[Info-vax] VSI has a new CEO

[Bill Gunshannon]

On 8/5/21 9:35 AM, Chris Townley wrote:
> On 05/08/2021 14:29, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>> On 8/5/2021 9:16 AM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>>> On 8/5/21 8:38 AM, Jan-Erik Söderholm wrote:
>>>> "Everyone" has a laptop supporting VirtualBox.
>>>>
>>>> "VirtualBox runs on Windows, Linux, Macintosh, and Solaris hosts..."
>>>
>>> Two things:
>>>
>>> 1. Unless it has changed considerably from the last time I ran it for
>>> anything, VirtualBox is unsuited for any kind of production environment.
>>> And development of software intended for use in a production environment
>>> is also production.
>>
>> Not really.
>>
>> Development environments are quite different from production 
>> environments.
>>
>> Windows 7 or 10 vs Windows Server 2016 or 2019 is very clear.
>>
>> Ubuntu or whatever vs RHEL or CentOS / Rocky Linux is also somewhat 
>> distinct.
>>
>>> 2, Many people here have expressed their desire to work in a VMS
>>> environment.  Not Linux, not Mac and certainly not Windows.  For
>>> one thing, it requires the acquisition of knowledge they may not
>>> wish to have.  This could be a deal breaker.  Management may see
>>> it as: "If I have to run Linux in order to run VMS, why am I
>>> running VMS?"
>>
>> If you develop for or study VMS then you certainly need
>> VMS.
>>
>> But most people will have something else than VMS running
>> today.
>>
>> We all know about one exception. But I think that is an exception.
>>
>>>> I do not see why clusters and HBVS would not work in an VirtualBox
>>>> environment. Not with physical shared disks of course, but over
>>>> the network.
>>>>
>>>> In the PDF from the last Webinar there is a SHOW CLUSTER output
>>>> shown having 10 nodes:
>>>> 2 nodes with V9.1 (x86 in a VM)
>>>> 2 nodes with 8.4-1H1 (older IA64)
>>>> 2 nodes with 8.4-2L2 (should be Alpha, I think)
>>>> 4 nodes with 8.4-2L3 (latest IA64)
>>>>
>>>> This might use some other VM environment than VirtualBox, but from
>>>> the VMS point of view that should not matter, as far as I understand.
>>>
>>> And that is another issue.  In order to run VMS in a production
>>> environment you will now have to also run something like VMWare
>>> in a production environment with all the associated costs of doing
>>> it.
>>
>> Pulling in VMWare or similar just to run VMS would certainly
>> have significant cost.
>>
>> But most companies already have that in place: VMWare
>> and/or IaaS cloud. And it will be a cost reduction to move
>> VMS into the same environment that everything else is
>> running on.
>>
>> Arne
>>
>>
> 
> Are not they planning on supporting KVM as well?
> 

I didn't include KVM in my comments because I have no experience
with it.  But, it also suffers from some of the same potential
problems and costs.  Another OS and another required skillset.

bill