operating system is aware and 
> doesn't permit it.  However a two or more different persons (one on 
> each node) could concievably be reading the same message in the same 
> message group (Echo as it's termed in FidoNet); the possibility of 
> them both finishing their response to that particular message at the 
> very same instance would be improbable; they system would intervene 
> with a delayed write.

ACK

> Precisely.

:-)

> I think I mentioned that the BBS program is in ONE directory with 
> a subdirectory for each "node" or caller. The program can "see" 
> that other "nodes" are in use by a cerain group of indicator files, 
> maing this type of chat system possible.

I think what I'm mentally struggling with is that chat, or (near) real 
time communications, that I'm used to is more than just two users 
appending statements to different files.  Though I can see how 
\Maximux\0\chat-with-1.txt and \Maximux\1\chat-with-0.txt having lines 
(appended?) of text could work.

> LanTastic was strictly peer-to-peer. More than likely, NetWare Lite / 
> Personal I believe was also strictly peer-to-peer.  Full-blown Netware 
> was somewhat different.

Seems like the crux was that each node could access and update the same 
set of directories, probably independent of the underlying 
communications mechanism.

I suspect that extends to running multiple nodes at the same time via 
DesqView / OS/2 / Windows NT, etc.

> See my prior explanation.

Let me re-phrase.  Was there any communications between the nodes that 
wasn't based on files / directories in a common directory structure?

Did nodes initiate a network protocol based connection to each other w/o 
using file / directory structure?  E.g. did they open a network socket 
to each other?

> There were various methods of doing things; one particular system I 
> can think of many years ago, LONG before the internet, had multiple 
> computers doing just what you were talking about - it was a medical 
> bbs; how he accomplished it I have no clue. I can tell you it was 
> quite complex. I am sure he had some sort of software or systems 
> engineer on staff to help organise it.

:-)

> Hopefully this reply isn't too tardy reaching you. And hopefully 
> others may gain some useful info from it.

You're perfectly fine.

Thank you for the reply.

> Best regards,

Likewise,



-- 
Grant. . . .