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

[Jan-Erik Soderholm]

David Froble skrev den 2015-06-28 17:03:
> 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.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oracle_Rdb says 1984.
Wasn't that hard to find, was it? :-)
So it was quite early. The need was there then (and probably a
couple of years before during the development of Rdb), and that
need has only grown over the years, of course.

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

Are you realy thinking that the general view of what you'd expect
from a "computer" today is the same as in the early VMS days?
Of course the need and expection to have a database available
on VMS is there and Rdb beeing the obviouse one.


>
>> 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 Oracle can't commit to VSI for Rdb (and probably Oracle 11/12
client) support, there is hardly any reason to begin the port at all.
It doesn't have to be public, but VSI must have a clear message.

> 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?

There are very few applications or uses of VMS systems today that
does not also involve a database. A VMS on x86 without Rdb (and
probably at least the Oracle 11/12 client parts) is a dead-end.
A very large part of current VMS uses will not be supported.
Only the very oldest with things built in RMS and similar, but
that has little rellevans for todays expectations on VMS.


>
> 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 ...
>

If you speak about me, I have no problem seeing what others does.
But it's their problems... :-)

> :-)