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

[Jan-Erik Soderholm]

David Froble skrev den 2015-06-29 03:59:
> Jan-Erik Soderholm wrote:
>> 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.
>
> So, during 1978 to 1984, a period when VMS was growing quite rapidly, it
>   got along with RMS or third party databases.

Of course. It was a very different time when it comes to expectations
on an IT environment generally. There wasn't that many real databases
on any other platform either. MVS had IMS and similar.

>
>>> 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.
>
> I was just keeping an open mind.
>
> I'm not sure someone currently using oracle Classic would consider RDB the
> obvious one.

Right, they will run something else then VMS. And besides, what is
available are the *client* parts of Oracle classic, not the full
database. So you will run our database on som non-VMS system anyway.


> I'd also claim that those running any other DB product just
> might have similar opinions.
>

Of course! They will run something else than VMS. I thougnt you
claimed that they can happily stay on VMS without a database.


>>
>> 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.
>
> I do believe that at least some of the Oracle RDB people are still in New
> England ....  and I'd guess they still talk to other ex-DEC people, so
> there is a possible back door.  I'd also guess that more formal talks have
> occurred, in fact, I think there was reports of such in this forum.

As beeing one of the major parts for the success of the x86-64 port,
it would have been a major failure not to have had those talks by now.


>
> What would really surprise me is that if there is VMS on x86, that there
> would NOT be RDB on that platform.  Way too much money involved for that to
> happen.
>
> I have wondered whether RDB was the more valuable product, rather than
> VMS.  If DEC would have kept RDB and a few other things, and was able to
> conform to the new business realities, perhaps we'd still have DEC.
>
> If anyone doubts this, then, what Oracle product(s) allowed LArry to buy an
> island?
>
>
>>> 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.
>
> This I'll give you.  If I was designing a process control system, with all
> parameters in memory, I'd still have some kind of database from which to
> load the parameters, and I'd have maintenance programs to manage the
> parameters.  Would not be text files, or XML, or any of that junk.
> Certainly would want the maintenance programs to have some control over
> what parameter values might be set up.
>
> Think nuclear power station.  You don't mess around there, you do
> everything "by the book".  Oh, wait, there was Churnoble (spelling), but
> look what happened when they started messing around.
>
>
>> A VMS on x86 without Rdb (and
>> probably at least the Oracle 11/12 client parts) is a dead-end.
>
> That I won't give you, because I can imagine other products that could be
> used in place of RDB, with all kinds of tools for conversion, and such, and
> not as expensive as RDB.

Yes, of course. But the point is that that market volume probably
can not pay for the port to x86-64.

> Yes, you've made a good case for the expense not
> being relavent in some environments, such as your own.

I have never said that, as far as I know.

>>>
>>
>> If you speak about me, I have no problem seeing what others does.
>> But it's their problems... :-)
>
> I find more than a few on this forum to have a rather narrow focus.

Fully agree. :-)

Jan-Erik.