VMS as hypervisor ? - VMS

This is a discussion on VMS as hypervisor ? - VMS ; Michael Kraemer wrote: > This virtualization stuff is hip on Unix too, where it puzzles me even more. > Unix supports multiple services on the same box for decades now, > so isolation shouldn't be an issue. > Virtualization just ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 53

Thread: VMS as hypervisor ?

  1. Re: VMS as hypervisor ?

    Michael Kraemer wrote:
    > This virtualization stuff is hip on Unix too, where it puzzles me even more.
    > Unix supports multiple services on the same box for decades now,
    > so isolation shouldn't be an issue.
    > Virtualization just makes things more complicated.



    Same could be said of VMS Galaxies on wildfire class machines. If your
    scale your hardware to be large enough, it isn't a given that an single
    instance of an OS can make best use of all the resources/CPUs, but
    multiple instances might.

    Multiple instances also allow you to "play" with one instance, while the
    production instance runs smoothly. More importantly, you can run
    multiple different OS (Linux and Windows on the 8086 for instance) on
    the same machine.

  2. Re: VMS as hypervisor ?

    Ron Johnson wrote:
    > On 09/16/07 11:04, Richard B. Gilbert wrote:
    > [snip]
    >> When did this happen? It used to be that images linked on a VAX ca.
    >> 1978/79 would run without problems on any later version.
    >>
    >> Now if you have third party software, the vendor might not it support it
    >> on all versions of VMS but it should still WORK on the version it was
    >> built on and all later versions unless someone is doing something very
    >> strange.

    >
    > For about the past 6-8 years, Rdb has specified, for each release, a
    > minimum and maximum VMS version and a minimum Alpha CPU type.
    > Something about loop timings, etc.


    But at the same time, you have two "versions" of each release,
    one for older Alphas and one for EV56 (I think) or newer Alphas.
    (Besides of the IA64 version, of course.)

    Seems reasonable for a software like Rdb, where you realy want
    to squize every CPU cycle out of the available hardware.

    Jan-Erik.

  3. Re: VMS as hypervisor ?

    Richard B. Gilbert wrote:
    > Now if you have third party software, the vendor might not it support it
    > on all versions of VMS but it should still WORK on the version it was
    > built on and all later versions unless someone is doing something very
    > strange.


    There are many types of applications (think heavy duty financial stuff)
    which a bank will absolutely not run an on unsupported platform. They
    need 100% support from the vendor and no reason for any excuses for the
    vendor not to provide a fix to a problem within 10 minutes of the app
    going down.


  4. Re: VMS as hypervisor ?

    In article <46ED540F.3040006@comcast.net>, "Richard B. Gilbert" writes:
    > Larry Kilgallen wrote:
    >> In article , Ron Johnson writes:


    >>>In the Linux world, the only answers I can think of are:

    >>
    >>
    >>>(b) Upgrading one app might require an upgrade to, for example,
    >>> libc. That would entail certifying all of the (possibly many
    >>> apps on the box. With VMs, only that one VM would need libc6
    >>> upgraded and so only that single app would need to be certified.

    >>
    >>
    >> That applies for VMS as well, if you need two different versions of
    >> VMS and prefer to have only one hardware box.

    >
    > When did this happen? It used to be that images linked on a VAX ca.
    > 1978/79 would run without problems on any later version.


    That is the plan, but sometimes it does not work out that way.
    Try switching volumes in an ISO 9660 volume set. If the machine
    crashes, you are not running Alpha VMS V6.1.

    > Now if you have third party software, the vendor might not it support it
    > on all versions of VMS but it should still WORK on the version it was
    > built on and all later versions unless someone is doing something very
    > strange.


    Like reading ISO 9660 volume sets ?

  5. RE: VMS as hypervisor ?


    > -----Original Message-----
    > From: JF Mezei [mailto:jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca]
    > Sent: September 16, 2007 1:55 PM
    > To: Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Com
    > Subject: Re: VMS as hypervisor ?
    >
    > Richard B. Gilbert wrote:
    > > Now if you have third party software, the vendor might not it support

    > it
    > > on all versions of VMS but it should still WORK on the version it

    > was
    > > built on and all later versions unless someone is doing something

    > very
    > > strange.

    >
    > There are many types of applications (think heavy duty financial stuff)
    > which a bank will absolutely not run an on unsupported platform. They
    > need 100% support from the vendor and no reason for any excuses for the
    > vendor not to provide a fix to a problem within 10 minutes of the app
    > going down.


    JF,

    While I certainly do not disagree with you, keep in mind that Microsoft does not support
    any of its applications running in a VMware environment and the popularity of VMware
    for Windows/Linux has still gone through the roof. And financial institutions are
    heavy, heavy VMware users.

    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.






  6. Re: VMS as hypervisor ?

    On 09/16/07 14:00, Main, Kerry wrote:
    [snip]
    >
    > While I certainly do not disagree with you, keep in mind that Microsoft does not support
    > any of its applications running in a VMware environment and the popularity of VMware
    > for Windows/Linux has still gone through the roof. And financial institutions are
    > heavy, heavy VMware users.


    How much of Banks' "real" data is on Windows, and how much is on IBM
    and Unisys mainframes?

    --
    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!

  7. RE: VMS as hypervisor ?

    > -----Original Message-----
    > From: Ron Johnson [mailto:ron.l.johnson@cox.net]
    > Sent: September 16, 2007 3:42 PM
    > To: Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Com
    > Subject: Re: VMS as hypervisor ?
    >
    > On 09/16/07 14:00, Main, Kerry wrote:
    > [snip]
    > >
    > > While I certainly do not disagree with you, keep in mind that

    > Microsoft does not support
    > > any of its applications running in a VMware environment and the

    > popularity of VMware
    > > for Windows/Linux has still gone through the roof. And financial

    > institutions are
    > > heavy, heavy VMware users.

    >
    > How much of Banks' "real" data is on Windows, and how much is on IBM
    > and Unisys mainframes?
    >
    > --
    > 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!


    Don't know. Even though a lot of bank back end stuff is also on OpenVMS, I suspect
    most banks do not even know themselves the % of app's per OS platform. Mostdo not
    even have a complete list of all their applications - let alone what OS platform they
    are running on.

    Even though it might seem strange, banks are not real good examples of how one should
    be managing their IT environment.

    At one large bank on West coast of USA, we did consolidation / DC study that had
    approx 6600 servers in 4 main sites. In total, they had approx 500 serverswhere they
    not only did not know what App's they were running, but they could not evenidentify
    the BU owners.

    I have done a few other financial / bank engagements as well - while they were better
    than the West coast engagement, they still had many asset mgmt issues as well.

    Btw, even though they have many regulatory, security and audit type pressures, Banks are
    just as susceptible to the many hype bugs floating around these days as other companies.

    To their credit, some banks are trying to re-gain control of their IT environment by
    consolidating Linux/UNIX environments to more centralized mainframe style environments.

    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: VMS as hypervisor ?

    Richard B. Gilbert wrote:
    > Lee K. Gleason wrote:
    >> "JF Mezei" wrote in message
    >> news:dd217$46ec7b84$cef8887a$24782@TEKSAVVY.COM...
    >>
    >>>OK, So HP has made HP-UX capable of hosting multiple OS instances.
    >>>(glorifided VM from IBM).
    >>>

    >>
    >>
    >> This while virtualization movement is a bit of a puzzle to me. When I
    >> question it, the PC types at work tell me it's great, since you can run lots
    >> of different things on the same machine, and can buy fewer servers. Since
    >> VMS already has a decent scheduler and excellent inter-process memory
    >> protection and resource allocation, I'm always left wondering, why couldn't
    >> they just use an operating system that can allow you to "run lots of
    >> different things on the same machine", each in their own process? That way
    >> you don't have to drag the overhead of a whole copy of Windows along with
    >> each separate thing you want to do. As they try to explain, I often feel
    >> like President Not Sure, listening to his cabinet tell him about the
    >> electrolytes in Brawndo (if you;'ve seen Idiocracy...).
    >> --
    >>
    >>

    >
    > The whole virtualization movement is about the fact that Windows is not
    > very good at protecting applications from each other! Virtual servers
    > compensate for Windows' shortcomings by providing the necessary isolation.


    It's about windows. It's about consolidation.

    I have a physical machine running 4 OSes, and about a dozen virtual machines.
    That server takes up 1U of rack space, vs. a quarter rack.

    even with VMware licenses, it's cheaper than a bunch of mostly idle machines.

  9. Re: VMS as hypervisor ?

    In article , JF Mezei writes:
    > OK, So HP has made HP-UX capable of hosting multiple OS instances.
    > (glorifided VM from IBM).
    >
    > Out of curiosity, would VMS be well suited for such a task ? What are
    > the traits of a good OS to become a hypervisor ?
    >
    > In the case of IO, is it correct to state that VMS , as a hypervisor,
    > would not actually be performing IO on bealf of the instances it hosts
    > and that the later would have direct access to their disk drives ?
    >
    > Does HP-UX have advantages over VMS in terms of process switching,
    > priority and general multi-tasking, or is VMS up to par on that aspect ?


    I would choose VMS over HP-UX for this because I would want a solid,
    secure foundation with at least the real-time capabilities of VMS so
    I wouldn't be limited to hosting timesharing OS.

    But the target market for this product probably doesn't care.


  10. Re: VMS as hypervisor ?

    In article , "Lee K. Gleason" writes:
    >
    > This while virtualization movement is a bit of a puzzle to me. When I
    > question it, the PC types at work tell me it's great, since you can run lots
    > of different things on the same machine, and can buy fewer servers. Since
    > VMS already has a decent scheduler and excellent inter-process memory
    > protection and resource allocation, I'm always left wondering, why couldn't
    > they just use an operating system that can allow you to "run lots of
    > different things on the same machine", each in their own process? That way
    > you don't have to drag the overhead of a whole copy of Windows along with
    > each separate thing you want to do. As they try to explain, I often feel
    > like President Not Sure, listening to his cabinet tell him about the
    > electrolytes in Brawndo (if you;'ve seen Idiocracy...).


    You have to view the situation from PC mentality. When frequent
    reboots are the norm the ability to reboot only part of the "system"
    looks good.

    Of course, if the PC folks were used to an OS that stayed up for
    years and didn't require a reboot every time you installed a text
    editor they might see differently.


  11. Re: VMS as hypervisor ?

    Cydrome Leader wrote:
    > Richard B. Gilbert wrote:
    >
    >>Lee K. Gleason wrote:
    >>
    >>>"JF Mezei" wrote in message
    >>>news:dd217$46ec7b84$cef8887a$24782@TEKSAVVY.COM...
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>OK, So HP has made HP-UX capable of hosting multiple OS instances.
    >>>>(glorifided VM from IBM).
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> This while virtualization movement is a bit of a puzzle to me. When I
    >>>question it, the PC types at work tell me it's great, since you can run lots
    >>>of different things on the same machine, and can buy fewer servers. Since
    >>>VMS already has a decent scheduler and excellent inter-process memory
    >>>protection and resource allocation, I'm always left wondering, why couldn't
    >>>they just use an operating system that can allow you to "run lots of
    >>>different things on the same machine", each in their own process? That way
    >>>you don't have to drag the overhead of a whole copy of Windows along with
    >>>each separate thing you want to do. As they try to explain, I often feel
    >>>like President Not Sure, listening to his cabinet tell him about the
    >>>electrolytes in Brawndo (if you;'ve seen Idiocracy...).
    >>>--
    >>>
    >>>

    >>
    >>The whole virtualization movement is about the fact that Windows is not
    >>very good at protecting applications from each other! Virtual servers
    >>compensate for Windows' shortcomings by providing the necessary isolation.

    >
    >
    > It's about windows. It's about consolidation.
    >
    > I have a physical machine running 4 OSes, and about a dozen virtual machines.
    > That server takes up 1U of rack space, vs. a quarter rack.
    >
    > even with VMware licenses, it's cheaper than a bunch of mostly idle machines.


    And if Windows were not a "One Trick Pony" you would simply run the four
    apps under Windows on a single machine!


  12. Re: VMS as hypervisor ?

    "Richard B. Gilbert" wrote in message
    news:46ED540F.3040006@comcast.net...
    >>
    >> That applies for VMS as well, if you need two different versions of
    >> VMS and prefer to have only one hardware box.

    >
    > When did this happen? It used to be that images linked on a VAX ca.
    > 1978/79 would run without problems on any later version.
    >
    > Now if you have third party software, the vendor might not it support it
    > on all versions of VMS but it should still WORK on the version it was
    > built on and all later versions unless someone is doing something very
    > strange.
    >


    Well, if you happen to be a third party software vendor that wants to
    support many versions of VMS, you need to be running the oldest supported
    version, the newest supported version and a few versions in between for VAX,
    Alpha and IA64. It sure would be nice to do that with virtual machines.



  13. Re: VMS as hypervisor ?

    "Richard B. Gilbert" wrote in message
    news:46ECD24B.7080604@comcast.net...
    > Lee K. Gleason wrote:
    >> "JF Mezei" wrote in message
    >> news:dd217$46ec7b84$cef8887a$24782@TEKSAVVY.COM...
    >>
    >>>OK, So HP has made HP-UX capable of hosting multiple OS instances.
    >>>(glorifided VM from IBM).
    >>>

    >>
    >>
    >> This while virtualization movement is a bit of a puzzle to me. When I
    >> question it, the PC types at work tell me it's great, since you can run
    >> lots
    >> of different things on the same machine, and can buy fewer servers. Since
    >> VMS already has a decent scheduler and excellent inter-process memory
    >> protection and resource allocation, I'm always left wondering, why
    >> couldn't
    >> they just use an operating system that can allow you to "run lots of
    >> different things on the same machine", each in their own process? That
    >> way
    >> you don't have to drag the overhead of a whole copy of Windows along with
    >> each separate thing you want to do. As they try to explain, I often feel
    >> like President Not Sure, listening to his cabinet tell him about the
    >> electrolytes in Brawndo (if you;'ve seen Idiocracy...).
    >> --
    >>
    >>

    >
    > The whole virtualization movement is about the fact that Windows is not
    > very good at protecting applications from each other! Virtual servers
    > compensate for Windows' shortcomings by providing the necessary isolation.
    >


    The really crazy part is that Windows *IS* good at protecting applications
    from each other but, there's nowhere to set the limits and the default is
    "use the whole machine".


  14. Re: VMS as hypervisor ?

    In article , "John Vottero" writes:
    >
    >
    >"Richard B. Gilbert" wrote in message
    >news:46ED540F.3040006@comcast.net...
    >>>
    >>> That applies for VMS as well, if you need two different versions of
    >>> VMS and prefer to have only one hardware box.

    >>
    >> When did this happen? It used to be that images linked on a VAX ca.
    >> 1978/79 would run without problems on any later version.
    >>
    >> Now if you have third party software, the vendor might not it support it
    >> on all versions of VMS but it should still WORK on the version it was
    >> built on and all later versions unless someone is doing something very
    >> strange.
    >>

    >
    >Well, if you happen to be a third party software vendor that wants to
    >support many versions of VMS, you need to be running the oldest supported
    >version, the newest supported version and a few versions in between for VAX,
    >Alpha and IA64. It sure would be nice to do that with virtual machines.


    What makes you think that John?

    Contact me off-line if you care to discuss it.

    --
    VAXman- A Bored Certified VMS Kernel Mode Hacker VAXman(at)TMESIS(dot)COM

    "Well my son, life is like a beanstalk, isn't it?"

    http://tmesis.com/drat.html

  15. Re: VMS as hypervisor ?

    On 09/17/07 11:26, John Vottero wrote:
    > "Richard B. Gilbert" wrote in message
    > news:46ECD24B.7080604@comcast.net...

    [snip]
    >>
    >> The whole virtualization movement is about the fact that Windows is
    >> not very good at protecting applications from each other! Virtual
    >> servers compensate for Windows' shortcomings by providing the
    >> necessary isolation.
    >>

    >
    > The really crazy part is that Windows *IS* good at protecting
    > applications from each other but, there's nowhere to set the limits and
    > the default is "use the whole machine".


    Huh?

    It (the OS) is supposed to know how to effectively time slice in a
    multiprocessing environment, and not allow one process to "white
    out" the entire screen by not refreshing it's own window.

    The world would be a much better place if Bill Gates had stayed in
    school and gotten (I gag as I say this) an MBA.

    --
    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!

  16. Re: VMS as hypervisor ?

    In article , Ron Johnson writes:
    >
    >
    >On 09/17/07 11:26, John Vottero wrote:
    >> "Richard B. Gilbert" wrote in message
    >> news:46ECD24B.7080604@comcast.net...

    >[snip]
    >>>
    >>> The whole virtualization movement is about the fact that Windows is
    >>> not very good at protecting applications from each other! Virtual
    >>> servers compensate for Windows' shortcomings by providing the
    >>> necessary isolation.
    >>>

    >>
    >> The really crazy part is that Windows *IS* good at protecting
    >> applications from each other but, there's nowhere to set the limits and
    >> the default is "use the whole machine".

    >
    >Huh?
    >
    >It (the OS) is supposed to know how to effectively time slice in a
    >multiprocessing environment, and not allow one process to "white
    >out" the entire screen by not refreshing it's own window.
    >
    >The world would be a much better place if Bill Gates had stayed in
    >school and gotten (I gag as I say this) an MBA.


    Master Borg Assimilator? There's a degree for that?

    --
    VAXman- A Bored Certified VMS Kernel Mode Hacker VAXman(at)TMESIS(dot)COM

    "Well my son, life is like a beanstalk, isn't it?"

    http://tmesis.com/drat.html

  17. Re: VMS as hypervisor ?

    In article , "John Vottero" writes:
    > "Richard B. Gilbert" wrote in message
    > news:46ED540F.3040006@comcast.net...
    >>>
    >>> That applies for VMS as well, if you need two different versions of
    >>> VMS and prefer to have only one hardware box.

    >>
    >> When did this happen? It used to be that images linked on a VAX ca.
    >> 1978/79 would run without problems on any later version.
    >>
    >> Now if you have third party software, the vendor might not it support it
    >> on all versions of VMS but it should still WORK on the version it was
    >> built on and all later versions unless someone is doing something very
    >> strange.
    >>

    >
    > Well, if you happen to be a third party software vendor that wants to
    > support many versions of VMS, you need to be running the oldest supported
    > version, the newest supported version and a few versions in between for VAX,
    > Alpha and IA64. It sure would be nice to do that with virtual machines.


    And your version list for "supported" can be quite longer than HP's.

  18. Re: VMS as hypervisor ?


    wrote in message
    news:gIyHi.65$iA.22@newsfe12.lga...
    > In article , "John
    > Vottero" writes:
    >>
    >>
    >>"Richard B. Gilbert" wrote in message
    >>news:46ED540F.3040006@comcast.net...
    >>>>
    >>>> That applies for VMS as well, if you need two different versions of
    >>>> VMS and prefer to have only one hardware box.
    >>>
    >>> When did this happen? It used to be that images linked on a VAX ca.
    >>> 1978/79 would run without problems on any later version.
    >>>
    >>> Now if you have third party software, the vendor might not it support it
    >>> on all versions of VMS but it should still WORK on the version it was
    >>> built on and all later versions unless someone is doing something very
    >>> strange.
    >>>

    >>
    >>Well, if you happen to be a third party software vendor that wants to
    >>support many versions of VMS, you need to be running the oldest supported
    >>version, the newest supported version and a few versions in between for
    >>VAX,
    >>Alpha and IA64. It sure would be nice to do that with virtual machines.

    >
    > What makes you think that John?
    >


    Think what, that you need to run the versions of VMS that you want to
    support or that it would be nice to run VMS on virtual machines?

    I've seen hacks that let you link against older versions of libraries on
    newer versions of VMS and I've seen VMSINSTAL kits that ship object modules
    and link during the install but, I wouldn't want to support either of those.
    I don't want to guess or assume what the linker MAP looks like and, if we
    say we support VAX/VMS V6.2 I want to be able to log on to VAX/VMS V6.2 to
    test, debug etc.

    Why would we like to run VMS in virtual machines? We support VMS V6.2 or
    higher on VAX, Alpha and Itanium running DECnet, TCP/IP Services, Multinet
    or TCPware. That a lot of combinations. With virtual machines, any
    combination we wanted to put together becomes just a big file (virtual disk
    image).

    Like it or not, we're doing a lot of work on Windows. Every developer has
    4GB of RAM on their workstation so they can fire up two or three virtual
    machines running whatever they need to run. We just setup a test server
    that has two quad core processors and 24GB of RAM, it's running 3 instances
    of Windows Server 2003, a couple instances of Windows XP, a couple instances
    of Windows Server 2008 Beta, Windows 2000, two versions of Linux and
    Solaris.

    We have two Itaniums with 4GB of RAM and they can only run one instance of
    VMS on each one. I would love to add memory and slice them up into 4 or 8
    virtual machines.


  19. Re: VMS as hypervisor ?

    "Ron Johnson" wrote in message
    news:KQzHi.85$sS6.47@newsfe14.lga...
    > On 09/17/07 11:26, John Vottero wrote:
    >> "Richard B. Gilbert" wrote in message
    >> news:46ECD24B.7080604@comcast.net...

    > [snip]
    >>>
    >>> The whole virtualization movement is about the fact that Windows is
    >>> not very good at protecting applications from each other! Virtual
    >>> servers compensate for Windows' shortcomings by providing the
    >>> necessary isolation.
    >>>

    >>
    >> The really crazy part is that Windows *IS* good at protecting
    >> applications from each other but, there's nowhere to set the limits and
    >> the default is "use the whole machine".

    >
    > Huh?
    >
    > It (the OS) is supposed to know how to effectively time slice in a
    > multiprocessing environment, and not allow one process to "white
    > out" the entire screen by not refreshing it's own window.


    What version of Windows are you using? That may have been a problem with
    Windows 9X but, I wouldn't touch that with a 10 foot pole and a kevlar suit.
    Anything in the Windows NT line has no problem time slicing.

    >
    > The world would be a much better place if Bill Gates had stayed in
    > school and gotten (I gag as I say this) an MBA.
    >


    Before he gets the MBA he would have to get his BA, he dropped out to start
    Microsoft.


  20. Re: VMS as hypervisor ?

    On 09/17/07 16:08, John Vottero wrote:
    > "Ron Johnson" wrote in message
    > news:KQzHi.85$sS6.47@newsfe14.lga...

    [snip]
    >
    >>
    >> The world would be a much better place if Bill Gates had stayed in
    >> school and gotten (I gag as I say this) an MBA.
    >>

    >
    > Before he gets the MBA he would have to get his BA, he dropped out to
    > start Microsoft.


    Yes........ What's you point?

    --
    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!

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