[Info-vax] Updated HPE/VSI OpenVMS V8.4-2L1 Marketing Brochures

[Kerry Main]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Info-vax [mailto:info-vax-bounces at rbnsn.com] On Behalf
> Of Stephen Hoffman via Info-vax
> Sent: 24-Sep-16 1:28 PM
> To: info-vax at rbnsn.com
> Cc: Stephen Hoffman <seaohveh at hoffmanlabs.invalid>
> Subject: Re: [Info-vax] Updated HPE/VSI OpenVMS V8.4-2L1
> Marketing Brochures
> 
> On 2016-09-24 16:17:22 +0000, Kerry Main said:
> 
> > Those seem like decades old pricing for OpenVMS clustering
> based on
> > the old per core scheme, (not the socket based with I2/I4),
but
> let's
> > put things in perspective:
> 
> I was quoted those prices about a year ago, working on an Alpha
> configuration the customer couldn't upgrade.  Watched several
> eyebrows take tours of foreheads in that meeting, too.
> 

I don't disagree the current licensing scheme for OpenVMS
(especially cluster pricing) will need to change to be much more
competitive on the X86-64 platform.

Fwiw, I believe the big competition on X86-64 will be Linux, so
some sort of monthly support subscription model will need to be
available as an option. MS is following the DEC race to the
bottom strategy with its spiraling costs and ignoring Cust pain.

Having stated this, given your scenario, and not knowing the
cluster price per core, one would need to know the number of cpus
involved. If it was a 32 cpu Alpha, then the cluster license of
$20k you quoted would be about $650 per cpu. If a 16 cpu system,
then something like $1,200 per cpu.

Per cpu vs. per socket makes a big difference, not just on the
base license, but also for other licenses like clustering.
Especially as the number of cores per socket increases.

MS has gone completely backwards by adopting per core pricing
like Oracle on its server products

> > Now you can see why the OpenVMS X86-64 PCF is such a big
> licensing
> > factor in the Oracle World
> 
> I don't doubt it's a factor, particularly for folks tied to
those
> databases.
> 
> It's also why an increasing number of folks are using Centos
and
> other platforms, and using PostgreSQL and SQLite and other
> tools.
> 
> Unlike OpenVMS, Oracle does have a low-end offering with their
> MySQL acquisition, though more than a few folks are choosing
> MariaDB, PostgreSQL, SQLite or such...
> 

I agree. The big vendors like Oracle, SAP, IBM are in for some
tough times in the next few years. While Cust's may not leave
their current App platforms, they will look at other options for
new applications as a means to reduce SW costs.

Issue I have is that most of the MariaDB, SQLite etc options only
support the UNIX/Windows shared nothing cluster model. 

To be truly effective in an OpenVMS environment, and with really
big TB local non-volatile memory coming next year, the DB needs
to support active-active clustering.

Btw - for those at the OpenVMS boot camp next week, I highly
(highly!) recommend attending Wolfgang Burgers database
presentation on SharkDB.

;-)


Regards,

Kerry Main
Kerry dot main at starkgaming dot com