[Info-vax] Workload manager for VMS, Should it come with one? (or at least a Scheduler?)

[Stephen Hoffman]

On 2017-07-31 18:02:38 +0000, David Froble said:

> Stephen Hoffman wrote:
>> ...
>> VSI has the unenviable task of figuring out and variously guessing at 
>> what to work on here, within their comparatively limited budget and 
>> staffing.   Outside of whatever might become available from open source 
>> porting or maybe from container-related work, and whatever ISVs might 
>> offer, scheduling will likely not be part of that, at least for the 
>> next several years.
> 
> I've got to wonder what percentage of the current base is fine, vs what 
> part has this need.  That leads into whether this is a solution looking 
> for a problem to solve.
> 
> It might be nice to be able to open up a window and see everything 
> that's going on, now, and scheduled, in layman's terms.  I won't 
> dispute that.  But "nice" and "needed" are not the same thing.
> 
> Since VSI has limited resources, and VSI is most likely at this time 
> targeting the existing users, then VSI might best concentrate on how 
> best to serve those existing users.
> 
> I doubt that some spiffy new super duper scheduler is at the top of the 
> users list.

Undoubtedly.   But then that's also been the general case for a few 
years, too.   That approach is also what has gotten OpenVMS where it is 
in the market, too.
Existing users are not going to be moving forward particularly rapidly 
here, either.   They've already got something that sorta-kinda works 
for them.
Those existing folks will understandably only move forward as the 
schedule and budget permits, and many of those folks will only move 
after they see what the advantages are.
New folks?  They'll be interested in how OpenVMS works and plays well 
with other systems, and they also won't have the DCL code base arising 
from decades of queue-manager-as-scheduler.
And as both of us have stated, VSI has other work that's ahead of this.



-- 
Pure Personal Opinion | HoffmanLabs LLC