Linked by znby on Mon 10th Jun 2013 23:15 UTC
OSNews, Generic OSes "HP has announced the end of support for OpenVMS, the ancient but trustworthy server operating system whose creator went on to build Windows NT. OpenVMS started out as VAX/VMS on Digital Equipment Corporation's VAX minicomputers, then later was ported to DEC's fast Alpha RISC chips " before the Compaq acquisition of Digital led to their untimely demise. HP ported the software to the Itanium, but HP isn't going to bother moving to the last generation of IA64 and support will finally end in 2015." The article seems to have confused the end of support of VMS (which projected to happen some time after December 2020) with the end of IA64 sales for machines that support VMS and/or the end of support of the Alpha version of the operating system, but it seems either way that the venerable operating system is on its way to meeting the same fate as MPE.
Permalink for comment 564572
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Kebabbert
Member since:
2007-07-27

" if you've spent any time with the OS coding on it and have learned some of it's architecture, it really has many strengths you simply don't find anywhere else.


for example?
"
For example unprecedented stability and clustering. I have worked in large companies with large servers lot of people use all the time, and the sysadmins there thinks that Unix is unstable in comparison with OpenVMS. Linux is unstable compared to Unix. OpenVMS clusters are the best on the planet. You can mix different OS versions, and even different cpu architectures in a cluster, and up to 144 servers. OpenVMS servers measure uptimes in decades. Lastly I heard of a OpenVMS server with uptime of 17 years. OpenVMS clusters never fail, because if a server goes down, the rest are up. And a OpenVMS server never goes down. Some say that single OpenVMS servers are more reliable than IBM Mainframes. OpenVMS clusters are definitely more reliablie than Mainframes. Lot of finance and telco used to run OpenVMS. For instance, when 9/11, the OpenVMS clusters never missed a transaction when the servers in the twin towers went down.

OpenVMS > everything else when we talk about stability and reliability. And OpenVMS clusters are way more powerful. Like Google, that use lot of cheap servers to get high uptime in total. The difference is that single OpenVMS servers have brutal high uptime, and the clusters have even better uptime.

Unix uptime sux in comparison. Linux uptime sux in comparison to Unix. Windows uptime sux in comparison to Linux.

The OpenVMS servers did not have that extreme performance, but extreme RAS instead (reliability, availability and serviciabilty).

There where two big OSes differently architected: Unix vs VMS. Some say that Unix sux in comparison to VMS, when you study them closer. Unix is considered more fancy, and VMS just works. Large finance companies prefers stability to extreme performance, because Enterprise is conservative. When performance is enough, you dont need more. Most servers have enough performance. They just have to work. Like bank systems, they need to be up, no matter what. You never over clock such servers, they are using double and triple hardware to ensure uptime.

Reply Parent Score: 1