[Info-vax] WHY IS VSI REQUIRING A HYPERVISOR FOR X86 OPENVMS?

[Dave Froble]

On 12/31/2020 1:50 PM, D W wrote:
> On Thursday, December 31, 2020 at 12:07:41 PM UTC-5, Andrew Brehm wrote:
>> On 21/12/2020 02:03, Michael C wrote:
>>> On Sunday, December 20, 2020 at 1:00:41 PM UTC-5, ajb... at gmail.com wrote:
>>>> On 18/12/2020 17:41, supers... at gmail.com wrote:
>>>>> This adds more cost. Why can't it run by itself on x86?
>>>>> Or am I misunderstanding that you do not have to buy vmware or some other
>>>>> VM to run it?
>>>>
>>>> But I also don't see your point. In my experience bare metal
>>>> requirements cost more money because you need to buy and support/install
>>>> extra hardware for the platform. With a hypervisor you can just add
>>>> OpenVMS instances on your existing hardware.
>>>>
>>>> Where I work every bare metal server is a hassle. VMs deploy
>>>> automatically and there is no need to worry about the hardware. If the
>>>> hardware fails, VMs are moved to or restarted on different hardware. An
>>>> actual hypervisor _requirement_ would be perfect for us as it would cut
>>>> down on support costs and time.
>>>
>>> 1ST PROBLEM - RESTARTED
>>>
>>> THERE ARE CUSTOMERS, MOST I WOULD THINK, WHO WANT 24/7 UPTIME THAT OPENVMS
>>> OFFERS AND NOT THE REBOOT MINDSET OF WINDOZE AND LINUS USERS.
>>
>> And you believe restarting a bare metal OpenVMS instance on another
>> server after a hardware failure would somehow solve that problem?
>>
>> With vSphere you can move a running OpenVMS instance to another physical
>> server in case you notice the hardware problem coming. With a bare metal
>> instance you are limited to the situation you seem to think is a
>> particular problem of using a hypervisor.
>>
>>>>
>>>> But OpenVMS will, so they say, support both some HPE and Dell hardware
>>>> and some hypervisors, and all the supported hypervisors are available as
>>>> free editions as well as paid.
>>>>
>>>> While VirtualBox is not a production environment VMM, both KVM and
>>>> vSphere are and all three can be free.
>>>>
>>>> You can then install OpenVMS on your HPE hardware or install a free ESXi
>>>> on it or a free Linux with KVM and then OpenVMS. Where's the problem?
>>>>
>>>
>>> DOWNTIME ABOVE WAS THE FIRST.
>>
>> The above was a win for the hypervisor. A bare metal instance would not
>> survive hardware failure, a VM can.
>>
>>> 2ND PROBLEM - JOINING THE LINUX PATCH OF THE DAY CLUB
>>>
>>> HERE IS THE OPENVMS CERT COUNTS AS OF 2018 COMPARE THEM WITH OTHER OSs - SEE THE PROBLEM?
>>
>> No, I don't see the problem. How would Linux patches affect OpenVMS
>> running in a virtualised environment?
>>
>> I'm not sure you understand virtualisation correctly.
>>
>> --
>> Andrew Brehm
>
> I understand VMs just fine. The linux kernal is inherently flawed as is windoze.
>
> As for hardware failures I would I think OpenVMS clustering is a far superior solution than the VM solution.
>

Perhaps the VMS kernal also has some flaws?

Might VMS cluster instances running on VMs be an even better solution?

Doesn't have to be either or ....

-- 
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