Re: Wonderful things happen to an OS when it has an internal champion - VMS

This is a discussion on Re: Wonderful things happen to an OS when it has an internal champion - VMS ; On 08/18/07 11:55, Main, Kerry wrote: [snip] > > After you do OS virtualization using solutions like VMware, Zen or any other > solution, the next question out of the CIO's mouth will be "Great. Now how > are you ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 66

Thread: Re: Wonderful things happen to an OS when it has an internal champion

  1. Re: Wonderful things happen to an OS when it has an internal champion

    On 08/18/07 11:55, Main, Kerry wrote:
    [snip]
    >
    > After you do OS virtualization using solutions like VMware, Zen or any other
    > solution, the next question out of the CIO's mouth will be "Great. Now how
    > are you going to reduce the number of OS's, so I can cut my FTE numbers?"
    >
    > And that is where App stacking, Workload Mgmt comes in.


    What exactly *is* App Stacking, other than "running multiple apps on
    the same machine"?

    --
    Ron Johnson, Jr.
    Jefferson LA USA

    Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day.
    Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good!

  2. Re: Wonderful things happen to an OS when it has an internal champion

    Ron Johnson wrote:
    > On 08/18/07 11:55, Main, Kerry wrote:
    > [snip]
    >
    >>After you do OS virtualization using solutions like VMware, Zen or any other
    >>solution, the next question out of the CIO's mouth will be "Great. Now how
    >>are you going to reduce the number of OS's, so I can cut my FTE numbers?"
    >>
    >>And that is where App stacking, Workload Mgmt comes in.

    >
    >
    > What exactly *is* App Stacking, other than "running multiple apps on
    > the same machine"?
    >



    The whole problem, as I understand it, is that Windows has traditionally
    been not very good at protecting applications from each other!

    Windows has gotten a great deal better in the last seven years or so but
    it would still take a brave man to run two applications simultaneously
    on one server.

    Running multiple virtual servers on one physical server seems to solve
    this problem; I guess VMWare provides the protection that Windows cannot!


  3. Re: Wonderful things happen to an OS when it has an internal champion

    Main, Kerry wrote:
    > Did you actually read the brochure?


    I even attended the Decus presentations. VMS doesn't need
    virtualisation. If you want availability, you want your cluster on
    separate hardware to begin with.

    The only advantages to HP's "virtualisation" for VMS is a business one
    where the licensing allows some tricks under the hood. (get a 16 CPU
    hardware machine, and create a 3 CPU virtualised VMS instance where you
    only get licences for 3 CPUs but end up being able to sort of use 16
    (but not quite).

    But none of this couldn't be solved by making VMS more competitive and
    not needing such tricks to get around the expense of licences.

    Someone else was right: VMS should be use to virtualise others (aka a
    virtualisation server). But we all know HP doesn't want to develop VMS's
    market opportunities so it aisnt gonna happen unless VMS is sold to
    someone who is interested in growing the VMS marketplace.

  4. Re: Wonderful things happen to an OS when it has an internal champion

    In article <46C7A15C.7050801@comcast.net>,
    "Richard B. Gilbert" wrote:

    > Ron Johnson wrote:
    > > On 08/18/07 11:55, Main, Kerry wrote:
    > > [snip]
    > >
    > >>After you do OS virtualization using solutions like VMware, Zen or any other
    > >>solution, the next question out of the CIO's mouth will be "Great. Now how
    > >>are you going to reduce the number of OS's, so I can cut my FTE numbers?"
    > >>
    > >>And that is where App stacking, Workload Mgmt comes in.

    > >
    > >
    > > What exactly *is* App Stacking, other than "running multiple apps on
    > > the same machine"?
    > >

    >
    >
    > The whole problem, as I understand it, is that Windows has traditionally
    > been not very good at protecting applications from each other!
    >
    > Windows has gotten a great deal better in the last seven years or so but
    > it would still take a brave man to run two applications simultaneously
    > on one server.
    >
    > Running multiple virtual servers on one physical server seems to solve
    > this problem; I guess VMWare provides the protection that Windows cannot!


    The other problem is that Windows application developers seem to think
    that they can take control of a complete machine. The sad side of that
    is that people let them.

    --
    Paul Sture

    Sue's OpenVMS bookmarks:
    http://eisner.encompasserve.org/~stu...bookmarks.html

  5. Re: Wonderful things happen to an OS when it has an internal champion

    On 08/18/07 20:48, Richard B. Gilbert wrote:
    > Ron Johnson wrote:
    >> On 08/18/07 11:55, Main, Kerry wrote:
    >> [snip]
    >>
    >>> After you do OS virtualization using solutions like VMware, Zen or
    >>> any other
    >>> solution, the next question out of the CIO's mouth will be "Great.
    >>> Now how
    >>> are you going to reduce the number of OS's, so I can cut my FTE
    >>> numbers?"
    >>>
    >>> And that is where App stacking, Workload Mgmt comes in.

    >>
    >>
    >> What exactly *is* App Stacking, other than "running multiple apps on
    >> the same machine"?
    >>

    >
    >
    > The whole problem, as I understand it, is that Windows has traditionally
    > been not very good at protecting applications from each other!
    >
    > Windows has gotten a great deal better in the last seven years or so but
    > it would still take a brave man to run two applications simultaneously
    > on one server.
    >
    > Running multiple virtual servers on one physical server seems to solve
    > this problem; I guess VMWare provides the protection that Windows cannot!


    It *constantly* amazes me that so many IT people such sheep to be
    suck into the MSFT mindset like this.

    There are two reasons people in the Linux world run one app per box:
    1. They are Windows refugees who don't know any better, or
    2. "don't put all your eggs in one basket".

    Just like VMS (and BSD and Solaris, etc, etc), it's fully capable of
    running multiple apps on a single box.

    --
    Ron Johnson, Jr.
    Jefferson LA USA

    Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day.
    Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good!

  6. Re: Wonderful things happen to an OS when it has an internal champion

    Ron Johnson wrote:
    >
    > On 08/18/07 20:48, Richard B. Gilbert wrote:
    > > Ron Johnson wrote:
    > >> On 08/18/07 11:55, Main, Kerry wrote:
    > >> [snip]
    > >>
    > >>> After you do OS virtualization using solutions like VMware, Zen or
    > >>> any other
    > >>> solution, the next question out of the CIO's mouth will be "Great.
    > >>> Now how
    > >>> are you going to reduce the number of OS's, so I can cut my FTE
    > >>> numbers?"
    > >>>
    > >>> And that is where App stacking, Workload Mgmt comes in.
    > >>
    > >>
    > >> What exactly *is* App Stacking, other than "running multiple apps on
    > >> the same machine"?
    > >>

    > >
    > >
    > > The whole problem, as I understand it, is that Windows has traditionally
    > > been not very good at protecting applications from each other!
    > >
    > > Windows has gotten a great deal better in the last seven years or so but
    > > it would still take a brave man to run two applications simultaneously
    > > on one server.
    > >
    > > Running multiple virtual servers on one physical server seems to solve
    > > this problem; I guess VMWare provides the protection that Windows cannot!

    >
    > It *constantly* amazes me that so many IT people such sheep to be
    > suck into the MSFT mindset like this.
    >
    > There are two reasons people in the Linux world run one app per box:
    > 1. They are Windows refugees who don't know any better, or
    > 2. "don't put all your eggs in one basket".
    >
    > Just like VMS (and BSD and Solaris, etc, etc), it's fully capable of
    > running multiple apps on a single box.


    I should think one major problem is the lack of a central co-ordinating agency
    for things like Registry key names. It's entirely possibly - and quite likely -
    that one app.'s key path/name could duplicate that of another, with potentially
    disasterous results.

    Another major limitation is the lack of VMS-like logical names. One way that
    multiple app.'s - even multiple instances of the same app. - are separated in
    VMS-land is by the use of group-level and privately-named logical name tables.
    That way my "C" drive could be anything from DKB100: to DAVIDS-INSTANCE:
    (DKB100:[david.]/trans=conc), while yours could be anything from DKB200: to
    YOUR-INSTANCE: (DKB100:[yours.]/trans=conc) as just one example.

    There are probably some ways around this using Windows environment symbols.
    However, this would be so far outside of the typical Windows programmer's
    paradigm that trying to introduce it now would be tantamount to introducing a
    whole new operating environment.

    Indeed, these critters have grown so accustommed to "I'll solve this problem MY
    way, regardless of whether it clashes with anything else" that the probability
    of changing it short of WMware or equiv. is indeed quite low.

    --
    David J Dachtera
    dba DJE Systems
    http://www.djesys.com/

    Unofficial OpenVMS Marketing Home Page
    http://www.djesys.com/vms/market/

    Unofficial Affordable OpenVMS Home Page:
    http://www.djesys.com/vms/soho/

    Unofficial OpenVMS-IA32 Home Page:
    http://www.djesys.com/vms/ia32/

    Unofficial OpenVMS Hobbyist Support Page:
    http://www.djesys.com/vms/support/

  7. RE: Wonderful things happen to an OS when it has an internal champion

    > -----Original Message-----
    > From: Richard B. Gilbert [mailto:rgilbert88@comcast.net]
    > Sent: August 18, 2007 9:48 PM
    > To: Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Com
    > Subject: Re: Wonderful things happen to an OS when it has an internal
    > champion
    >
    > Ron Johnson wrote:
    > > On 08/18/07 11:55, Main, Kerry wrote:
    > > [snip]
    > >
    > >>After you do OS virtualization using solutions like VMware, Zen or

    > any other
    > >>solution, the next question out of the CIO's mouth will be "Great.

    > Now how
    > >>are you going to reduce the number of OS's, so I can cut my FTE

    > numbers?"
    > >>
    > >>And that is where App stacking, Workload Mgmt comes in.

    > >
    > >
    > > What exactly *is* App Stacking, other than "running multiple apps on
    > > the same machine"?
    > >

    >
    >
    > The whole problem, as I understand it, is that Windows has
    > traditionally
    > been not very good at protecting applications from each other!
    >
    > Windows has gotten a great deal better in the last seven years or so
    > but
    > it would still take a brave man to run two applications simultaneously
    > on one server.
    >
    > Running multiple virtual servers on one physical server seems to solve
    > this problem; I guess VMWare provides the protection that Windows
    > cannot!


    Yes, VMware, ZEN and any other OS stacking virtualization scheme (including
    z/OS and Linux) does have some savings related to reduced hardware, and DC
    space/cooling.

    OS stacking is also politically easier to implement as one App is "isolated"
    from the other so if APPA on VM-1 does something dumb, then APPB on VM-2 is
    not impacted (at least not directly).

    The downside is that OS stacking is a temporary measure as it does not address
    the 800lb gorilla of IT costs .. FTE numbers and associated staff costs which
    are typically 60-70% of most IT budgets today.

    Remember that even if an OS is virtualized, it still needs to be licensed,
    upgraded, monitored, secured, backed up, data archived, disk space for sys
    disk and page/swap files, user authorizations managed, print queues, batch
    jobs managed and monitored etc.

    Hence, migrating from 100 physical servers to 10 VM machines does not mean
    you can reduce the number of support FTE people, because the real workload
    of managing each OS instance remains the same (actually some increase as you
    also need to manage, support and license the base OS's (Linux) associated
    with each VM server physical system.

    Yes, tools are available to assist in this, but the real workloads do not
    change.

    There is also an increase in the level of complexity which adds to the
    overall troubleshooting process as base host issues may reflect on all the
    VM's it is hosting. The "just reboot the server" mentality means 10 OS's
    will be rebooted so that is a whole different environment.

    Once companies are completed their current phase of reducing the up front
    HW / DC costs with OS virtualization, the next wave will be in reducing the
    number of OS's and that is where the fun and gritting of teeth will begin.

    :-)

    Regards


    Kerry Main
    Senior Consultant
    HP Services Canada
    Voice: 613-592-4660
    Fax: 613-591-4477
    kerryDOTmainAThpDOTcom
    (remove the DOT's and AT)

    OpenVMS - the secure, multi-site OS that just works.



  8. Re: Wonderful things happen to an OS when it has an internal champion

    On 08/19/07 11:52, David J Dachtera wrote:
    > Ron Johnson wrote:
    >> On 08/18/07 20:48, Richard B. Gilbert wrote:
    >>> Ron Johnson wrote:
    >>>> On 08/18/07 11:55, Main, Kerry wrote:
    >>>> [snip]
    >>>>
    >>>>> After you do OS virtualization using solutions like VMware, Zen or
    >>>>> any other
    >>>>> solution, the next question out of the CIO's mouth will be "Great.
    >>>>> Now how
    >>>>> are you going to reduce the number of OS's, so I can cut my FTE
    >>>>> numbers?"
    >>>>>
    >>>>> And that is where App stacking, Workload Mgmt comes in.
    >>>>
    >>>> What exactly *is* App Stacking, other than "running multiple apps on
    >>>> the same machine"?
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> The whole problem, as I understand it, is that Windows has traditionally
    >>> been not very good at protecting applications from each other!
    >>>
    >>> Windows has gotten a great deal better in the last seven years or so but
    >>> it would still take a brave man to run two applications simultaneously
    >>> on one server.
    >>>
    >>> Running multiple virtual servers on one physical server seems to solve
    >>> this problem; I guess VMWare provides the protection that Windows cannot!

    >> It *constantly* amazes me that so many IT people such sheep to be
    >> suck into the MSFT mindset like this.
    >>
    >> There are two reasons people in the Linux world run one app per box:
    >> 1. They are Windows refugees who don't know any better, or
    >> 2. "don't put all your eggs in one basket".
    >>
    >> Just like VMS (and BSD and Solaris, etc, etc), it's fully capable of
    >> running multiple apps on a single box.

    >
    > I should think one major problem is the lack of a central co-ordinating agency
    > for things like Registry key names. It's entirely possibly - and quite likely -
    > that one app.'s key path/name could duplicate that of another, with potentially
    > disasterous results.


    For a minute, I didn't realize that you had changed topic from Linux
    back to Windows, and was stunned that you were so ignorant of Linux.

    Then I realized what you did...

    > Another major limitation is the lack of VMS-like logical names. One way that
    > multiple app.'s - even multiple instances of the same app. - are separated in
    > VMS-land is by the use of group-level and privately-named logical name tables.
    > That way my "C" drive could be anything from DKB100: to DAVIDS-INSTANCE:
    > (DKB100:[david.]/trans=conc), while yours could be anything from DKB200: to
    > YOUR-INSTANCE: (DKB100:[yours.]/trans=conc) as just one example.
    >
    > There are probably some ways around this using Windows environment symbols.
    > However, this would be so far outside of the typical Windows programmer's
    > paradigm that trying to introduce it now would be tantamount to introducing a
    > whole new operating environment.


    That's true, but MS-DOS actually did come (starting with v3,
    probably) with a utility that allowed you to associate a drive
    letter with a directory on another drive.

    Sadly, I can't remember it's name.

    > Indeed, these critters have grown so accustommed to "I'll solve this problem MY
    > way, regardless of whether it clashes with anything else" that the probability
    > of changing it short of WMware or equiv. is indeed quite low.


    Sadly, that "I own the machine" mentality is *THE* bane of
    MSFT-based computing. (And thus impacts everyone...)

    Linux, though, is forcing a lot of PC-mindset people to realize that
    they don't actually own the box.

    --
    Ron Johnson, Jr.
    Jefferson LA USA

    Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day.
    Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good!

  9. Re: Wonderful things happen to an OS when it has an internal champion

    Ron Johnson wrote:
    > There are two reasons people in the Linux world run one app per box:
    > 1. They are Windows refugees who don't know any better, or
    > 2. "don't put all your eggs in one basket".


    Setting up a system to run multiple different applications requires a
    certain level of skillset so that you can setup the system environment,
    tuning parameters etc that match what is needed instead of what is
    written in one book for one app. This is especially true of application
    installation procedures are setup to assume they are alone on the system
    and set the system parameters accordingly. (which you then have to go
    back and fix).

    Windows weenies don't have that level of experience. And it is also
    possible that it just isn't worth fighting those installation procedures
    (and constant patching) and just let the one app per machne be happy
    with its own parameters.

  10. Re: Wonderful things happen to an OS when it has an internal champion

    Ron Johnson wrote:
    > That's true, but MS-DOS actually did come (starting with v3,
    > probably) with a utility that allowed you to associate a drive
    > letter with a directory on another drive.
    >
    > Sadly, I can't remember it's name.


    SUBST

    Still works in an XP DOS box...

    cu,
    Martin
    --
    One OS to rule them all | Martin Vorlaender | OpenVMS rules!
    One OS to find them | work: mv@pdv-systeme.de
    One OS to bring them all | http://www.pdv-systeme.de/users/martinv/
    And in the Darkness bind them.| home: martin.vorlaender@t-online.de

  11. Re: Wonderful things happen to an OS when it has an internal champion

    In article <46C8755C.1527DBC0@spam.comcast.net>,
    David J Dachtera wrote:

    > I should think one major problem is the lack of a central co-ordinating
    > agency for things like Registry key names. It's entirely possibly - and
    > quite likely - that one app.'s key path/name could duplicate that of another,
    > with potentially disastrous results.
    >


    DLL Hell.

    > Another major limitation is the lack of VMS-like logical names. One way that
    > multiple app.'s - even multiple instances of the same app. - are separated
    > in VMS-land is by the use of group-level and privately-named logical name
    > tables.
    > That way my "C" drive could be anything from DKB100: to DAVIDS-INSTANCE:
    > (DKB100:[david.]/trans=conc), while yours could be anything from DKB200: to
    > YOUR-INSTANCE: (DKB100:[yours.]/trans=conc) as just one example.


    Not just the mapping of drives and directories, but shared images too.
    With VMS logical names it is possible to have different versions of
    software INSTALLed concurrently.

    > There are probably some ways around this using Windows environment symbols.
    > However, this would be so far outside of the typical Windows programmer's
    > paradigm that trying to introduce it now would be tantamount to introducing a
    > whole new operating environment.
    >
    > Indeed, these critters have grown so accustommed to "I'll solve this problem
    > MY way, regardless of whether it clashes with anything else" that the
    > probability of changing it short of WMware or equiv. is indeed quite low.


    One perfect example - apps which install their own flavour of Java. I
    don't know if this is still common, but during the run up to Y2K one
    colleague reported finding up to 6 separate instances of Java on
    in-house PCs.

    --
    Paul Sture

    Sue's OpenVMS bookmarks:
    http://eisner.encompasserve.org/~stu...bookmarks.html

  12. Re: Wonderful things happen to an OS when it has an internal champion

    On 08/19/07 13:38, JF Mezei wrote:
    > Ron Johnson wrote:
    >> There are two reasons people in the Linux world run one app per box:
    >> 1. They are Windows refugees who don't know any better, or
    >> 2. "don't put all your eggs in one basket".

    >
    > Setting up a system to run multiple different applications requires a
    > certain level of skillset so that you can setup the system environment,
    > tuning parameters etc that match what is needed instead of what is
    > written in one book for one app. This is especially true of application
    > installation procedures are setup to assume they are alone on the system
    > and set the system parameters accordingly. (which you then have to go
    > back and fix).
    >
    > Windows weenies don't have that level of experience. And it is also
    > possible that it just isn't worth fighting those installation procedures




    I must be spoiled by Debian.

    > (and constant patching) and just let the one app per machne be happy
    > with its own parameters.


    --
    Ron Johnson, Jr.
    Jefferson LA USA

    Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day.
    Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good!

  13. RE: Wonderful things happen to an OS when it has an internal champion

    > -----Original Message-----
    > From: David J Dachtera [mailto:djesys.no@spam.comcast.net]
    > Sent: August 19, 2007 12:53 PM
    > To: Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Com
    > Subject: Re: Wonderful things happen to an OS when it has an internal
    > champion
    >


    [snip...]

    > There are probably some ways around this using Windows environment
    > symbols.
    > However, this would be so far outside of the typical Windows
    > programmer's
    > paradigm that trying to introduce it now would be tantamount to
    > introducing a
    > whole new operating environment.
    >
    > Indeed, these critters have grown so accustommed to "I'll solve this
    > problem MY
    > way, regardless of whether it clashes with anything else" that the
    > probability
    > of changing it short of WMware or equiv. is indeed quite low.
    >
    > --
    > David J Dachtera
    > dba DJE Systems
    > http://www.djesys.com/


    Yep, and one could argue that while perhaps not to the same extent, the
    same is true of UNIX environments i.e. it is not technical issues, but
    rather culture issues which are the biggest impediment to App stacking.

    In some ways, OpenVMS is proprietary and has a culture associated with
    "this is the way you do things.." and that is a really good thing. This
    applies to things like app clustering and different application modules
    (written in diff languages) data and resource sharing rules that need to
    be followed in order for everyone in the sand box to play together nicely
    in a safe, scalable and very secure manner.

    Now, in the UNIX environment, in order for an App to take advantage of the
    local OS platform clustering technology, it needs to follow that platforms
    rules for clustering. Technically, its not likely an issue, but doing so
    would mean that application is now much less portable than if it were not
    written to take advantage of one OS platforms clustering. And in the UNIX
    world, portability is a a much bigger deal than it is on OpenVMS. With VMS,
    if you follow the standard rules, then your app should have no issues
    co-existing with other app's on the same system (assuming overall performance
    is managed of course.)

    [insert discussion from those who think UNIX culture of doing their own
    thing is not an impediment to App stacking on centralized UNIX servers.]

    Regards



    Kerry Main
    Senior Consultant
    HP Services Canada
    Voice: 613-592-4660
    Fax: 613-591-4477
    kerryDOTmainAThpDOTcom
    (remove the DOT's and AT)

    OpenVMS - the secure, multi-site OS that just works.







  14. RE: Wonderful things happen to an OS when it has an internal champion



    > -----Original Message-----
    > From: Main, Kerry [mailto:Kerry.Main@hp.com]
    > Sent: Sunday, August 19, 2007 2:57 PM
    > To: Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Com
    > Subject: RE: Wonderful things happen to an OS when it has an internal
    > champion
    >
    > > -----Original Message-----
    > > From: David J Dachtera [mailto:djesys.no@spam.comcast.net]
    > > Sent: August 19, 2007 12:53 PM
    > > To: Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Com
    > > Subject: Re: Wonderful things happen to an OS when it has an internal
    > > champion
    > >

    >
    > [snip...]
    >
    > > There are probably some ways around this using Windows environment
    > > symbols.
    > > However, this would be so far outside of the typical Windows
    > > programmer's
    > > paradigm that trying to introduce it now would be tantamount to
    > > introducing a
    > > whole new operating environment.
    > >
    > > Indeed, these critters have grown so accustommed to "I'll solve this
    > > problem MY
    > > way, regardless of whether it clashes with anything else" that the
    > > probability
    > > of changing it short of WMware or equiv. is indeed quite low.
    > >
    > > --
    > > David J Dachtera
    > > dba DJE Systems
    > > http://www.djesys.com/

    >
    > Yep, and one could argue that while perhaps not to the same extent, the
    > same is true of UNIX environments i.e. it is not technical issues, but
    > rather culture issues which are the biggest impediment to App stacking.
    >
    > In some ways, OpenVMS is proprietary and has a culture associated with
    > "this is the way you do things.." and that is a really good thing. This
    > applies to things like app clustering and different application modules
    > (written in diff languages) data and resource sharing rules that need
    > to
    > be followed in order for everyone in the sand box to play together
    > nicely
    > in a safe, scalable and very secure manner.
    >
    > Now, in the UNIX environment, in order for an App to take advantage of
    > the
    > local OS platform clustering technology, it needs to follow that
    > platforms
    > rules for clustering. Technically, its not likely an issue, but doing
    > so
    > would mean that application is now much less portable than if it were
    > not
    > written to take advantage of one OS platforms clustering. And in the
    > UNIX
    > world, portability is a a much bigger deal than it is on OpenVMS. With
    > VMS,
    > if you follow the standard rules, then your app should have no issues
    > co-existing with other app's on the same system (assuming overall
    > performance
    > is managed of course.)
    >
    > [insert discussion from those who think UNIX culture of doing their own
    > thing is not an impediment to App stacking on centralized UNIX
    > servers.]
    >


    Actually, it is very common to "app stack" under UNIX of all flavors, mostly
    because that is exactly what you
    are doing with all kinds of servers such as web servers, ftp servers, e-mail
    servers, etc. User applications also tend to run very well, as they are not
    capable of clobbering each other, memory or process wise.

    Windows, if you put something like Citrix on it, has no trouble at all
    running a few hundred copies of Word, Excel, Outlook, Access, InDesign,
    Terminal Emulators, etc.

    The culture clash you allude too seems to be dissolving in the current $$
    squeeze, though Windows still lacks a decent workload manager. AIX has a
    very good one, and other versions of UNIX have - "sortof" halfway attempts
    at it. VMS has a very good workload manager of course.

    -Paul

    > Regards
    >
    >
    >
    > Kerry Main
    > Senior Consultant
    > HP Services Canada
    > Voice: 613-592-4660
    > Fax: 613-591-4477
    > kerryDOTmainAThpDOTcom
    > (remove the DOT's and AT)
    >
    > OpenVMS - the secure, multi-site OS that just works.
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >




  15. Re: Wonderful things happen to an OS when it has an internal champion

    In article <46C8755C.1527DBC0@spam.comcast.net>, David J Dachtera writes:

    > Another major limitation is the lack of VMS-like logical names. One way that
    > multiple app.'s - even multiple instances of the same app. - are separated in
    > VMS-land is by the use of group-level and privately-named logical name tables.
    > That way my "C" drive could be anything from DKB100: to DAVIDS-INSTANCE:
    > (DKB100:[david.]/trans=conc), while yours could be anything from DKB200: to
    > YOUR-INSTANCE: (DKB100:[yours.]/trans=conc) as just one example.


    And commercial product FOO, with a registered facility name, will have
    logical names beginning with FOO$, avoiding name collisions with other
    products or site-specific logical names.

  16. Re: Wonderful things happen to an OS when it has an internal champion

    In article <1187305619.700116.251090@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.c om>, Doug Phillips writes:
    >
    > Didn't Microsoft use VMS in-house for quite a few years or is my bad
    > memory just giving search engines a new mis-information link?


    Often reports and good enough sources to be assumed to be true.
    If it's not true somebody will have to prove it not. Until
    then, I'll believe it is true.

    MS had to have an accounting system long before they even dreamed
    of making up WNT based server farms.


  17. RE: Wonderful things happen to an OS when it has an internal champion

    > -----Original Message-----
    > From: Paul Raulerson [mailtoaul@raulersons.com]
    > Sent: August 19, 2007 8:33 PM
    > To: Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Com
    > Subject: RE: Wonderful things happen to an OS when it has an internal
    > champion
    >
    >


    [snip]

    >
    > Actually, it is very common to "app stack" under UNIX of all flavors,
    > mostly
    > because that is exactly what you
    > are doing with all kinds of servers such as web servers, ftp servers,
    > e-mail
    > servers, etc. User applications also tend to run very well, as they are
    > not
    > capable of clobbering each other, memory or process wise.
    >


    The common stuff designed for multiple users (FTP, Web, Email etc) is one thing,
    but placing custom and ISV applications written in C, C++, Fortran etc thatwere
    designed as if they had single system (as many were in the old distributed era)
    on the same system is another matter.

    In many cases (primarily Windows/Linux, but a good portion of UNIX as well), the
    ISV will dictate that they only support their App on a dedicated environment.

    Something else to consider is that a new trend emerging is called "Tier
    consolidation". Due to the huge glut of available CPU cycles and cheap, high
    bandwidth networks, companies like SAP are now recommending App servers be placed
    on the same server as the DB. You not only eliminate more OS's, but also reduce
    the delays in the overall solution that was due to network latencies (as most know
    here the diff between a network IO and a direct IO is an order of magnitude).

    One could argue that you can also increase security in this way as well.

    Within the next 12-24 months, the industry is going to see a whole lot moreof
    this type of activity.

    [snip]

    Regards


    Kerry Main
    Senior Consultant
    HP Services Canada
    Voice: 613-592-4660
    Fax: 613-591-4477
    kerryDOTmainAThpDOTcom
    (remove the DOT's and AT)

    OpenVMS - the secure, multi-site OS that just works.




  18. Re: Wonderful things happen to an OS when it has an internal champion

    On 17 Aug, 22:40, Ron Johnson wrote:
    > On 08/17/07 08:03, Andrew wrote:
    > [snip]
    >
    >
    >
    > > While it may well be true that Linux and Windows lack reliable
    > > workload management the same cannot be said for UNIX which has
    > > supported this for some time. Solaris has Zones/Containers hooked into
    > > workload management, while both HP-UX and AIX also have support for
    > > workload managers although without the container type features of
    > > Solaris.

    >
    > > All the major commercial UNIX platforms allow administrators to
    > > restrict the amount of resource used by an application to a share of
    > > the system ensuring that all apps get the service they need. In the
    > > case of Solaris the apps can be running in a container which looks
    > > like another instance of the OS but in fact isn't.

    >
    > > BSD Jails are very similar to Solaris Zones/Containers.

    >
    > Linux *does*, though, have CPU percentage limiting software.http://cpulimit.sourceforge.net/
    >


    Limiting CPU resources on an app/user basis is only one small aspect
    of workload management. Most commercial customers who use this kind of
    functionality also require memory management and I/O management.


    > BTW, how does one limit CPU percentage in VMS?
    >
    > --
    > Ron Johnson, Jr.
    > Jefferson LA USA
    >
    > Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day.
    > Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good!




  19. Re: Wonderful things happen to an OS when it has an internal champion

    On 17 Aug, 23:08, "Main, Kerry" wrote:
    > > -----Original Message-----
    > > From: Ron Johnson [mailto:ron.l.john...@cox.net]
    > > Sent: August 17, 2007 5:40 PM
    > > To: Info-...@Mvb.Saic.Com
    > > Subject: Re: Wonderful things happen to an OS when it has an internal
    > > champion

    >
    > > On 08/17/07 08:03, Andrew wrote:
    > > [snip]

    >
    > > > While it may well be true that Linux and Windows lack reliable
    > > > workload management the same cannot be said for UNIX which has
    > > > supported this for some time. Solaris has Zones/Containers hooked

    > > into
    > > > workload management, while both HP-UX and AIX also have support for
    > > > workload managers although without the container type features of
    > > > Solaris.

    >
    > > > All the major commercial UNIX platforms allow administrators to
    > > > restrict the amount of resource used by an application to a share of
    > > > the system ensuring that all apps get the service they need. In the
    > > > case of Solaris the apps can be running in a container which looks
    > > > like another instance of the OS but in fact isn't.

    >
    > > > BSD Jails are very similar to Solaris Zones/Containers.

    >
    > > Linux *does*, though, have CPU percentage limiting software.
    > >http://cpulimit.sourceforge.net/

    >
    > > BTW, how does one limit CPU percentage in VMS?

    >
    > > --

    >
    > Class scheduler:
    > $ mcr sysman
    > Sysman> help class (see ADD, DELETE, MODIFY, SHOW, SUSPEND)
    >
    > ..
    >
    > ADD
    >
    > The ADD command creates a new scheduling class.
    >
    > The class scheduler provides the ability to limit the amount
    > of CPU time that a system's users receive by placing users in
    > scheduling classes. Each class is assigned a percentage of the
    > overall system CPU time. As the system runs, the combined set of
    > users in a class is limited to the percentage of CPU execution
    > time allocated to their class.
    >
    > Users might get some additional CPU time if the qualifier
    > /WINDFALL is enabled for their scheduling class. Enabling the
    > qualifier /WINDFALL allows the system to give a small amount
    > of CPU time to a scheduling class when the scheduling class's
    > allotted time has been depleted, but a free CPU is available.
    >
    > Other ways of managing workloads include:
    > - setting process priorities
    > - restricting processes to specific cpu's (can also be performance enhancement
    > as caching has better chance of not being flushed)
    >
    > Regards
    >
    > Kerry Main
    > Senior Consultant
    > HP Services Canada
    > Voice: 613-592-4660
    > Fax: 613-591-4477
    > kerryDOTmainAThpDOTcom
    > (remove the DOT's and AT)
    >
    > OpenVMS - the secure, multi-site OS that just works.


    Does this support fair share scheduling or is it a simple capscheme.
    Most people want the flexibility of fairshare rather than a simple
    cap.

    regards
    Andrew Harrison


  20. Re: Wonderful things happen to an OS when it has an internal champion

    In article <1187695606.340282.136320@k79g2000hse.googlegroups. com>, Andrew writes:

    > Limiting CPU resources on an app/user basis is only one small aspect
    > of workload management. Most commercial customers who use this kind of
    > functionality also require memory management and I/O management.


    On VMS the latter two fall in the general category of "quotas", which
    have been available since the start of VMS and are quite visible to
    average system manager.

    The Class Scheduler, on the other hand, has only been around for about
    20 years, and only for the last 10 years has there been a command line
    interface. That is why you find some people in this group not familiar
    with it. Due to the way most people get the documentation for new VMS
    release these days, there are no longer "change pages" to be devoured in
    detail with each new release. One must be content with the New Features
    Manual, which does not necessarily emphasize the same things I would
    emphasize :-)

+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast