VMS as hypervisor ? - VMS

This is a discussion on VMS as hypervisor ? - VMS ; 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 ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 53

Thread: VMS as hypervisor ?

  1. VMS as hypervisor ?

    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 ?

  2. Re: VMS as hypervisor ?

    On 09/15/07 19:40, JF Mezei wrote:
    > 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 ?


    ISTM that a hypervisor needs to be very "light", in order to
    minimize overhead. VMS is a lot of great things, but light it's not.

    Then again, if a VM is a single VMS process then whether process
    creation is quick or not shouldn't be a problem.

    --
    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!

  3. RE: VMS as hypervisor ?

    > -----Original Message-----
    > From: Ron Johnson [mailto:ron.l.johnson@cox.net]
    > Sent: September 15, 2007 8:48 PM
    > To: Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Com
    > Subject: Re: VMS as hypervisor ?
    >
    > On 09/15/07 19:40, JF Mezei wrote:
    > > 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 ?
    >
    > ISTM that a hypervisor needs to be very "light", in order to
    > minimize overhead. VMS is a lot of great things, but light it's not.
    >
    > Then again, if a VM is a single VMS process then whether process
    > creation is quick or not shouldn't be a problem.
    >
    > --
    > 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!


    A hypervisor is typically a OS with a number of services disabled and specific
    processes optimized for a particular task. Case in point is VMware which uses
    a modified Linux kernel.

    OpenVMS has always been a pretty good real time OS, so I do not know why itcould
    not be optimized for something like this.

    Course, one needs to be careful of licensing issues e.g. VMware and Linux are
    having some interesting IP "discussions" these days.

    http://www.venturecake.com/the-vmware-house-of-cards/

    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.




  4. Re: VMS as hypervisor ?


    "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...).
    --



  5. Re: VMS as hypervisor ?

    On 09/15/07 20:06, Main, Kerry wrote:
    [snip]
    >
    > A hypervisor is typically a OS with a number of services disabled and specific
    > processes optimized for a particular task. Case in point is VMware which uses


    Well, duh.

    > a modified Linux kernel.


    And the source code to the modified kernel *is* available.

    http://www.vmware.com/download/vi/open_source.html

    > OpenVMS has always been a pretty good real time OS, so I do not know why it could
    > not be optimized for something like this.
    >
    > Course, one needs to be careful of licensing issues e.g. VMware and Linux are
    > having some interesting IP "discussions" these days.


    How can a corporation have "discussions" with a piece of software?

    > http://www.venturecake.com/the-vmware-house-of-cards/


    Interesting blog post.

    --
    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: VMS as hypervisor ?

    On 09/15/07 22:06, 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


    I've made that same comment myself...

    > you don't have to drag the overhead of a whole copy of Windows along with
    > each separate thing you want to do.


    In the Windows world, the answer is obvious, because Windows Sucks,
    and can't be trusted with more than one running process.

    In the Linux world, the only answers I can think of are:
    (a) If the box hits capacity, then moving one of the VMs to a new
    box is trivial.
    (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.

    > 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...).


    --
    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 ?

    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.



  8. Re: VMS as hypervisor ?

    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.


  9. Re: VMS as hypervisor ?

    JF Mezei wrote:
    : 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 ?

    And also begin Open Source.
    Then it would be possible for someone to add hypervisor functionality.
    (Since Open Source among other things facilitates creativity and innovation,
    because otherwise you would have to build a hypervisor kernel from scratch.)

    But it is pretty clear that the VMS people is not into Open Source thinking,
    and must then accept declining HP support.

    --
    -Roar Thronęs

  10. Re: VMS as hypervisor ?

    In article , Ron Johnson writes:
    > On 09/15/07 22:06, Lee K. Gleason wrote:


    >> 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


    > 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.

  11. Re: VMS as hypervisor ?

    On 09/16/07 06:04, Larry Kilgallen wrote:
    > In article , Ron Johnson writes:
    >> On 09/15/07 22:06, Lee K. Gleason wrote:

    >
    >>> 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

    >
    >> 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.


    Old box or "new" box that can partition itself into multiple nodes?

    --
    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!

  12. Re: VMS as hypervisor ?

    On 09/16/07 04:02, 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.


    IMNSHO, it's hip because everyone under age 40 has grown up in a
    Windows-means-computing-and-Windows-is-fragile-so-all-computing-must-
    be-fragile world, and so that is their mindset.

    --
    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: VMS as hypervisor ?

    In article <_k9Hi.3303$OD5.305@newsfe22.lga>, Ron Johnson writes:
    >
    >
    >On 09/16/07 04:02, 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.

    >
    >IMNSHO, it's hip because everyone under age 40 has grown up in a
    >Windows-means-computing-and-Windows-is-fragile-so-all-computing-must-
    >be-fragile world, and so that is their mindset.


    Micro$oft, IMHO, has done more to malign the opinions held by the vast
    majority about the computer and software industry than it has done to
    make it better.

    I try to tell people that it doesn't have to be this way and that, in
    general, outside of Micro$oft, it is not. However, since they know
    nothing else it is like trying to explain the color orange to a blind
    from birth individual.

    --
    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

  14. Re: VMS as hypervisor ?

    VAXman- @SendSpamHere.ORG wrote:
    > In article <_k9Hi.3303$OD5.305@newsfe22.lga>, Ron Johnson writes:
    >>
    >> On 09/16/07 04:02, 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.

    >> IMNSHO, it's hip because everyone under age 40 has grown up in a
    >> Windows-means-computing-and-Windows-is-fragile-so-all-computing-must-
    >> be-fragile world, and so that is their mindset.

    >
    > Micro$oft, IMHO, has done more to malign the opinions held by the vast
    > majority about the computer and software industry than it has done to
    > make it better.
    >
    > I try to tell people that it doesn't have to be this way and that, in
    > general, outside of Micro$oft, it is not. However, since they know
    > nothing else it is like trying to explain the color orange to a blind
    > from birth individual.
    >


    As someone said to another guy who said that "blue" didn't have
    any meaning to him since he was color-blind, "You know, just
    like a pair of jeans...".

    Jan-Erik.

  15. RE: VMS as hypervisor ?

    > -----Original Message-----
    > From: Lee K. Gleason [mailto:lee.gleason@comcast.net]
    > Sent: September 15, 2007 11:07 PM
    > To: Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Com
    > Subject: Re: VMS as hypervisor ?
    >
    >
    > "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...).
    > --
    >


    Lee,

    The current fascination with OS instance virtualization (as opposed to App stacking
    virtualization) in the Windows and Linux world is partially in response to the business
    screaming at IT to reduce IT related costs as well as the reality of escalating DC power
    and space issues.

    It is also related to the "one bus app, one OS" culture that has become part of the Linux
    and Windows culture. While this model worked very well when the industry was caught up
    in the distributed computing model, distributed computing strategies are now the new
    dinosaurs of current IT strategies.

    Server and DC consolidation programs are white hot right now as companies struggle to get
    their IT costs back under control.

    Good news - OS instance Virtualization (Zen, VMware etc) does save $'s associated with
    reduced HW Maint costs as well as alleviate some DC space, cooling type issues. It also
    partially addresses the internal politics and culture issues as you can still maintain
    separate OS instances for each bus App.

    Bad news - OS virtualization does very little to reduce the FTE staffing requirements
    which is typically 60-70% of most IT budgets today. It may actually increase the OS work
    as you now also have to maintain the hypervisor OS's as well (manage, patch, monitor etc).

    Yes, tools help, but maintaining 10 Windows VM's is only marginally easier to maintain
    than 10 separate servers from an OS FTE support perspective.

    The 800 lb gorilla remains the work required to patch, upgrade, monitor, backup, manage
    and license each OS instance. Ask any outsourcer for a quote on 10 VM's ona single
    server vs 10 physical servers and the quote for the VM's wil be approx 90% of the 10
    physical servers (keeping in mind they will likely drop the quote to 80% toget your
    business).

    Hence, while the current hype is all about saving HW/DC related costs, thisis very much
    only a small stepping stone on the road to addressing the concerns of the business about
    high IT costs. Once the OS instance virtualization work is completed, IT management will
    be forced to look at the 60-70% of their IT budget that has not yet been touched by all
    of the OS virtualization work completed. And the business will be on their backs to
    drastically reduce IT costs even more.

    That is when the Windows/Linux culture issues associated with sharing App'sfrom different
    groups on the same OS instance will really hit the fan. Many of the Windows/Linux ISV's
    will be impacted, because a number of them still required dedicated HW or at least a
    dedicated OS instance to get support from them.

    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.






  16. Re: VMS as hypervisor ?

    On 09/16/07 08:56, VAXman- @SendSpamHere.ORG wrote:
    > In article , Ron Johnson writes:

    [snip]
    >> IMNSHO, it's hip because everyone under age 40 has grown up in a
    >> Windows-means-computing-and-Windows-is-fragile-so-all-computing-must-
    >> be-fragile world, and so that is their mindset.

    >
    > Micro$oft, IMHO, has done more to malign the opinions held by the vast
    > majority about the computer and software industry than it has done to
    > make it better.
    >
    > I try to tell people that it doesn't have to be this way and that, in
    > general, outside of Micro$oft, it is not. However, since they know
    > nothing else it is like trying to explain the color orange to a blind
    > from birth individual.


    Big ACK.

    --
    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!

  17. Re: VMS as hypervisor ?

    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.
    >


    Like you, I can't imagine why anyone would want it. But in the days
    when I was being paid to do this stuff, my needs were minimal. Everyone
    was running a typesetting application and, other than reading their
    mail, that's all my users did.


  18. Re: VMS as hypervisor ?

    Larry Kilgallen wrote:
    > In article , Ron Johnson writes:
    >
    >>On 09/15/07 22:06, Lee K. Gleason wrote:

    >
    >
    >>> 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

    >>

    >
    >>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.

    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.


  19. Re: VMS as hypervisor ?

    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.

    http://www.oracle.com/technology/pro...atrix_rdb.html

    Obviously, though, Rdb isn't your typical application.

    --
    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!

  20. Re: VMS as hypervisor ?

    I think Ron Johnson wrote:
    >> 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.


    Consider licencing for VMS.

    Say your system has 16 cores. Depending on licensing you may have to pay
    for sofwtare based on 16 cores. But if you could create a virtual
    instance of VMS (running on VMS !), that instance might have just one
    core defined and hence you would only need to buy software for 1 core.

    But still my question stands. As an operating system, is VMS well suited
    to host multiple operating systems (devices, processes, priotities etc),
    and would it have any advantage over Unix such as Linux or HP-UX ?

    (lets assume VMS ran on the 8086 and could therefore host Windows and
    Linux instances as well as VMS).

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