OT: VMS (was [SunRescue] Tape drive)

[Björn Ramqvist]

"Joshua D. Boyd" wrote:
> 
> How many VMS installations have users(people who log in and switch
> between different programs for different tasks like word processing and
> spreadsheet)? I bet most VMS installations are either application servers,
> or they serve terminals, but the users are automatically logged in to a
> program that communicates mainly with some sorta database back end?

Uhm... *looking through the glass-window into the computer room*

Over here we are running 100+ nodes in a SINGLE VMS CLUSTER, consisting
of 3 main servers (3 x Alpha 1000 boxes), some HSZxx RAID-controllers
and a couple of gigs (400+) of disk and a rather big load of
Alphastations. All the way from old DEC3000/300 (which is under
replacement) through AlphaStation 200, 250, 255 up to day-old XP900
boxes, with VMS 7.2 and rather heavy graphicboards.
Every user in this cluster runs Medusa CAD/CAE software, does
Word/Excel/Outlook through two dedicated WinNT Terminal Servers loaded
with NCD + Winframe software.
Compaq officially supports upto 96 nodes, but we have a very strong
connection through our service contracts that still permits us, even
with a god-blessed helping hand from Compaq, to exceed that limit.
And no, don't even *think* they'll ever replace that with *NIX or
(*cough*) WinNT boxes...

Along with that we have another cluster, consisting of (only) two nodes
built on Alpha 4100 + Alpha XP1000 boxes. These run the company main
"parts database" along with all sorts of CAD drawings, checklists etc
etc, on Oracle database. Again we're not talking RS-232 dumb terminals
but X-based client software servering just about 1000 users. (OK, count
this to the "application server" category, but in a way that's still
modern day application serving.)
Count to that another cluster just for developing the applications...

So, I'd consider a rock-solid OS like VMS not to be "old" or "outdated".
It's mature and proven technology through 15+ years and noone wants get
rid of it. Just as we speak I'm putting together the new servers for the
"big" cluster. Two new Alpha DS10, 512MB, 617 MHz EV67, HSG80 Fibre
Channel RAID, six 14-disk storage shelves, Fibre Channel Switches,
Gigabit Ethernet Links... yummy.

> When I think about what's ideal in an OS, I think in terms of end user
> OSs.  For servers, it really doesn't matter that much as Novell (didn't
> they run on DOS?) and Oracle (they use raw disks instead of a file system)
> have demonstrated.  For servers, the OS is just a matter of convienience
> to the programmer, and if he doesn't like it, he can just write his own.

That's again a type of modern day thinking. You're grown up with
tree-structured filesystems, which would seems like a blubbering mass of
directories for a hardcore VMS-guy. Ofcourse, if you compare the
filestructures between *NIX and VMS, even the VMS-freak could feel a
easy-of-use but when you start comparing raw functionality of the OS
(security, processhandling, I/O, management etc etc), I'd bet you'd
never get that guy to run anything other than VMS. :-)

Even today we are looking toward our next generation Oracle servers.
Keeping in mind the absolutely WONDERFUL capabilities in the VMS
Clusters, nothing equals it. Although one exception to that has arise,
TruCluster under Tru64 UNIX. I'm still smiling when I try applications
on our (test) TruCluster...

And no, I'm no fan of VMS, but I'm still amazed.

/Regards, Bjorn