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

[David Froble]

IanD wrote:
> Multi-part post :-)
> 
> 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?

I'd ask at what time while the popularity of VMS was growing did RDB 
become available?  My memory is that it wasn't initially available.

I'd also wonder how VMS initially grew in popularity, if it didn't have 
an available database, which you suggest was mandatory?

> 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?

As has already been mentioned, the RDB people are interested in VMS on 
x86.  However, there is no such thing at this time (VMS on x86). 
Perhaps when there is, the RDB people will consider it worth their time 
to look at it.

If someone needs a DB as part of their solution(s), then of course their 
OPINION is that your supposition, "A DB was once considered mandatory as 
a product to have available on a given OS platform", seems right and 
proper to them.  On the other hand, if someone has solution(s) that do 
not need that DB, perhaps your supposition has less merit?

What I find amusing is the lack of IMAGINATION displayed by some.  They 
cannot imagine a situation different than their own. T'was ever thus ...

:-)