[Info-vax] Current VMS engineering quality, was: Re: What's VMS up to these

[Michael Kraemer]

David Froble schrieb:
> 
> Joining multiple computers into a cluster is not always a good idea.  
> Clusters have their uses.  But non-cluster also has it's uses.
> 
> As for a group of workstations, using one common system disk, and 
> ethernet for their cluster interconnect, well, I would call that a "far 
> from robust" configuration.  As usual, you're only as strong as your 
> weakest link.

Well, this was a very common configuration
in the late 1980s/early 1990s. I'd say, VMS owes its former
popularity to such clusters. And the people who run it
claimed it was far superior to a collection of networked Unix boxen
(which I wasn't even allowed to call "cluster").
Unfortunately, as mentioned, the allegedly inferior Unix collection
turned out to be more robust at the bottom line.

> 
> For real-time work, you cannot wait for a cluster to recover from a 
> problem.  Say you're capturing real time data.  If you don't trust one 
> system, you'd be better off with two or more independent systems, with 
> independent power supplies, and the data feed split to go to every 
> system.  Or for process control, and such.
> 
> I've never used a cluster.  Never needed the capability a cluster 
> provides.  Very few of my customers ever needed a cluster.  VMS is an 
> excellent OS even if you do not use the cluster capability. 

Hear hear.
Aren't we told over and over again how clustering
is *the* differentiating factor making VMS superior to
everything else?

> Great 
> development and operations capabilities.  DLM !!!  Logical names !!!

Yes, consistent logical name handling is certainly a plus.