[Info-vax] VSI strategy for OpenVMS

[Jan-Erik Söderholm]

Den 2021-09-13 kl. 20:37, skrev Dave Froble:
> On 9/13/2021 10:46 AM, Jan-Erik Söderholm wrote:
>> Den 2021-09-13 kl. 16:15, skrev Arne Vajhøj:
>>> On 9/12/2021 7:17 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>>> On 9/12/2021 6:45 PM, John Dallman wrote:
>>>>> In article <shldvp$1jl$1 at gioia.aioe.org>, arne at vajhoej.dk (Arne Vajhøj)
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> But to me the focus should be obvious: operating systems are
>>>>>> sold by applications - VMS needs more applications, so work
>>>>>> should focus on getting more applications developed for and
>>>>>> ported to VMS.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, but which applications? What fields of computing will give the
>>>>> best
>>>>> return for VSI?
>>>>>
>>>>> I doubt, for example, that Libre Office or Firefox will be especially
>>>>> worthwhile. Current GUI apps are likely to need more than the X11/Motif
>>>>> stack, and providing Qt looks like a big job. Databases, middleware and
>>>>> the like might well be more worthwhile.
>>>>
>>>> The money is in business applications.
>>>>
>>>> So COTS business applications and in-house business applications.
>>>>
>>>> Those two need the same: compilers, libraries, databases, web servers,
>>>> message queue servers, cache servers etc..
>>>
>>> Apropos.
>>>
>>> https://vmssoftware.com/resources/blog/2021-09-09-thinking-of-moving-to-postresql/ 
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> <quote>
>>> SSIO (Shared Stream I/O) is mentioned on our roadmap, and once this is
>>> available, customers will be able to run PostgreSQL (and other
>>> applications requiring SSIO) natively on their OpenVMS systems, which
>>> is most definitely something to look forward to.
>>> </quote>
>>>
>>> I like the use of the phrase "once this is available".
>>>
>>> :-)
>>>
>>> Arne
>>
>> What is written into the roadmap is:
>> "Shared Stream IO (SSIO) (Non-clustered)"
>>
>> That "non-clustred" phrase might be an issue for some...
>>
>>
> 
> Back in the day I did some work for a customer.  They had a cluster, all at 
> one site, of maybe 6 11/780 systems.  The reason for the cluster was for 
> additional compute capability.  Today, with multi-core CPUs, that 
> particular need is serviced without running a VMS cluster.
> 
> Yes, there are multiple reasons to run a VMS cluster.  But compute 
> resources for the most part is no longer one of those reasons.
> 
> I have no information to know what the breakdown is among VMS cluster 
> users.  But, I'll pull an Arne and state my factless opinion.  I'm thinking 
> that VMS clusters will not be an issue for many VMS users.
> 

And I think that you are right. Most VMS loads can be handled by single
system VMS systems today. And todays systems a way more relaible then what
the 11/7x0 once was...