VMS as hypervisor ? - VMS

This is a discussion on VMS as hypervisor ? - VMS ; > -----Original Message----- > From: John Vottero [mailto:JVottero@mvpsi.com] > Sent: September 17, 2007 5:03 PM > To: Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Com > Subject: Re: VMS as hypervisor ? > > > wrote in message > news:gIyHi.65$iA.22@newsfe12.lga... > > In article , "John > ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3
Results 41 to 53 of 53

Thread: VMS as hypervisor ?

  1. RE: VMS as hypervisor ?

    > -----Original Message-----
    > From: John Vottero [mailto:JVottero@mvpsi.com]
    > Sent: September 17, 2007 5:03 PM
    > To: Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Com
    > Subject: 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.


    Well, OS virtualization certainly does have its place, but, keep in mind the following:

    - each OS instance still needs to be properly licensed. As an example, a single VMware
    server or desktop with 5 active Windows VM's requires 5 Windows OS platformlicenses.

    - at least in the Windows space, a number of vendors (like Microsoft) do not support
    any of their products running on VMware or any non-Microsoft VM.

    - many Cust's want their QA and test environments to match production as closely as
    possible. Since a VM uses virtual drivers, the QA/Test environment virtual driver
    becomes a pretty big difference between Prod and QA/Test.

    Another alternative to using virtualization in a dev /QA/test environment is to simply
    use a single Integrity server and simply specify via the console which OS environment
    you want to boot off. With a different OS environment pre-built on a small SAN, this
    is easy to do and it uses native drivers and hence you do not have the Vdriver vs
    real driver + ISV support issues that a virtual environment has. A reboot typically
    takes only a few minutes these days.

    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.





  2. 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.


    blah, missing a NOT after the "about".

  3. Re: VMS as hypervisor ?

    On Sep 15, 11:06 pm, "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).

    >
    > > 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 ?

    >
    > 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...).
    > --


    So what do they say in response to your "why not run VMS" spiel? (I
    haven't seen Idiocracy or even heard of it.)

    The main advantage, I think, of VM running multiple instances of
    Windows, appears to be the ability to restart the OS just for one app,
    as someone else already mentioned. But what if you have to reboot the
    VM OS? What if you reboot the wrong OS instance? Would that be an
    easier mistake to make than rebooting the wrong server?

    [DISCLAIMER: Just some slightly random musings late at night.]

    AEF



  4. Re: VMS as hypervisor ?

    John Vottero wrote:
    >...
    > 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.


    Very easy to do with CHARON-VAX and CHARON-AXP.


  5. Re: VMS as hypervisor ?

    John Vottero wrote:
    >...
    > 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.


    Very easy to do with CHARON-VAX and CHARON-AXP.


  6. Re: VMS as hypervisor ?

    In article <1190141368.434744.45970@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.c om>, Peter Weaver writes:
    >
    >
    >John Vottero wrote:
    >>...
    >> 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.

    >
    >Very easy to do with CHARON-VAX and CHARON-AXP.


    I would very much like to run CHARON-AXP but, alas, they chose to run it
    on a non-OS.


    --
    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

  7. Re: VMS as hypervisor ?

    In article <1190141368.978629.176660@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.c om>, Peter Weaver writes:
    > John Vottero wrote:
    >>...
    >> 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.

    >
    > Very easy to do with CHARON-VAX


    Not if your oldest supported version is V4.2 (the last I checked).

    > and CHARON-AXP.


    Not if you want to avoid Windows/Linux/Unix (the last I checked).

  8. Re: VMS as hypervisor ?

    On 09/18/07 14:46, VAXman- @SendSpamHere.ORG wrote:
    > In article , Peter Weaver writes:
    >>
    >> John Vottero wrote:
    >>> ...
    >>> 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.

    >> Very easy to do with CHARON-VAX and CHARON-AXP.

    >
    > I would very much like to run CHARON-AXP but, alas, they chose to run it
    > on a non-OS.


    Get over it (whatever "it" is) and do what you've got to do to make
    your life easier.

    --
    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: VMS as hypervisor ?

    On 17 Sep 2007 07:51:15 -0500, koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org
    (Bob Koehler) wrote:

    >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.


    Ever read the "Unix Hater's Handbook"? IIRC, the mantra was always
    "that's okay, it boots fast" in reference to UNIX' warts.


  10. Re: VMS as hypervisor ?

    On Sun, 16 Sep 2007 11:02:22 +0200, Michael Kraemer
    wrote:

    >Richard B. Gilbert schrieb:
    >
    >> 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.

    >
    >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.


    My sense is, though, that on UNIX you can't control each of those
    services' consumption of resources the way that you can control a VMS
    process' resource consumption.

  11. Re: VMS as hypervisor ?

    In article <7qcag3lk9gv7qjgaiiinnlhges6aqlp4st@4ax.com>, none writes:

    > My sense is, though, that on UNIX you can't control each of those
    > services' consumption of resources the way that you can control a VMS
    > process' resource consumption.


    One approach would be to restrict one's license purchases to well-behaved
    software, and avoid any software that does not have a vendor behind it.

  12. Re: VMS as hypervisor ?

    In article <7qcag3lk9gv7qjgaiiinnlhges6aqlp4st@4ax.com>,
    none writes:
    > On Sun, 16 Sep 2007 11:02:22 +0200, Michael Kraemer
    > wrote:
    >
    >>Richard B. Gilbert schrieb:
    >>
    >>> 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.

    >>
    >>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.

    >
    > My sense is, though, that on UNIX you can't control each of those
    > services' consumption of resources the way that you can control a VMS
    > process' resource consumption.


    And you would be wrong. But then, that's probably why you post to
    technical groups anonymously. That way you never have to worry about
    someone finding out your talking thru your hat.

    bill

    --
    Bill Gunshannon | de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n. Three wolves
    bill@cs.scranton.edu | and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
    University of Scranton |
    Scranton, Pennsylvania | #include

  13. Re: VMS as hypervisor ?

    In article ,
    none writes:
    > On 17 Sep 2007 07:51:15 -0500, koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org
    > (Bob Koehler) wrote:
    >
    >>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.

    >
    > Ever read the "Unix Hater's Handbook"? IIRC, the mantra was always
    > "that's okay, it boots fast" in reference to UNIX' warts.


    More bullcrap. I have Unix systems that only get rebooted when
    they are replaced or the power goes down longer than the UPS can
    keep things running. But then, anonymous posts are worth as much
    as the integrity of the poster.

    bill

    --
    Bill Gunshannon | de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n. Three wolves
    bill@cs.scranton.edu | and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
    University of Scranton |
    Scranton, Pennsylvania | #include

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