[Info-vax] IS everyone waiting?

[Stephen Hoffman]

On 2016-10-20 16:44:52 +0000, Kerry Main said:

> Have you ever tried to manage a large Windows or UNIX cluster?

Of what relevance is that to fixing the disaster that is OpenVMS 
clustering?   Bad UI designs on platforms as limited and arcane and 
rare as OpenVMS — or any other not-widespread platform, for that matter 
— are simply not going to make the platform more desirable or more 
interesting to anybody outside the installed base.   Fixing those is 
how the installed base has somewhere to grow, and new users have 
something to choose.   Comparing against what will be older versions of 
software is also specious — again, this is aiming at ~2021 or ~2026 and 
not the ancient history of 2016.   It can and will require years to fix 
and to update some of these messes, and nobody is standing still in 
this business.

> Sure, there is room for improvements with OpenVMS clustering, but 
> clustering on other platforms is a rats nest as well.

I deal with some platforms that have LDAP and Kerberos implementations 
that are far easier than OpenVMS — installation of the servers, and 
creating and populating a directory is vastly easier than what's 
typical on OpenVMS.   But then I really don't care about ancient 
hardware and software — what you're persisting in comparing against — 
and neither should anybody else around here that's doing newer 
development and particularly OS development work.   Everything that's 
available now — some of which is significantly better than what OpenVMS 
provides — is already ancient history, from a development perspective.  
To be competitive, the product has to compare reasonably with what will 
be available at the time of product release — for OpenVMS, all of what 
I'm referring to here likely cannot exist until ~2021 or later.   Which 
is a long time, and which means that all of what you're comparing with 
will have advanced and improved.

> I actually agree that ED should eventually be developed to become a 
> distributed directory more like Active Directory whereby it is not only 
> SSO, but also resource management (aka group policies etc).
> For lack of a better term, I like to call this a "cluster of clusters"  
> (includes standalone systems as well).

Enterprise Directory as a server is not going to interest most folks 
that may be looking at OpenVMS, and also likely won't interest most 
existing OpenVMS sites that don't already have a directory running.   
Most folks either already have LDAP and Kerberos running, or are likely 
to chose a far more mainstream LDAP server implementation such as 
Microsoft Active Directory or maybe Open Directory.   Not with the 
OpenVMS Enterprise Directory product.    Which means that OpenVMS needs 
to operate natively and easily with AD and maybe OD.   It'd be nice to 
have ED and ED should be fully integrated into the distro — integrated, 
like IP needs to be integrated, and not the still-grafted-on approach 
that VSI IP is reportedly adopting — but then ED itself needs some 
work, much as the native authentication in OpenVMS needs an overhaul, 
etc.

> Regardless of the OS platform, large user management in today's world 
> is cross platform (SSO) and requires careful design and planning. If 
> you are really serious, then you not only look at the OS / directory 
> layer, but also the upper layers of Identity and Access Management.

Everybody gets to operate with Active Directory and maybe Open 
Directory, and OpenVMS just isn't good at that.   It's manual, arcane 
and all of what old-line Enterprise management seems to expect.    
Troubleshooting external authentication is interesting, too.   There 
are reasons why there are sessions on how to do this at Boot Camp each 
year, after all.    Having done these same tasks on other platforms, 
it's way easier on those other platforms, too.

> Application upgrades is always a challenge and is not something 
> specific to OpenVMS because they are application specific. When Apps 
> are designed, they seldom think about how to upgrade them cleanly other 
> than the traditional stopping the app, updating the app, optionally 
> restarting the system and then restarting the App.

Ayup.    On OpenVMS, there's no help here.   Not by present standards.  
 OpenVMS and RMS certainly helpfully throw the equivalent of a burlap 
sack of rabid weasels and a few granite boulders into the application 
developer's canoe, too.

> I agree areas like OpenVMS patching, tools and other areas can be improved.
> 
> Having stated this, you are never going to get to the point whereby 
> clusters are going to be simple enough for sysadmins with very little 
> cluster or OS knowledge are going to be able to properly setup clusters 
> in a medium to large environment - on ANY OS platform.

I think you're wrong.   Utterly.   But then I'm working with systems 
that are vastly easier than what you're clearly accustomed to, and 
systems that are vastly more capable, and I already know how to make 
OpenVMS clustering vastly easier to manage.   Downside is, I'd end up 
breaking at least some parts of the much-vaunted compatibility and 
replacing more than a little of the mess that comprises the "user 
interface".   The upgrade would be somewhat disruptive, in other words. 
  But then that's going to be the case with fixing any of the 
long-standing problems in OpenVMS.  That compatibility is why more than 
a few of the messes were created, and why they still exist.




-- 
Pure Personal Opinion | HoffmanLabs LLC