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.
Thread beginning with comment 564572
To view parent comment, click here.
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

tylerdurden Member since:
2009-03-17

Those are not examples, per se, more like folklore/hearsay and personal bias/opinion. I was looking for specifics.

Reply Parent Score: 3

Kebabbert Member since:
2007-07-27

Those are not examples, per se, more like folklore/hearsay and personal bias/opinion. I was looking for specifics.

You want specifics on why OpenVMS is better? Like, "OpenVMS can context switch 12.5% faster than an equivalent Unix kernel", or "OpenVMS has a maximum of 128 processes, whereas Unix has 92"?

Well, I dont see the point of a listing things that OpenVMS does better. It is like "Windows has 32 kernel locks, and Mac OS X has only 16, therefore Windows is better" or "NTFS has 256 character filenames, and ZFS has only 192, therefore NTFS is better" (I made up all examples). Dont you agree that a list of specifics does not tell the whole story?

If you have the chance, talk with sysadmins instead. Preferable those who worked in Enterprise and on Unix servers and on OpenVMS servers. And worked with high availability clustering. Hear their war stories. I think this tells more than a list. Best is of course to work with both OS yourself for a couple of years, but that is not realistic? Second best alternative, talk with people who knows, or read text by people who knows.

Reply Parent Score: 2