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

[Jan-Erik Söderholm]

Den 2021-01-01 kl. 16:13, skrev Arne Vajhøj:
> On 1/1/2021 7:17 AM, Phillip Helbig (undress to reply) wrote:
>> In article <memo.20210101114248.3580A at jgd.cix.co.uk>, jgd at cix.co.uk
>> (John Dallman) writes:
>>> In article <98286971-2cf9-4732-a390-e2fb2e467f1fo at googlegroups.com>,
>>> ultradwc at gmail.com (D W) wrote:
>>>> As for hardware failures I would I think OpenVMS clustering is a
>>>> far superior solution than the VM solution.
>>>
>>> Yes, in some ways. But the VM solution is familiar to most companies' IT
>>> departments, and VMS clustering is not.
>>
>> My guess is that almost all existing VMS customers use clustering,
> 
> I doubt that.
> 
> There must be a lot standalone Alpha and Itanium systems out there.
> 

I'm with Arne here. Hardware has become way faster the last 20 years
so that is not a reason to cluster anymore. Hardare has also got more
reliable and stable. Storage is more on SAN's, so it is easy to start
up a backup system (if you can take the downtime).

And the cost and added complexity of VMS-Clusters works against it.

A lot of software, such as Rdb with its single-node optimizations,
are faster on non-clustred systems.

>> Unless they need a solution where the application can survive the loss
>> of a data centre.

With SAN, you can have HBS between datacenters without running VMS-Cluster.
Just shadow multiple disks from different SAN systems at different sites.
Or let the SAN systems hande the mirrowing of your data.