[Info-vax] OpenVMS servers and clusters as a cloud service

[johnwallace4 at yahoo.co.uk]

On Saturday, 6 January 2018 16:20:58 UTC, Kerry Main  wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Info-vax [mailto:info-vax-bounces at rbnsn.com] On Behalf Of Arne
> > Vajhøj via Info-vax
> > Sent: January 1, 2018 1:21 PM
> > To: info-vax at rbnsn.com
> > Cc: Arne Vajhøj <arne at vajhoej.dk>
> > Subject: Re: [Info-vax] OpenVMS servers and clusters as a cloud service
> > 
> > On 12/31/2017 10:15 AM, Kerry Main wrote:
> > >> -----Original Message-----
> > >> From: Info-vax [mailto:info-vax-bounces at rbnsn.com] On Behalf Of
> > Arne
> > >> Vajhøj via Info-vax
> > >> On 12/30/2017 9:15 PM, Kerry Main wrote:
> > >>> Outsourcing (aka Public Clouds) has been around for decades in
> > many
> > >>> forms - just as many forms of XaaS cloud models.
> > >>
> > >> How could I go in over the internet and spin up 1000 VM's with my
> > >> own image within hours many decades ago?
> > >>
> > >>> The concept is the same i.e. give the mgmt. of your IT to a vendor
> > >>> that specializes in IT Mgmt and you will have a more efficient IT at
> > >>> lower cost than your current outdated IT.
> > >>
> > >> Nonsense.
> > >>
> > >> The vast majority of cloud does not provide IT management at all.
> > >>
> > >> It is still your own responsibility.
> > >
> > > Ok, so who manages the storage, physical servers, network, external
> > firewalls?
> > 
> > The cloud provider replaces defect hardware.
> > 
> > The rest is self service via automated tools.
> > 
> > >> Unless you outsource that to someone offering that service - and
> > >> none of the big cloud providers offer such service.
> > >>
> > >
> > > You are looking at this from a VM perspective only. IT management is
> > > a much larger scope than simple VM's mgmt.
> > 
> > Larger. But not much larger.
> > 
> > Most of the work is from OS and up.
> > 
> 
> If all you are looking at is server mgmt., then yes. 
> 
> Enterprise IT mgmt. is a very complex undertaking. You need to understand what it takes to do IT automation and proactive IT mgmt. 
> 
> II automation has huge benefits, but it also requires a significant investment in resources, time and $'s in tools and enterprise frameworks. 
> 
> > I can refer you to some guy named Kerry Main that suggested
> > getting quote for 1 Phys 10 VM vs 10 Phys.
> > 
> > 
> 
> Again from a server / VM perspective, this is 100% correct. Enterprise IT Mgmt. is much more than just Server/VM Mgmt.
> 
> [snip..]
> 
> > >>> Of course, the cloud/outsourcing vendors use the time proven and
> > very
> > >>> successful sales methods of low balling the initial costs to the
> > >>> Customer as they know their real money will kick in when the
> > >> Customer
> > >>> starts asking for changes.
> > >>
> > >> Nonsense.
> > >>
> > >> IaaS and PaaS providers operate with a totally fixed price model.
> > >
> > > Wow .. not sure who you are talking to, but that is certainly not
> > > the case with most IaaS/PaaS providers.
> > 
> > Try call Amazon, Google or MS and ask them for a special configured VM.
> > 
> > >> You can not even ask them for service outside of the menu.
> > >
> > > That may be true for the little / SMB Customers, but most large
> > > companies would never adopt a simple cloud (outsource) model
> > because
> > > there are always exceptions for them. The standard response from
> > > almost all IT vendors to a custom request from a large Customer is
> > > never say no, but rather "we will review your request and come back
> > > to you with an estimate of cost and proposed schedule for
> > > implementation"
> > Some companies that consider themselves large are in for a big
> > surprise.
> > 
> > Amazon, Google and MS will not consider them big.
> > 
> > Obviously money talks, so if you call Steve Bezos and want to
> > buy for XX B$ cloud services then you may get an exception.
> > 
> > That works for the US federal government and probably noone
> > else.
> > 
> > Those It people that want customization has a few options:
> > * they can change their ways and go standard
> > * they can stay 100% on the "we are unique and need
> >    custom throughout" an go the way of the dinosaurs
> > * try to find a balance that still provide most of
> >    benefits of going standard at a minimum uptick
> >    in cost:
> >    - establish own cloud
> >    - go for smaller cloud providers offering more specialized solutions
> >    - go for a Amazon/Google/MS cloud reseller that provides additional
> >      services on top of those
> > 
> > Arne
> 
> To use a quote from an earlier article extract - think of a similar analogy of renting your home or buying your home. 
> 
> If you want to depend on the landlord to make all the changes / fixes / enhancements / customizations when he/she can get to it, then renting (public clouds) is a perfectly fine solution.
> 
> If you want customizations / enhancements / fixed according to your priorities and your timeframes then owning your home (private clouds) is a better solution.
> 
> While large companies are poking at the rental solution, most large analyst reports are saying that most large companies today are doing a small bit of renting to try things out, but that their future is more directed towards owning their home (albeit it in a much more optimized, much more efficient private cloud model that is not unlike the public cloud - just maintained internally). This is what is called the Hybrid model.
> 
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Kerry Main
> Kerry dot main at starkgaming dot com

On the specific subject of automation in IT...

Anyone here got a TV? A set top box? A Blu-Ray box? 
Maybe remote controlled lighting and other such modern
delights. (Add your own options till you get bored).

Now obviously because they're all based on a sensible
architectire and validated implementations of interoperable 
standards, one decent remote control can do everything, 
right?

No? Well no one could possibly remember how to
make them work individually, let alone understand 
how they work alone or together, so let's 
introduce some level of automation that ensures 
they all work together all the time. We could call
it a multi function multi vendor remote control. 
Let's call a particular instance (e.g.) a 
Harmotech Logical. 

So when you want to do something, the user points
and clicks the appropriate icon (sorry, pushes a 
few buttons) and the TV comes on, a suitable lighting 
condition and aircon temperature are selected, 
whatever the automation marketing people promise all 
happens on time every time, just as they promised.

And everyone's happy ever after, right? Surely?

Well, they're happy until something doesn't behave 
as documented and as expected by the Harmotech 
people (who have gone out of business, left the
country, whatever).

Then interesting things can happen; essential 
system compenents may not be workable at all until 
someone is available who *understands* how things
work together, and can charge a fortune to make it 
all work together again. 

Or as Eduservices used to say, until you find 
"Someone knowledgeable may occasionally be available".

The knowledgeable person may even suggest that the 
whole lot needs to be thrown away.

Anyone recognise this automation scenario outside
the world of commodity consumer electronics? 

Well the bit about stuff "based on a sensible
architectire and validated implementations of 
interoperable standards" is the reason for the
existence of AUTOSAR and friends in the automotive
industry. Many won't have heard of it, but folk 
can read about it and see if their goals and ideas
match your vision of what a trustworthy distributed
multivendor IT system should look like.

If it doesn't match, do omething else. If it
does sound interesting... ask yourself if it
can work for automotive, why can't it work for 
other kinds of computing and networking and
control and automation and...