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

[DaveFroble]

Stephen Hoffman wrote:
> On 2018-01-11 19:11:28 +0000, DaveFroble said:
> 
>> Stephen Hoffman wrote:
>>> On 2018-01-11 05:20:02 +0000, DaveFroble said:
>>>
>>>> In our applications, we have a message manager, and all background 
>>>> tasks get their assignments through the message manager.  When we 
>>>> want them down, we just send a command to the message manager, and 
>>>> it directs all active background tasks to shut down gracefully.  
>>>> Rather simple.  Works very well.
>>>>
>>>> Even if some of the things you mention were available, application 
>>>> designers would still have to figure out how to use them, and to 
>>>> implement that usage.
>>>
>>> No, your approach does not work well.
>>
>> Well, gee Steve, some of this stuff has been working, WELL, since the 
>> 1970s. Started on RSTS/E.  So, how long does something need to work, 
>> WELL, before it meets your approval?
> 
>>> Sure, it works.  It certainly works for your particular current 
>>> needs.   Well enough.
> 
> Good on you.   What you have works well enough for your needs.

That's because we do what's necessary to make things work for us.

>   But I'd 
> wager that there are capabilities that — if you thought about it — that 
> you'd like to have added, and there are things that could work 
> better.

We have always been ready to embrace new features.  Sometimes too ready.

>  From having implemented and updated these home-built 
> communications systems, remote access via TLS, maybe?

Naughty Steve, you know how much mentioning TLS gives me a headache.  Yes, I'm 
waiting for such improvements as much or more than anyone else.  I was asked 
just last night about this stuff, and I mentioned that I don't even want to look 
at it again until the new VSI TCP/IP is available, and I still don't know what 
I'm going to do about TLS.

>  The ability to 
> send commands to manage multiple servers in parallel?

Most of our customers have single systems.  Yes, I'm sure there are those who 
would find such nice.  I have other priorities.

>   The ability to 
> send a command to check and ready updates, or to check installed 
> versions?   The ability to enable and manage and configure to receive 
> status and error notifications via web push notifications?   Donno.  
> Spit-balling here.

I'm sure there are targets somewhere that you're hitting.

> Since we're all doing parts of these implementations, we all end up with 
> what's "good enough" and maybe with a few of the "good" bits added if 
> the there was some extra time in a schedule somewhere.
> 
> I don't expect you'd immediately migrate to a newer approach.   Most 
> folks reasonably won't.   But you'll probably consider migrating when 
> working on some major update in the future, and you will seriously 
> consider adopt the newer approach for your newer designs.  This as the 
> capabilities equal or exceed what you're presently working with.    This 
> rather than going through the effort involved in the existing management 
> communications, and the the effort involved in implementing 
> checkpointing capabilities using the existing low-level APIs.

I'm a bit insulted that you might consider such products from someone else 
better than my products ....

Perhaps the world should use my stuff?

> I'm pushing for a higher baseline for OpenVMS.   Specific and better 
> reasons for folks to choose it.   Of raising all the boats in the harbor.

With you 100% on this.

> This built-on-first-principles reinventing-the-same-wheel-in-every-app 
> stuff just gets.... tedious.   Slogging through getting TLS support 
> working (as I'm doing yet again) gets... tedious.

Ayep

-- 
David Froble                       Tel: 724-529-0450
Dave Froble Enterprises, Inc.      E-Mail: davef at tsoft-inc.com
DFE Ultralights, Inc.
170 Grimplin Road
Vanderbilt, PA  15486