[Info-vax] Distributed Applications, Hashgraph, Automation

[Kerry Main]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Info-vax [mailto:info-vax-bounces at rbnsn.com] On Behalf Of
> Richard Maher via Info-vax
> Sent: February 16, 2018 7:55 PM
> To: info-vax at rbnsn.com
> Cc: Richard Maher <maher_rjSPAMLESS at hotmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Info-vax] Distributed Applications, Hashgraph, Automation

[snip...]

> 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!
> 

Science and the speed of light. 

Course, it also depends on the R/W ratio of the application that also impacts exactly how far apart the two sites can be.

> >
> >> 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 :-(

Outsourcing definition - giving all or part of your IT to a vendor to manage for a variable service fee per month.

Public cloud definition - giving all or part of your IT to a vendor to manage for a variable service fee per month.

What am I missing?

Perhaps I should be drinking more Gartner kool-aide?

> >
> > 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.

Need an Aussie dictionary for that one.

😊

> >>
> >>>
> >>> 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?
> 

Last 10 years was all about reducing HW costs.

Next 10 years will be all about reducing SW costs.

Oracle, SAP and similar App / DB players with ridiculous pricing are in for some very tough years ahead. 

History - Windows/Linux X86-64 servers were never really considered technically "better" than Solaris/SPARC, OpenVMS/Tru64 Alpha etc in their prime.

However, Customers viewed Windows/Linux X86-64 as "good enough". 

Same thing is coming for the big SW companies.

[snip...]

Regards,

Kerry Main
Kerry dot main at starkgaming dot com