[Info-vax] VMS and the Internet of Things (IoT)

[Kerry Main]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Info-vax [mailto:info-vax-bounces at rbnsn.com] On
> Behalf Of Stephen Hoffman via Info-vax
> Sent: 12-Sep-16 4:24 PM
> To: info-vax at rbnsn.com
> Cc: Stephen Hoffman <seaohveh at hoffmanlabs.invalid>
> Subject: Re: [Info-vax] VMS and the Internet of Things (IoT)
> 
> On 2016-09-12 14:32:12 +0000, Kerry Main said:
> 
> > Over the next decade, the long term strategy should not
> be X86-64 or
> > PowerX or ARM, but rather X86-64 + ARM + Power9 (as
> market growth
> > determines). Each of these HW platforms addresses a
> different niche in
> > the market.
> 
> Spending time on Power will be one of the better ways to
> ensure the end of OpenVMS, IMO.
> 
> > Post 2025, one would have to assume Alpha and IA64 will
> be distant memories.
> 
> Those two architectures are already distant memories for
> most folks in
> IT.   For those few folks that remember those architectures,
> or have
> even heard of them.   That all given we haven't seen Kittson
> yet, too.
> 
> > It's been discussed extensively in c.o.v. about not putting
> all your
> > eggs in one basket - including your reference to what
> Google is doing.
> > So why would VSI deciding to not put all their eggs in one
> basket be a
> > bad thing?  Providing Customers with choices is seldom a
> bad strategy.
> 
> That "one basket" being Intel and AMD and x86-64, and
> betting against the architecture that's central to the
> Windows hegemony, and the majority of Linux and BSD
> servers in existence?
> 
> But then providing customers with choices can be a poor
> strategy — particularly when there's little benefit to end-
> users and more than a little cost to provide the choice for
> both the vendor and the vendor's
> partners.   Adding a port to Power gets you little you didn't
> have with
> x86-64, except for fragmenting your own OpenVMS
> installed base and ISVs, and tying up VSI and ISV
> development for another five years, and higher-priced and
> rare boxes, among other "advantages".
> 
> This when the OpenVMS platform desperately needs to get
> dragged forward with every iota of time and effort and
> focus that VSI can manage to expend on behalf of that
> endeavor.  Now.
> 
> Assuming OpenVMS is around in the late 2020s and
> assuming it is still actively developed and assuming the
> platform owners see the opportunity, then whatever
> platform is eating into Intel's revenues
> (and those of AMD) will be the obvious porting target.   If
> that's
> Power, so be it.   But I seriously doubt it'll be Power, and I
> seriously doubt Power will bring much of anything that Intel
> doesn't already offer, outside of a small slice of very high-
> end customers, and those folks with control over most or all
> of their own software stack.
> 
> OpenVMS is not now and won't soon be playing in HPC or
> other high-end
> computing, either.   Not without a whole lot of
> infrastructure work
> first, and of which another port will serve to delay or derail.
> Adding another architecture just adds a whole pile of
> development and support work for VSI and ISVs including a
> whole 'nother set of compilers and linker and executable-
> related tools work, and delays and fragments other and
> more critical development work, after all.
> 
> > Partnering with IBM is seldom a bad strategy - especially
> with all
> > their SW which is imho, the hidden big driver.
> 
> Partnering with IBM, in direct competition with Intel and
> AMD, and in competition with multiple ARM vendors and
> fabs (including Intel and AMD), and fragmenting what's left
> of the OpenVMS market?  In all seriousness, for what?
> 

One word - software. 

That is the sweet spot with partnering with IBM to bring another OS platform to Power9.

> > In addition, most mainframe types will not likely jump on
> any OS
> > platform running on X86-64. Should Power9 be successful,
> then that
> > platform would be viewed more favorably as a mainframe
> alternative.
> 
> The mainframe market worked out well for DEC, of course.
> And a
> bespoke high-end processor or two worked for OpenVMS
> for some years — in the form of Alpha and Itanium — but all
> that eventually ran up
> against the cost advantages of x86-64.   Which is right where
> Power is
> now...

The issue with mainframes is not the cost of the hardware, rather the license and support costs of the software.

To go after the mainframe market, you need a non-X86 platform and a deep understanding of what the mainframe world is all about. 

High throughput, rock solid platform with ultra-high availability and high security. 

> 
> If I were guessing, AArch64 is the eventual next target, as
> that creeps up into the x86-64 performance range, assuming
> the ARM vendors get SBSA
> and other details sorted.   But that's still a port that's way
> outside
> of any reasonable window of planning and discussion for
> OpenVMS.
> 

ARM (British company) was just bought by Softbank - a Japanese company. Sept 6 2016.
https://www.arm.com/-/media/arm-com/news/Simon-Segars_Masayoshi-Son-letter_Sept-6-2016.pdf?la=en

What you are saying will depend a lot on no culture issues dragging the company down or key designers jumping ship.


Regards,

Kerry Main
Kerry dot main at starkgaming dot com