[Info-vax] Distributed Applications, Hashgraph, Automation

[Kerry Main]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Info-vax [mailto:info-vax-bounces at rbnsn.com] On Behalf Of
> Simon Clubley via Info-vax
> Sent: February 14, 2018 2:30 PM
> To: info-vax at rbnsn.com
> Cc: Simon Clubley <clubley at remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP>
> Subject: Re: [Info-vax] Distributed Applications, Hashgraph,
Automation
> 
> On 2018-02-14, IanD <iloveopenvms at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > In a growing number of places, one cannot even log into the
> production environments with admin accounts to even do an OS install
or
> configuration.
> > One must use tools like Chef and do everything at arm's length
> >
> 
> That can work both ways. While things like that are certainly needed
and
> VMS certainly needs a massive dose of automation work, there is one
> thing
> I do worry about here.
> 
> If you can manage full networks with these tools, then doesn't this
risk
> leading to a shortfall of people with the skills to securely design
and
> implement the next generation of very low level tools and libraries
that
> these higher level easy to use tools rely on ?
> 
> IOW, these higher level tools are needed in today's world but where do
> you get enough people with the experience to _properly_ design the
> next
> generation of tools ?
> 
> IoT and other embedded devices are a really good example of this in
that
> some people think that just because they can write some high level
> code,
> then they are qualified to handle all the low level issues that
embedded
> devices require to be handled.
> 
> As the various security issues have shown, embedded devices can have
> massive
> security issues that should never have existed in the first place.
> 
> >
> > I wonder if Hashgraph has the ability to ultimately replace cluster
traffic
> > on OpenVMS? It's supposed to scale to I think 200K transactions per
> second,
> > according to the glossy brouchers at least
> >
> 
> Interesting question as there are clusters and then there are
clusters.
> 
> There are a number of places where this can be used but I am having a
> hard
> time seeing how it can replace the traditional zero loss of data
disaster
> tolerant mission critical transaction processing that some VMS
clusters
> do.
> 
> If it can do that, then it seems all you are doing is replacing one
> clustering protocol with another that has the word "blockchain" in it.
> 
> IOW, I am not yet seeing what the unique selling point is for people
> who are used to VMS style clustering.
> 

This is one of those "it depends" answers.

Regardless of the OS platform, there is really only 2 types of
clustering architectures:

1. Shared disk (OpenVMS, Linux/GFS ,z/OS, others)
2. Shared nothing (OpenVMS, Linux. Windows, *NIX, Non-Stop, others)

<http://www.benstopford.com/2009/11/24/understanding-the-shared-nothing-
architecture/>

"So shared nothing is great for systems needing high throughput writes
if you can shard your data and stay clear of transactions that span
different shards. The trick for this is to find the right partitioning
strategy, for instance you might partition data for a online banking
system such that all aspects of a user's account are on the same
machine. If the data set can be partitioned in such a way that
distributed transactions are avoided then linear scalability, at least
for key-based reads and writes, is at your fingertips.

The counter, from the shared disk camp, is that they can use
partitioning too. Just because the disk is shared does not mean that
data can't be partitioned logically with different nodes servicing
different partitions. There is much truth to this, assuming you can set
up your architecture so that write requests are routed to the correct
machine, as this tactic will reduce the amount of lock (or block)
shipping taking place (and is exactly how you optimise databases like
Oracle RAC)."

I like the analogy that compares the shared nothing model (Windows,
Linux, OpenVMS) to a dragster and the shared everything model
(Linux/GFS, OpenVMS, Z/OS) to a Ferrari.  In a quarter mile race on a
track, the dragster will win hands down every time. In a race on normal
streets, the Ferrari will win every time.


Regards,

Kerry Main
Kerry dot main at starkgaming dot com