[Info-vax] Using VMS for a web server

[David Froble]

Stephen Hoffman wrote:
> On 2015-06-05 21:14:47 +0000, David Froble said:
> 
>> Stephen Hoffman wrote:
>>>
>>> Seems you're following the one-box one-architecture model, and that 
>>> was something familiar, comfortable and common back in the 1990s and 
>>> 2000s, but most places are now dealing with heterogeneous server 
>>> installations, or with their own existing and installed web 
>>> front-ends. OpenVMS isn't at the center of nearly as many business 
>>> configurations.  While there are some web-facing OpenVMS boxes at 
>>> businesses — running Apache, BTW — there are more than a few folks 
>>> that are running tools and content management and the rest that are 
>>> predicated on other platforms.  Until and unless those front-ends and 
>>> tools are available on OpenVMS, moving OpenVMS into the roll of a web 
>>> host is going to be a tough sell.  Then there's the question of 
>>> whether you want to have your production OpenVMS boxes in your DMZ.
>>>
>>> It's possible to be your own hosting organization, BTW.  Makes for a 
>>> handy way to quickly increase the scale of your hosting by either 
>>> rolling in a rack or two of servers — something OpenVMS is not very 
>>> good at — and/or by temporarily adding outside hosting for some tasks.
>>
>> If I was still installing new systems I have the opinion that I could 
>> roll in that rack or two of new systems and have them up and running 
>> without a lot of fuss.
>>
>> What you're talking about is whether knowledge and capability are 
>> required, or whether any old dummy that can figure out a mouse can do so.
> 
> One of the features of boxes is that they self configure — you roll in 
> the rack, screw down the legs, connect the network, power it up, and the 
> box announces itself and configures itself, using the the infrastructure 
> that was set up from some centralized IT management center.
> <http://www.dell.com/learn/us/en/555/solutions/integrated-dell-remote-access-controller-idrac> 
> 
> <https://software.intel.com/en-us/articles/remote-configuration-for-intel-amt> 
> 
> 
> (From what I can find, HPE iLO trails in terms of its support for 
> provisioning and profiles — most of what I see seems to involve pressing 
> F10 in POST.)
> 
>> Maybe there are systems where any old dummy can set them up, but I 
>> have to wonder, how well are they actually set up, and is this type of 
>> thing where some of today's security and other problems might be 
>> coming from?  You get what you pay for.  Pay for the dummy, if that's 
>> all you want.
> 
> Are you mapping your experience with setting up and managing OpenVMS 
> servers over to other systems, and without — as I've been suggesting in 
> this thread — having tried some of those other systems?  Newer systems 
> increasingly self-manage, and self-patch, and increasingly self-configure.

I've played with various flavors of weendoze.  No, I've not had any 
experience with *ux.  Personally, I'm not impressed with the direction 
weendoze is going.

As for self patch, that's the first thing I turn off.  I might trust VSI 
in the future, but Microsoft, I don't think so.

I'm not saying there cannot be improvements.  While AUTOGEN is rather 
old, something like it that is better automated would be a good thing. 
Something better than MODPARAMS.DAT for you to add your own flavoring 
would also be a good thing.

You and I have had discussions in the past about monitoring the P400 
controller and disks.  You're aware that I'm rather disgusted with 
what's available.  Yes, room for vast improvement.

> This patching does mean that you can need to become part of the vendor 
> field-test process, rather than the older model were the ISV rolled out 
> the updates.  Yes, that older model is still possible.  Some ISVs and 
> some organizations do stage patches and do roll out their patches and 
> their own deployments, but they're increasingly using vendor-provided 
> tools and services to do that.
> 
> Also ponder how many under-patched OpenVMS systems are around.  The 
> much-vaunted uptime statistic that some folks like to quote is the 
> measure for how down-revision the box is, after all.
> 
> 

My unpatched VAX/VMS V7.2 system doesn't seem to have any problems.

Ok, I went too far with that.  I have to admit that it's more an 
electric heater than a computer, considering the amount of usage it sees.

:-)