[Info-vax] OpenVMS x86-64 and RDB and DB's in general on OpenVMS

[Jan-Erik Soderholm]

IanD skrev den 2015-06-28 13:31:
> Multi-part post :-)
>

This is a non-issue, since VMS without Rdb is a dead-end anyway.
And since VSI are smart people (right?), I can not belive
they do not understand this already.

I could not attend the last VMS and Oracle meetings in
Stockholm, so I have no insight from these. I have asked
for handouts but not seen anything yet.

Jan-Erik.



> Oracle RDB on x86 ------------------ Now that OpenVMS x86-64 is at least
> officially on the radar, has any information been forthcoming about RDB
> on x86 under OpenVMS?
>
> Oracle I believe is only legally obliged to keep producing RDB on
> Itanium for as long as HP sell's Itanium's but was wondering about RDB
> and OpenVMS under VSI's banner and if VSI have been in discussion with
> Oracle about x86 support on OpenVMS
>
> One of the big omissions for me in the VSI roadmap was no mention of a
> database product on OpenVMS x86-64
>
> I'm hoping VSI has been in discussion with Oracle about RDB on x86 or at
> least have informed them that this is where the OpenVMS product will be
> heading and invite them to join. Perhaps they even asked Oracle would
> they consider selling back RDB!! After all, RDB rankings keep sliding,
> now at position 97, down from 93 (see db-engines) as nosql products
> start to rise and take snippets of market share from relational DB's but
> are also forging their own market space
>
> The need for a DB of some sorts? -------------------------------- A DB
> was once considered mandatory as a product to have available on a given
> OS platform, Windows and Access (later sql server), Linux and MySQL,
> OpenVMS and RDB, IBM and DB2 bla bla bla, what to do about OpenVMS
> x86-64 and <blank>, what should be inserted here if it's not going to be
> RDB?
>
> Other DB's ---------- PostgreSQL is slowly rising through the ranks (4th
> position, up from 5th) but it is tiny compared to the main one's and
> getting it working on OpenVMS with cluster awareness I suspect is years
> in the making?
>
> With nosql db's starting to forge their own market share, stagnating
> traditional relational DB's market share, I wonder how much energy
> should be expended in this area anyhow? I like Cassandra as a nosql DB,
> no single point of failure sort of melds in with the OpenVMS cluster
> concept but it also by-passes the need for a traditional OpenVMS style
> of cluster too
>
> Is having a DB still mandatory when it comes to an OS's success or is
> that a by-gone concept now and if it's not a by-gone concept, then what
> DB should VSI be looking at for OpenVMS market attractiveness?
>