[Info-vax] BL870c shared memory?

[Stephen Hoffman]

On 2016-10-16 13:58:57 +0000, Snowshoe said:

> Is there a way for a BL870c or a BL890c, divided into two (or more) 
> systems, to have special memory set aside that can be shared between 
> them, while most of the memory is per-system specific as usual?  If so, 
> how to configure them to do so? Kind of like a Alpha Galaxy feature.
> 
> Does VMS support this, if it is possible?

Nope.

Galaxy (what HP/HPE later called vPar) is a feature dependent on the 
console firmware and is not available on Itanium, nor would I expect it 
on x86-64.   EFI and UEFI do not provide the necessary mechanisms, and 
would require custom work to support differential configuration 
presentations; Galaxy.
http://labs.hoffmanlabs.com/node/813
http://h41379.www4.hpe.com/availability/galaxy.html

As for shared or remote memory access into other servers...

Memory Channel was an Alpha feature providing reflective memory, and 
the hardware involved didn't sell in large volumes.  AFAIK, there is no 
Itanium support for Memory Channel.
https://people.eecs.berkeley.edu/~culler/cs258-s99/project/memchannel/memchannel.pdf 


VSI hasn't gotten around to adding support for RDMA adapters or analogous.

Most folks didn't head toward Galaxy-style processor and memory 
sharing.    Console-level virtualization didn't (hasn't?) caught on.    
For most folks, virtualization can happen at the system hardware level 
— this is what most virtual machines present, pretending to be a 
descendent of the 1981-vintage box that came from Boca Raton, or a 
para-virtualization of that box — or happens at the software and 
particularly at the operating system level — and this is what 
containers provide, particularly when sandboxing and related are 
available to keep the apps from accidentally or intentionally stomping 
on other apps.    VSI has stated that they will be providing OpenVMS 
support for both native x86-64 boot and for x86-64 virtualization in 
specific virtual machines, and that they're pondering adding support 
for host-level virtualization — containers — as part of some more 
distant future work.

Maybe some hardware vendor that's pondering qualifying OpenVMS x86-64 
support on their iron might decide to create a customized UEFI with 
customizable ACPI reports?   But then that's ~2020-vintage discussion 
and roll-out, at the earliest.  There's also that UEFU and ACPI are not 
exactly the most user-friendly bits in an Integrity or x86-64 box, and 
adding Galaxy support atop that could well cause UI nausea.





-- 
Pure Personal Opinion | HoffmanLabs LLC