|
|
|
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
Robert Deininger
*nix forums Guru Wannabe
Joined: 04 Aug 2005
Posts: 125
|
 Posted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 10:00 am Post subject:
Re: VMS and HPVM (was: Parsec webinar (2006-07-12) OpenVMS Licensing)
|
|
|
In article <44beaef9$0$18476$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com>, "Neil Rieck"
<n.rieck@sympatico.ca> wrote:
| Quote: | "Bob Koehler" <koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org> wrote in message
news:qaNR1gfLz$I7@eisner.encompasserve.org...
|
....
| Quote: | I agree with you.
Doing the HP-VM thing is OK for people who want that product but the recent
revelation that "Galaxy is not being ported to Itanium" makes me wonder if
HP is committed to supporting OpenVMS. After reading this (and also hearing
that Intel management is now more focused on loss of market share to AMD) I
now wonder whether the whole Itanium thing was ever worth the effort.
|
Does anyone here actually use OpenVMS Galaxy? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
JF Mezei
*nix forums Guru
Joined: 21 Jul 2005
Posts: 2556
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 5:48 am Post subject:
Re: VMS and HPVM
|
|
|
Dave Froble wrote:
| Quote: | validity of what was written in that post. Still, if VMS was shoved
down HP/s throat, the 'death of a thousand little cuts' could be one
response from HP. Never anything big enough to get the regulators off
their butts. But added up, gets the desired result.
|
Initially, that would not have been the case. HP was desperate to
justify pushing through with the stillborn IA64, and the few VMS sales
would help boost IA64 sales by whopping percentages. HP needed all those sales.
Since 2004, when the decision would have been made that IA64 didn't have
long term future, the opinion stated above would have begun to come
true. Once HP no longer needs to justify IA64, VMS is no longer needed
and becomes a boat anchor that will need a big budget to port to the 8086.
Now, if that 10 billion bucks IA64 "support/marketing" budget announced
with fanfare is really budget provisions to help fund the porting from
IA64 to 8086 in a year or two, then VMS might be safe. But if there is
really no budget to abandon IA64, VMS might be left in the dark. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dave Froble
*nix forums Guru
Joined: 21 Jul 2005
Posts: 1172
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 5:43 am Post subject:
Re: VMS and HPVM
|
|
|
Neil Rieck wrote:
| Quote: | "Bob Koehler" <koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org> wrote in message
news:qaNR1gfLz$I7@eisner.encompasserve.org...
In article <1153306981.487187.118800@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, "DaveH"
d.holt@hp.com> writes:
Good day, I'm the OpenVMS Business Manager for Virtualization and I'd
just like to clarify one or two things.
Firstly, we are not porting Galaxy to Integrity. This decision was made
some time ago as we knew the corporate Virtual Machines (VM) technology
was under development. OpenVMS will be a Guest O/S on the HP-UX kernel
(Hypervisor), just like Linux and HP-UX now. We are striving to deliver
OpenVMS VM in 2H07 as per the latest Roadmap.
This reminds me of the decision to drop Tru64 UNIX and put TruCluster
features into HP-UX. Which was then dropped in favor of some third
party product. Now the end customer does not have what they wanted:
a continuation of UNIX with TruClusters.
What does the customer using Galaxy on Alpha want? A continuation of
VMS with Galaxy.
HP business managers seem to have a habit of following a line of
replacing world class capabilities inherited from DEC with "good
enough" capabilities developed at HP and then dropping the customer
all together.
This does not bode well for the future of VMS, which is a bad business
decision. Customers like us will not stay with HP if we are treated
that way. We can get "good enough" from vendors who haven't dropped
the software we use.
What business case has been made that chasing away customers on a
profitable software product looks like a good thing?
I agree with you.
Doing the HP-VM thing is OK for people who want that product but the recent
revelation that "Galaxy is not being ported to Itanium" makes me wonder if
HP is committed to supporting OpenVMS. After reading this (and also hearing
that Intel management is now more focused on loss of market share to AMD) I
now wonder whether the whole Itanium thing was ever worth the effort.
Neil Rieck
Kitchener/Waterloo/Cambridge,
Ontario, Canada.
http://www3.sympatico.ca/n.rieck/links/cool_openvms.html
http://www3.sympatico.ca/n.rieck/links/openvms_demos.html
|
Ha! Don't wonder! A small fraction of the money wasted on the itanic
would have keep Alpha a leader and continued to provide VMS with a
decent platform. Galaxy runs on Alpha. So does other things not making
it to the itanic. PL/I? Intel could have competed with IBM.
A poster recently mentioned something about some assurances for VMS
being a condition for the purchase of Compaq. I have no idea of the
validity of what was written in that post. Still, if VMS was shoved
down HP/s throat, the 'death of a thousand little cuts' could be one
response from HP. Never anything big enough to get the regulators off
their butts. But added up, gets the desired result. Note that I wrote
"IF".
--
David Froble Tel: 724-529-0450
Dave Froble Enterprises, Inc. E-Mail: davef@tsoft-inc.com
DFE Ultralights, Inc.
170 Grimplin Road
Vanderbilt, PA 15486 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Neil Rieck
*nix forums Guru Wannabe
Joined: 13 May 2005
Posts: 274
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 19, 2006 10:18 pm Post subject:
Re: VMS and HPVM (was: Parsec webinar (2006-07-12) OpenVMS Licensing)
|
|
|
"Bob Koehler" <koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org> wrote in message
news:qaNR1gfLz$I7@eisner.encompasserve.org...
| Quote: | In article <1153306981.487187.118800@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, "DaveH"
d.holt@hp.com> writes:
Good day, I'm the OpenVMS Business Manager for Virtualization and I'd
just like to clarify one or two things.
Firstly, we are not porting Galaxy to Integrity. This decision was made
some time ago as we knew the corporate Virtual Machines (VM) technology
was under development. OpenVMS will be a Guest O/S on the HP-UX kernel
(Hypervisor), just like Linux and HP-UX now. We are striving to deliver
OpenVMS VM in 2H07 as per the latest Roadmap.
This reminds me of the decision to drop Tru64 UNIX and put TruCluster
features into HP-UX. Which was then dropped in favor of some third
party product. Now the end customer does not have what they wanted:
a continuation of UNIX with TruClusters.
What does the customer using Galaxy on Alpha want? A continuation of
VMS with Galaxy.
HP business managers seem to have a habit of following a line of
replacing world class capabilities inherited from DEC with "good
enough" capabilities developed at HP and then dropping the customer
all together.
This does not bode well for the future of VMS, which is a bad business
decision. Customers like us will not stay with HP if we are treated
that way. We can get "good enough" from vendors who haven't dropped
the software we use.
What business case has been made that chasing away customers on a
profitable software product looks like a good thing?
|
I agree with you.
Doing the HP-VM thing is OK for people who want that product but the recent
revelation that "Galaxy is not being ported to Itanium" makes me wonder if
HP is committed to supporting OpenVMS. After reading this (and also hearing
that Intel management is now more focused on loss of market share to AMD) I
now wonder whether the whole Itanium thing was ever worth the effort.
Neil Rieck
Kitchener/Waterloo/Cambridge,
Ontario, Canada.
http://www3.sympatico.ca/n.rieck/links/cool_openvms.html
http://www3.sympatico.ca/n.rieck/links/openvms_demos.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bob Koehler
*nix forums Guru
Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 1078
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 19, 2006 8:49 pm Post subject:
Re: VMS and HPVM (was: Parsec webinar (2006-07-12) OpenVMS Licensing)
|
|
|
In article <1153306981.487187.118800@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, "DaveH" <d.holt@hp.com> writes:
| Quote: | Good day, I'm the OpenVMS Business Manager for Virtualization and I'd
just like to clarify one or two things.
Firstly, we are not porting Galaxy to Integrity. This decision was made
some time ago as we knew the corporate Virtual Machines (VM) technology
was under development. OpenVMS will be a Guest O/S on the HP-UX kernel
(Hypervisor), just like Linux and HP-UX now. We are striving to deliver
OpenVMS VM in 2H07 as per the latest Roadmap.
|
This reminds me of the decision to drop Tru64 UNIX and put TruCluster
features into HP-UX. Which was then dropped in favor of some third
party product. Now the end customer does not have what they wanted:
a continuation of UNIX with TruClusters.
What does the customer using Galaxy on Alpha want? A continuation of
VMS with Galaxy.
HP business managers seem to have a habit of following a line of
replacing world class capabilities inherited from DEC with "good
enough" capabilities developed at HP and then dropping the customer
all together.
This does not bode well for the future of VMS, which is a bad business
decision. Customers like us will not stay with HP if we are treated
that way. We can get "good enough" from vendors who haven't dropped
the software we use.
What business case has been made that chasing away customers on a
profitable software product looks like a good thing? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Larry Kilgallen
*nix forums Guru
Joined: 05 Mar 2005
Posts: 729
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 19, 2006 6:53 pm Post subject:
Re: VMS and HPVM (was: Parsec webinar (2006-07-12) OpenVMS Licensing)
|
|
|
In article <AIJ35ZdWBbYe@eisner.encompasserve.org>, clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP (Simon Clubley) writes:
| Quote: | In article <1153306981.487187.118800@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, "DaveH" <d.holt@hp.com> writes:
Good day, I'm the OpenVMS Business Manager for Virtualization and I'd
just like to clarify one or two things.
Firstly, we are not porting Galaxy to Integrity. This decision was made
some time ago as we knew the corporate Virtual Machines (VM) technology
was under development. OpenVMS will be a Guest O/S on the HP-UX kernel
(Hypervisor), just like Linux and HP-UX now. We are striving to deliver
OpenVMS VM in 2H07 as per the latest Roadmap.
Secondly, we are not recommending deploying buscrit apps on VMs of any
description. We know OpenVMS customers will be concerned about running
their businesses on top of any type of Unix.
So the obvious question to ask is what is the expected IA64 growth path for
current business critical Galaxy users ?
For the record, I am not personally in that situation, but a satisfactory
answer seems important in order to ensure a long term viable future for
all VMS users.
|
Presumably HP knows how many customers are actually in this situation
of needing to share hardware between mission critical VMS and other
operating systems. Perhaps that knowledge affected the decision. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Larry Kilgallen
*nix forums Guru
Joined: 05 Mar 2005
Posts: 729
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 19, 2006 6:52 pm Post subject:
Re: VMS and HPVM (was: Parsec webinar (2006-07-12) OpenVMS Licensing)
|
|
|
In article <1153324080.290828.53940@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>, "Ian Miller" <ijm@uk2.net> writes:
| Quote: | I think the idea is that you can slice your multi cpu box into systems
which can use less than one real cpu/core. I think this does look more
useful the unfourtunes cursed with lots of windows systems rather than
the typical VMS installation.
I think Dave Holt's posting was the first time I have seen it stated
that this is not intended for mission critical systems. {and if you are
not using VMS for mission critical systems then what are you using ?
 }
|
Software Development, where an occasional crash would not be horrible.
I have also encountered at least one government site whose VMS
machines are currently judged "Low Impact" under FIPS 199. Of
course that might get reevaluated under review, but in the short
range it reduces the effort required by them under FIPS 200. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JF Mezei
*nix forums Guru
Joined: 21 Jul 2005
Posts: 2556
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 19, 2006 6:10 pm Post subject:
Re: VMS and HPVM (was: Parsec webinar (2006-07-12) OpenVMS Licensing)
|
|
|
DaveH wrote:
| Quote: | was under development. OpenVMS will be a Guest O/S on the HP-UX kernel
(Hypervisor), just like Linux and HP-UX now. We are striving to deliver
OpenVMS VM in 2H07 as per the latest Roadmap.
|
Thank you for your clarification.
However, this still leaves the "cell technology" issue unanswered. Will
cell based computers allow only one instance of an OS, with the ability
to add/remove CPUs for that one instance ? Or will they allow multiple
instances of an OS (or multiple OSs ? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dave Froble
*nix forums Guru
Joined: 21 Jul 2005
Posts: 1172
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 19, 2006 5:01 pm Post subject:
Re: VMS and HPVM
|
|
|
DaveH wrote:
| Quote: | Good day, I'm the OpenVMS Business Manager for Virtualization and I'd
just like to clarify one or two things.
Firstly, we are not porting Galaxy to Integrity.
|
Way to go HP. Shitcanned another great capability.
Good thing I'm keeping my fingers.
--
David Froble Tel: 724-529-0450
Dave Froble Enterprises, Inc. E-Mail: davef@tsoft-inc.com
DFE Ultralights, Inc.
170 Grimplin Road
Vanderbilt, PA 15486 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Simon Clubley
*nix forums addict
Joined: 10 Mar 2005
Posts: 61
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 19, 2006 4:52 pm Post subject:
Re: VMS and HPVM (was: Parsec webinar (2006-07-12) OpenVMS Licensing)
|
|
|
In article <1153306981.487187.118800@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, "DaveH" <d.holt@hp.com> writes:
| Quote: | Good day, I'm the OpenVMS Business Manager for Virtualization and I'd
just like to clarify one or two things.
Firstly, we are not porting Galaxy to Integrity. This decision was made
some time ago as we knew the corporate Virtual Machines (VM) technology
was under development. OpenVMS will be a Guest O/S on the HP-UX kernel
(Hypervisor), just like Linux and HP-UX now. We are striving to deliver
OpenVMS VM in 2H07 as per the latest Roadmap.
Secondly, we are not recommending deploying buscrit apps on VMs of any
description. We know OpenVMS customers will be concerned about running
their businesses on top of any type of Unix.
|
So the obvious question to ask is what is the expected IA64 growth path for
current business critical Galaxy users ?
For the record, I am not personally in that situation, but a satisfactory
answer seems important in order to ensure a long term viable future for
all VMS users.
Simon.
--
Simon Clubley, clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP
If Google's motto is "don't be evil", then how did we get Google Groups 2 ? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ian Miller
*nix forums Guru Wannabe
Joined: 30 Sep 2005
Posts: 188
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 19, 2006 3:48 pm Post subject:
Re: VMS and HPVM (was: Parsec webinar (2006-07-12) OpenVMS Licensing)
|
|
|
I think the idea is that you can slice your multi cpu box into systems
which can use less than one real cpu/core. I think this does look more
useful the unfourtunes cursed with lots of windows systems rather than
the typical VMS installation.
I think Dave Holt's posting was the first time I have seen it stated
that this is not intended for mission critical systems. {and if you are
not using VMS for mission critical systems then what are you using ?
} |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tom Linden
*nix forums Guru
Joined: 06 May 2002
Posts: 841
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 19, 2006 2:44 pm Post subject:
Re: VMS and HPVM (was: Parsec webinar (2006-07-12) OpenVMS Licensing)
|
|
|
On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 04:03:01 -0700, DaveH <d.holt@hp.com> wrote:
| Quote: | Secondly, we are not recommending deploying buscrit apps on VMs of any
description. We know OpenVMS customers will be concerned about running
their businesses on top of any type of Unix. However, for application
development; supporting multiple versions of OpenVMS on one hardware
chassis;
testing and general support tasks it can make sense to deploy multiple
instances of OpenVMS on one Integrity server. Up to 80 VMs can be
supported on a Superdome spread across OpenVMS, UX and Linux (if
desired). I have presented OpenVMS VM to the Ambassadors, Boot Camp and
multiple customer sessions over the past year and they are comfortable
with this positioning of VM. There are of course overheads with VM and
I/O is virtual, but we plan to have characterisation done before we
ship.
|
This is a singularly ill-conceived concept (I refrain from the use of the
word strategy, as this would elevate the notion) What percentage of
systems
in the field are used for development and how big is the need to run
multiple
versions of OpenVMS and how often? Moreover, in my experience, our
customers
tend to use smaller less expensive systems for development and testing
than they
do for deployment. If we need to run another version of OpenVMS we can
boot it
off some node without disruption to the cluster. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk
*nix forums Guru Wannabe
Joined: 16 May 2005
Posts: 205
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 19, 2006 1:44 pm Post subject:
Re: VMS and HPVM (was: Parsec webinar (2006-07-12) OpenVMS Licensing)
|
|
|
In article <1153306981.487187.118800@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, "DaveH" <d.holt@hp.com> writes:
| Quote: | Good day, I'm the OpenVMS Business Manager for Virtualization and I'd
just like to clarify one or two things.
Firstly, we are not porting Galaxy to Integrity. This decision was made
some time ago as we knew the corporate Virtual Machines (VM) technology
was under development. OpenVMS will be a Guest O/S on the HP-UX kernel
(Hypervisor), just like Linux and HP-UX now. We are striving to deliver
OpenVMS VM in 2H07 as per the latest Roadmap.
Secondly, we are not recommending deploying buscrit apps on VMs of any
description.
|
Which means that VM technology isn't an adequate replacement for Galaxy which
was targetted at Business critical applications.
Apart from a me-too (and possibly running multiple VMS development
environments) spending time and money on this rather than porting Galaxy seems
a waste.
But then I think you should be porting to x86-64 anyway.
David Webb
Security team leader
CCSS
Middlesex University
| Quote: | We know OpenVMS customers will be concerned about running
their businesses on top of any type of Unix. However, for application
development; supporting multiple versions of OpenVMS on one hardware
chassis;
testing and general support tasks it can make sense to deploy multiple
instances of OpenVMS on one Integrity server. Up to 80 VMs can be
supported on a Superdome spread across OpenVMS, UX and Linux (if
desired). I have presented OpenVMS VM to the Ambassadors, Boot Camp and
multiple customer sessions over the past year and they are comfortable
with this positioning of VM. There are of course overheads with VM and
I/O is virtual, but we plan to have characterisation done before we
ship.
Regards,
DaveH
david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk wrote:
In article <44B921A2.50C0E5D7@teksavvy.com>, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> writes:
david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk wrote:
Why would anyone want to do this ?
With Alpha, you could have multiple instances of VMS in the same box
(galaxy stuff). On that IA64 thing, that is not the case. If you want
to run multiple instances of VMS on that IA64 thing, ther basically each
have to run as an application on HP-UX.
I thought Galaxy on the HP superdome was always planned to be supported.
David Webb
Security team leader
CCSS
Middlesex University
So now the big question is whether HP will take some of that so-flaunted
10 billion bucks and pay SRI to make a VAX and alpha emulators run as
applications on HP-UX as well so that you could have one instance of
HP-UX host an instance of VAX-VMS, one of Alpha-VMS and one of IA64-VMS.
While this may not have any usefulness on that IA64 thing, once IA64 is
dead and everything moved to 8086, this may prove to be very interesting.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DaveH
*nix forums beginner
Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 1
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 19, 2006 11:03 am Post subject:
Re: VMS and HPVM (was: Parsec webinar (2006-07-12) OpenVMS Licensing)
|
|
|
Good day, I'm the OpenVMS Business Manager for Virtualization and I'd
just like to clarify one or two things.
Firstly, we are not porting Galaxy to Integrity. This decision was made
some time ago as we knew the corporate Virtual Machines (VM) technology
was under development. OpenVMS will be a Guest O/S on the HP-UX kernel
(Hypervisor), just like Linux and HP-UX now. We are striving to deliver
OpenVMS VM in 2H07 as per the latest Roadmap.
Secondly, we are not recommending deploying buscrit apps on VMs of any
description. We know OpenVMS customers will be concerned about running
their businesses on top of any type of Unix. However, for application
development; supporting multiple versions of OpenVMS on one hardware
chassis;
testing and general support tasks it can make sense to deploy multiple
instances of OpenVMS on one Integrity server. Up to 80 VMs can be
supported on a Superdome spread across OpenVMS, UX and Linux (if
desired). I have presented OpenVMS VM to the Ambassadors, Boot Camp and
multiple customer sessions over the past year and they are comfortable
with this positioning of VM. There are of course overheads with VM and
I/O is virtual, but we plan to have characterisation done before we
ship.
Regards,
DaveH
david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk wrote:
| Quote: | In article <44B921A2.50C0E5D7@teksavvy.com>, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> writes:
david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk wrote:
Why would anyone want to do this ?
With Alpha, you could have multiple instances of VMS in the same box
(galaxy stuff). On that IA64 thing, that is not the case. If you want
to run multiple instances of VMS on that IA64 thing, ther basically each
have to run as an application on HP-UX.
I thought Galaxy on the HP superdome was always planned to be supported.
David Webb
Security team leader
CCSS
Middlesex University
So now the big question is whether HP will take some of that so-flaunted
10 billion bucks and pay SRI to make a VAX and alpha emulators run as
applications on HP-UX as well so that you could have one instance of
HP-UX host an instance of VAX-VMS, one of Alpha-VMS and one of IA64-VMS.
While this may not have any usefulness on that IA64 thing, once IA64 is
dead and everything moved to 8086, this may prove to be very interesting. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bob Koehler
*nix forums Guru
Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 1078
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 17, 2006 3:47 pm Post subject:
RE: Parsec webinar (2006-07-12) OpenVMS Licensing
|
|
|
In article <FA60F2C4B72A584DBFC6091F6A2B8684017232A6@tayexc19.americas.cpqcorp.net>, "Main, Kerry" <Kerry.Main@hp.com> writes:
| Quote: |
The bottom layer is a customized HP-UX layer, hence it is likely more
appropriate to think of the bottom as a UNIX based layer with HP-UX and
OpenVMS being able to run as VM's on top of it.
Think of VMware (Linux based kernel) with Windows, Linux, Netware being
able to run as VM's on top of the UNIX based layer.
|
I don't care what the origin of the underlying kernel is, and I'll
assume that security and reliability are taken care of. I care
whether I can still get the kind of interrupt-to-task latency and
determinism I use when I do real-time on VMS.
I realise real-time became an unimportant market for VMS long before
DEC disappeared, but it's still what I do and I need to know whether
I can still use it. Other customers may find VMS on a UNIX kernel
usefull. To me it depends very much on just what that "UNIX" kernel
is.
Of course, as long as the existing VMS kernel is still available on
the naked processor, I'll still have what I need. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Google
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
The time now is Fri Nov 21, 2008 1:37 pm | All times are GMT
|
|
Unsecured Loans | Credit Card Consolidation | Mortgages | Refinance | Yahoo Personals
|
|
Copyright © 2004-2005 DeniX Solutions SRL
|
|
|
|
Other DeniX Solutions sites:
Unix/Linux blog |
electronics forum |
medicine forum |
science forum |
|
|
Privacy Policy
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Forum index
»
Not Unix
»
VMS
