[Info-vax] Distributed Applications, Hashgraph, Automation

[Richard Maher]

On 16-Feb-18 1:12 PM, Kerry Main wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Info-vax [mailto:info-vax-bounces at rbnsn.com] On Behalf Of
>> Richard Maher via Info-vax
>> Sent: February 15, 2018 11:16 PM
>> To: info-vax at rbnsn.com
>> Cc: Richard Maher <maher_rjSPAMLESS at hotmail.com>
>> Subject: Re: [Info-vax] Distributed Applications, Hashgraph,
> Automation
>>
>> On 16-Feb-18 11:15 AM, Kerry Main wrote:
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Info-vax [mailto:info-vax-bounces at rbnsn.com] On Behalf Of
>>>> Richard Maher via Info-vax
>>>> Sent: February 15, 2018 9:20 PM
>>>> To: info-vax at rbnsn.com
>>>> Cc: Richard Maher <maher_rjSPAMLESS at hotmail.com>
>>>> Subject: Re: [Info-vax] Distributed Applications, Hashgraph,
>>> Automation
>>>>
>>>> On 15-Feb-18 8:17 PM, Kerry Main wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Just to clarify -
>>>>>
>>>>> While the OpenVMS community refer to its clustering arch as shared
>>>>> everything, the industry term for the same thing is shared disk.
>>>>>
>>>>> In both cases, one could refer to these as differing strategies to
>>> share
>>>>> data between multiple systems. There are pro's and con's.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I disagree and think you'll find that the third option "shared
>>>> everything" includes share memory. I can't believe I've forgotten
>> what
>>>> VMS' offering for a low latency interconnect was Memory Channel?
>>>>
>>>> Oracle Cache Fusion and Redis Cache are wide area examples.
>>>
>>> mmmm.. it's a bit different, but the basics are really about how
> data
>>> sharing is done between servers.
>>
>> IMHO Share Everything does what it says on the tin.
>>
>>>
>>> Regardless of whether disk or memory sharing, with shared disk
>> (OpenVMS
>>> - shared everything), there is still a DLM doing the inter-server
> update
>>> coordination.
>>
>> And Oracle took that beautiful tool with its bullshit 16 then 64? byte
>> LVB limitation and create Cache Fusion where the data moves around
>> the
>> cluster WITH the lock and so much i/o is simply eliminated.
>>
>> VMS engineering asleep again with their head up their arse about
>> DECforms :-(
>>
>>>
>>> I fully agree OpenVMS has significant advantages over other shared
>> disk
>>> offerings - mission critical proven DLM, cluster logicals, cluster
>>> batch, common file system (new one with significant new features
>> cooking
>>> as well). However, the industry really only looks at shared disk or
>>> shared nothing.
>>
>> It also has many disadvantages: -
>> 1) Maximum number of nodes
> 
> Technically speaking - 96 server x 64 cpus each with 2TB?

Kerry the world, against my judgement, has decreed that "shared servers" 
are a thing of the past. On any server instance only one application 
shall run. This makes a mockery of your monolith proposals.

> 
>> 2) Geographical limitations
> 
> If you want sync data (RPO=0), then in any multi-site environment, you
> are typically limited to <100km.

Pathetic!

> 
>> 3) No PaaS capability
> 
> That can come later .. the public cloud is just a modern hyped name for
> "outsourcing lite"

You just can't get your head around this can you :-(
> 
> Many Customers who went to public clouds and/or outsourcing are now
> coming back in house.
> 
>>
>>>
>>> Btw, the modern day equivalent to memory channel and ultra low
>> latency
>>> data sharing is either Infiniband or RoCEv2 (RDMA over converged
>>> ethernet)
>>>
>>> Not sure where it is at right now, but RoCEv2 is on the research
> slide
>>> of the OpenVMS roadmap.
>>
>> Goodo.
>>
>>>
>>> Imho, this type of cluster communications capability is critical to
> next
>>> generation cluster scalability of shared disk clusters.  It is how
> VSI
>>> can address the biggest counter argument to shared disk clusters -
>>> "shared disk clusters have scalability issues due to the requirement
> of
>>> a distributed lock manager"
>>
>> Oracle's DLM seems not to have these scalability issues.
>>
> 
> Well, Oracle's DLM came from Tru64 UNIX DLM, which was a watered down
> version of OpenVMS DLM, so I really do not see how the Oracle DLM can be
> that much different from the OpenVMS DLM.

Educate yourself!

> 
> Regardless, since few can afford Oracle Clustering, its no wonder you do
> not hear any issues.

Oh I see, the cost conscious want VMS but not Oracle?

> 
> List pricing (USD) for dual 4 cpu x86 servers with Oracle RAC: (yes, big
> Cust's get discounts)
> ($47K x 4 cpus x 2 servers) *1.5 (add for RAC) + 15% list mandatory
> annual support
> 
> Hint - Oracle Rdb has no 50% uplift for its clustering like Oracle RAC
> does.
> 
> Good news for OpenVMS Customers on X86 with Oracle - the previous
> formula would include overall multiplier x0.5 (Oracle Processor factor)
> 
> IN other words, moving to OpenVMS (Oracle Server or Rdb) on X86-64
> should reduce those Customers Oracle pricing by 50%. That in alone would
> likely justify many Customers moving from OpenVMS Integrity/Alpha to
> OpenVMS X86-64
> 
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Kerry Main
> Kerry dot main at starkgaming dot com
> 
> 
> 
>