On 2022-05-15, Gérard Calliet <gerard.calliet@pia-sofer.fr> wrote:
> Le 13/05/2022 à 22:50, Stephen Hoffman a écrit :
>>
>> Your own and earnestly erudite postings can sometimes be just as
>> confusing to the average reader. To use a more recent metaphor and one
>> which may well be just as confusing to you, Darmok.
>>
>> [I'm sure that at least some of my postings here read like gibberish, too.]
> We have a long way to be able to play with all of our idioms. Perhaps
> being more classic, using only the authors used on the Internals
> epigraph chapters? Or just Shakespeare's? We really to get a common
> langage for the next boot camps :)

Hmm, the story of Darmok _is_ a classic. :-)

Simon.

--
Simon Clubley, clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP
Walking destinations on a map are further away than they appear.

On 5/12/22 17:03, Jan-Erik Söderholm wrote:
>
>
> The roadmap still has "full support for HPE DL380" for 9.2-x.
>

Ah yes, lets continue to rely on the company we have despised for
so long because of their unreliability. That bodes well.

bill

On 5/15/22 13:07, Stephen Hoffman wrote:
> On 2022-05-15 11:29:10 +0000, Scott Dorsey said:
>
>>>>
>>>> Hoff: Returning to the usual discussions here in the comp.os.vms
>>>> newsgroup, DEC long excluded nuclear and life-critical environments
>>>> from the standard terms and conditions; what Oracle has done is not
>>>> unusual.
>>
>> That's terrible!  For years the PDP-8e was the standard controls
>> machine for nuclear power applications; the Nuclear Engineering
>> department at Georgia Tech continued teaching PDP-8 assembler well
>> into the early 2000s.
>
> That's prolly related to much of the US nuclear power industry and
> regulatory oversight being so utterly obdurate.

Wasn't it the Canadian Atomic Energy people looking for PDP-11
experience not to long ago?

Now that it is gone completely, I wonder what Three Mile Island was
running? And the local Nuclear Plant is (I think) in the process of
being phased out. Wonder what they use?

>
> No new designs approved and online in how many years? There are a few
> positive signs, with one SMR design only recently having gotten approval
> for a lab install.
>
> Last I checked, US Nuclear Regulatory Commission had never approved a
> new reactor design and brought it into production in the entire history
> of the agency since its formation in 1975.
>
> Somebody needs to light a fire under that whole agency and under that
> whole power generation industry, or our climate is far too soon going to
> light a fire under all of us.

It seems to me that rather than lighting fires they prefer to blow
out the pilot lights and let the Nuclear industry just dry up and
go away, like the fossil fuels industry, relying entirely on the
totally inadequate wind and solar industries.

>
> Yeah, I well understand safety. Competing power generation has... yet
> bigger issues... there.
>
> TL;DR: PDP-8 tech worked fine for our grandparents and great
> grandparents, so it'll work fine for us.
>

A much simpler technology, much less likely to have hidden faults that
can make things go boom. I still like the PDP-11. If nothing else it
was a lot easier to teach (architecturally) than something like X86.

bill

On 2022-05-19, Bill Gunshannon <bill.gunshannon@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5/12/22 17:03, Jan-Erik Söderholm wrote:
>>
>>
>> The roadmap still has "full support for HPE DL380" for 9.2-x.
>>
>
>
> Ah yes, lets continue to rely on the company we have despised for
> so long because of their unreliability. That bodes well.
>
> bill

They had to pick _a_ server for their initial hardware target.

Which one would you have suggested instead ?

Simon.

--
Simon Clubley, clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP
Walking destinations on a map are further away than they appear.

On 5/19/22 13:49, Simon Clubley wrote:
> On 2022-05-19, Bill Gunshannon <bill.gunshannon@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 5/12/22 17:03, Jan-Erik Söderholm wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> The roadmap still has "full support for HPE DL380" for 9.2-x.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Ah yes, lets continue to rely on the company we have despised for
>> so long because of their unreliability. That bodes well.
>>
>> bill
>
> They had to pick _a_ server for their initial hardware target.
>
> Which one would you have suggested instead ?

No idea as I am not in the market and it is a rapidly moving
target. I was just pointing out the fact that for years now
people here have considered HPE the enemy but they kinda want
to still put money in their pocket. Kinda like having sanctions
against Russia while continuing to buy their gas which is their
largest selling product.

bill

On Friday, May 13, 2022 at 12:03:34 AM UTC+3, Jan-Erik Söderholm wrote:
> Den 2022-05-12 kl. 22:40, skrev Gérard Calliet:
> > Le 12/05/2022 à 21:22, Jan-Erik Söderholm a écrit :
> >> Den 2022-05-12 kl. 21:07, skrev John Dallman:
> >>> Listening to the latest webinar, it was mentioned that a common question
> >>> from customers was about support of specific hardware. At that point, I
> >>> realised that the variety of x86 server hardware currently available
> >>> probably exceeds the total variety of all the hardware that VMS has ever
> >>> run on.
> >>>
> >>> Yes. All the variations of VAX, Alpha and Itanium that have ever been
> >>> supported likely provided less variety - in terms of devices to support -
> >>> than the variety of x86 server hardware that's _currently_ available,
> >>> ignoring all the x86 kit that is no longer on sale, but still viable.
> >>>
> >>> How the hell is this managed for Windows and Linux? For those OSes, the
> >>> manufacturers do a lot of the work of writing and testing device drivers.
> >>> Microsoft have to do a lot themselves for Windows, and also provide SDKs
> >>> and templates. For Linux, the big distributors, such as Red Hat, do quite
> >>> a bit. There are also consultancies that write drivers for manufacturers,
> >>> and/or provide training and SDKs.
> >>>
> >>> For VMS, at present, there's just VSI. They aren't a big company and they
> >>> have a lot of work to do without doing lots of drivers. An obvious
> >>> solution would be to switch to a hypervisor-only support model, but it
> >>> appears that many customers want to work on bare metal.
> >>
> >> I thought that VSI said that the increast focus on VM environments is
> >> due to customer demands. As I understand, the major part of VSI income
> >> comes from customers where running in a VM is the prefered solution.
> >>
> >>>
> >>> I can't find any information on the VSI website about writing device
> >>> drivers. There might be an opening for a company who produced device
> >>> drivers for customers.
> >>
> >> I really can't see the need today. Just run in a VM and you have all
> >> the driver support you'll evr need. Special hardware that you might
> >> need to communicate with, is probably network/TCPIP connected anyway.
> >>
> >> So, I see no business case for custom written device drivers today.
> > Do you live near a nuclear plant? Do you think you would be pleased to know
> > the OS used to control it has part of it on the cloud?
> >
> > Do you take underground? What about being somewhere in it and there is just
> > a subtle problem somewhere in the VmWare?
> But then, just use one of the supported "bare metal" solutions. It has
> never been said that bare metel would not be supported *at all*, has it?
>
> The roadmap still has "full support for HPE DL380" for 9.2-x.

Right now "HPE DL380" means two quite different machines: Gen 10 and Gen10 Plus.
And yet different Gen 11 is planned for 3rd or at worst 4th quarter.
Which one of the three is supported by VSI?

> >
> > I don't want to relaunch all the chat around virtual or not virtual. But it
> > is just: yes there are use cases for bare metal. Minority? yes, not in the
> > Bid Trend? yes. VSI is right on its choices? I'm not VSI.
> >
> > I heard on the last webinar VSI saying something like "if you realy need
> > bare metal, call us and we'll see what can be done on specific hardwares".
> > Not at all now a priority, but something can be done. Impossible to be
> > microsoft or large linux community to support any hardware, but, yes,
> > developping specific drivers could be done.
> >
> > You know there is a litterature about that for Vax, Alpha (perhaps itanium,
> > I don't know). It is because it was possible for ISV to develop drivers for
> > their products. I don't know how many did that. But it is a normal
> > situation, and it is possible we'll have something like that for x86. VSI
> > is thinking about a community with its -for-a-far-future- project Atom.
> > Perhaps there will be another community for the -not-so-far-project
> > developping some specific drivers for specific bare metal x86 VMS.
> >
> > Gérard Calliet
> >>
> >> Jan-Erik.
> >>
> >>>
> >>> John
> >>
> >
> >

On 5/19/2022 3:22 PM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
> On 5/19/22 13:49, Simon Clubley wrote:
>> On 2022-05-19, Bill Gunshannon <bill.gunshannon@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 5/12/22 17:03, Jan-Erik Söderholm wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The roadmap still has "full support for HPE DL380" for 9.2-x.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Ah yes, lets continue to rely on the company we have despised for
>>> so long because of their unreliability. That bodes well.
>>>
>>> bill
>>
>> They had to pick _a_ server for their initial hardware target.
>>
>> Which one would you have suggested instead ?
>
> No idea as I am not in the market and it is a rapidly moving
> target. I was just pointing out the fact that for years now
> people here have considered HPE the enemy but they kinda want
> to still put money in their pocket. Kinda like having sanctions
> against Russia while continuing to buy their gas which is their
> largest selling product.
>
> bill

Well, it really sucks when all your options are poor to bad options.

Sometimes one must sort the options, and pick the least poor one. From my
perspective, which is way back in the cheap seats, HPe produces some reasonable
x86 server systems. So what's VSI to do? Hold a grudge by slicing off their
nose to spite their face? No, they will chart the best (least poor) path open
to them, and proceed.

Note, I may be one of the leaders of the "tar and feather" HP squad. So it's
tough, but one must be realistic.

As for Russian oil and gas, it may take some time, but they have been sawing at
their noses, and when the EU does get free of them, there will be no getting
them back. At least one hopes ...

--
David Froble Tel: 724-529-0450
Dave Froble Enterprises, Inc. E-Mail: davef@tsoft-inc.com
DFE Ultralights, Inc.
170 Grimplin Road
Vanderbilt, PA 15486

On 2022-05-19 19:54:33 +0000, Michael S said:

> Right now "HPE DL380" means two quite different machines: Gen 10 and
> Gen10 Plus.
> And yet different Gen 11 is planned for 3rd or at worst 4th quarter.
> Which one of the three is supported by VSI?

The following prior to the availability of the planned VSI hardware
buyer's guide.

From previous postings by VSI folks here in the comp.os.vms newsgroup,
the initial native-boot hardware target is ProLiant DL380 Gen 9 and
later.

I'd not rush out and buy a new ProLiant Gen 33⅓ (Low Profile) nor any
other server as it first becomes available, given testing and support
delays are to be expected.

Should native boot be required prior to the availability of the buyer's
guide, contact VSI for an official support statement.

VSI have previously stated they're using these requests to determine
customer configuration demand.

--
Pure Personal Opinion | HoffmanLabs LLC

On 5/19/2022 4:58 PM, Dave Froble wrote:
> On 5/19/2022 3:22 PM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>> On 5/19/22 13:49, Simon Clubley wrote:
>>> On 2022-05-19, Bill Gunshannon <bill.gunshannon@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 5/12/22 17:03, Jan-Erik Söderholm wrote:
>>>>> The roadmap still has "full support for HPE DL380" for 9.2-x.
>>>>
>>>> Ah yes, lets continue to rely on the company we have despised for
>>>> so long because of their unreliability.  That bodes well.
>>>
>>> They had to pick _a_ server for their initial hardware target.
>>>
>>> Which one would you have suggested instead ?
>>
>> No idea as I am not in the market and it is a rapidly moving
>> target.  I was just pointing out the fact that for years now
>> people here have considered HPE the enemy but they kinda want
>> to still put money in their pocket.
>
> Well, it really sucks when all your options are poor to bad options.
>
> Sometimes one must sort the options, and pick the least poor one.  From
> my perspective, which is way back in the cheap seats, HPe produces some
> reasonable x86 server systems.

Yes.

It had to be a brand name so HPE or Dell.

VSI got a business relationship with HPE so HPE.

It had to be a widely used model at an appropriate
mid size. DL380 seems like a fine choice.

Arne

On 5/19/22 19:48, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
> On 5/19/2022 4:58 PM, Dave Froble wrote:
>> On 5/19/2022 3:22 PM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>>> On 5/19/22 13:49, Simon Clubley wrote:
>>>> On 2022-05-19, Bill Gunshannon <bill.gunshannon@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 5/12/22 17:03, Jan-Erik Söderholm wrote:
>>>>>> The roadmap still has "full support for HPE DL380" for 9.2-x.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ah yes, lets continue to rely on the company we have despised for
>>>>> so long because of their unreliability.  That bodes well.
>>>>
>>>> They had to pick _a_ server for their initial hardware target.
>>>>
>>>> Which one would you have suggested instead ?
>>>
>>> No idea as I am not in the market and it is a rapidly moving
>>> target.  I was just pointing out the fact that for years now
>>> people here have considered HPE the enemy but they kinda want
>>> to still put money in their pocket.
>>
>> Well, it really sucks when all your options are poor to bad options.
>>
>> Sometimes one must sort the options, and pick the least poor one.
>> From my perspective, which is way back in the cheap seats, HPe
>> produces some reasonable x86 server systems.
>
> Yes.
>
> It had to be a brand name so HPE or Dell.
>
> VSI got a business relationship with HPE so HPE.
>
> It had to be a widely used model at an appropriate
> mid size.  DL380 seems like a fine choice.

And yet there was a time here when it was thought that VMS was
going to die that these same people all said they would never
by anything from HP again. Go figure.

(Don't get me wrong. I am typing this right now on an HP All-In-One
PC running Windows 10. But I didn't put a dime into HP or MS coffers.
I got it for nothing and it's worth everything I paid for it!)

bill

On 19/05/2022 14:01, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
> On 5/12/22 17:03, Jan-Erik Söderholm wrote:
>>
>>
>> The roadmap still has "full support for HPE DL380" for 9.2-x.
>>
>
>
> Ah yes, lets continue to rely on the company we have despised for
> so long because of their unreliability.  That bodes well.
>
> bill

These days I would say HP is the best of a bad bunch. The realistic
alternatives? Well DELL who change specs at the drop of a hat, and
Lenovo who kind of carried on from IBM so totally Chinese?

Dave

On Friday, May 20, 2022 at 2:48:50 AM UTC+3, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
> On 5/19/2022 4:58 PM, Dave Froble wrote:
> > On 5/19/2022 3:22 PM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
> >> On 5/19/22 13:49, Simon Clubley wrote:
> >>> On 2022-05-19, Bill Gunshannon <bill.gu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> On 5/12/22 17:03, Jan-Erik Söderholm wrote:
> >>>>> The roadmap still has "full support for HPE DL380" for 9.2-x.
> >>>>
> >>>> Ah yes, lets continue to rely on the company we have despised for
> >>>> so long because of their unreliability. That bodes well.
> >>>
> >>> They had to pick _a_ server for their initial hardware target.
> >>>
> >>> Which one would you have suggested instead ?
> >>
> >> No idea as I am not in the market and it is a rapidly moving
> >> target. I was just pointing out the fact that for years now
> >> people here have considered HPE the enemy but they kinda want
> >> to still put money in their pocket.
> >
> > Well, it really sucks when all your options are poor to bad options.
> >
> > Sometimes one must sort the options, and pick the least poor one. From
> > my perspective, which is way back in the cheap seats, HPe produces some
> > reasonable x86 server systems.
> Yes.
>
> It had to be a brand name so HPE or Dell.
>
> VSI got a business relationship with HPE so HPE.
>
> It had to be a widely used model at an appropriate
> mid size. DL380 seems like a fine choice.
>
> Arne

Fully-loaded DL380 G10 (even without Plus) is probably bigger than anything VMS
was ever running on, both in terms of memory size and in terms of # of cores/threads.
In bare metal scenario I would expect surprising scalability hazards.
Also, DL380 is more expensive than it really worth.

If I had to pick one HP server model for bare-metal support and if it had to be Intel-based,
I'd likely go for smaller gear. I.e. by now DL20 Gen 10.

On 5/20/2022 11:43 AM, Michael S wrote:
> On Friday, May 20, 2022 at 2:48:50 AM UTC+3, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>> On 5/19/2022 4:58 PM, Dave Froble wrote:
>>> On 5/19/2022 3:22 PM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>>>> On 5/19/22 13:49, Simon Clubley wrote:
>>>>> On 2022-05-19, Bill Gunshannon <bill.gu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/12/22 17:03, Jan-Erik Söderholm wrote:
>>>>>>> The roadmap still has "full support for HPE DL380" for 9.2-x.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ah yes, lets continue to rely on the company we have despised for
>>>>>> so long because of their unreliability. That bodes well.
>>>>>
>>>>> They had to pick _a_ server for their initial hardware target.
>>>>>
>>>>> Which one would you have suggested instead ?
>>>>
>>>> No idea as I am not in the market and it is a rapidly moving
>>>> target. I was just pointing out the fact that for years now
>>>> people here have considered HPE the enemy but they kinda want
>>>> to still put money in their pocket.
>>>
>>> Well, it really sucks when all your options are poor to bad options.
>>>
>>> Sometimes one must sort the options, and pick the least poor one. From
>>> my perspective, which is way back in the cheap seats, HPe produces some
>>> reasonable x86 server systems.
>> Yes.
>>
>> It had to be a brand name so HPE or Dell.
>>
>> VSI got a business relationship with HPE so HPE.
>>
>> It had to be a widely used model at an appropriate
>> mid size. DL380 seems like a fine choice.
>
> Fully-loaded DL380 G10 (even without Plus) is probably bigger than anything VMS
> was ever running on, both in terms of memory size and in terms of # of cores/threads.
> In bare metal scenario I would expect surprising scalability hazards.
> Also, DL380 is more expensive than it really worth.
>
> If I had to pick one HP server model for bare-metal support and if it had to be Intel-based,
> I'd likely go for smaller gear. I.e. by now DL20 Gen 10.

I thought DL380 was starting around 5 K$. Which is not an unreasonable
starting point for a VMS system.

But yes - they may be more powerful than last Itanium's that are
really an decade old design.

A DL20 is the "DS10L lookalike" starting around 2 K$ right?

Arne

On Friday, May 20, 2022 at 6:49:33 PM UTC+3, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
> On 5/20/2022 11:43 AM, Michael S wrote:
> > On Friday, May 20, 2022 at 2:48:50 AM UTC+3, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
> >> On 5/19/2022 4:58 PM, Dave Froble wrote:
> >>> On 5/19/2022 3:22 PM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
> >>>> On 5/19/22 13:49, Simon Clubley wrote:
> >>>>> On 2022-05-19, Bill Gunshannon <bill.gu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>> On 5/12/22 17:03, Jan-Erik Söderholm wrote:
> >>>>>>> The roadmap still has "full support for HPE DL380" for 9.2-x.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Ah yes, lets continue to rely on the company we have despised for
> >>>>>> so long because of their unreliability. That bodes well.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> They had to pick _a_ server for their initial hardware target.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Which one would you have suggested instead ?
> >>>>
> >>>> No idea as I am not in the market and it is a rapidly moving
> >>>> target. I was just pointing out the fact that for years now
> >>>> people here have considered HPE the enemy but they kinda want
> >>>> to still put money in their pocket.
> >>>
> >>> Well, it really sucks when all your options are poor to bad options.
> >>>
> >>> Sometimes one must sort the options, and pick the least poor one. From
> >>> my perspective, which is way back in the cheap seats, HPe produces some
> >>> reasonable x86 server systems.
> >> Yes.
> >>
> >> It had to be a brand name so HPE or Dell.
> >>
> >> VSI got a business relationship with HPE so HPE.
> >>
> >> It had to be a widely used model at an appropriate
> >> mid size. DL380 seems like a fine choice.
> >
> > Fully-loaded DL380 G10 (even without Plus) is probably bigger than anything VMS
> > was ever running on, both in terms of memory size and in terms of # of cores/threads.
> > In bare metal scenario I would expect surprising scalability hazards.
> > Also, DL380 is more expensive than it really worth.
> >
> > If I had to pick one HP server model for bare-metal support and if it had to be Intel-based,
> > I'd likely go for smaller gear. I.e. by now DL20 Gen 10.
> I thought DL380 was starting around 5 K$. Which is not an unreasonable
> starting point for a VMS system.
>
> But yes - they may be more powerful than last Itanium's that are
> really an decade old design.

They, may be, not much more powerful than biggest Itanium Superdome
of the latest generation, may be, even somewhat less powerful in some aspects,
but, according to my understanding, VMS never was capable to run on
fully-loaded Superdome on bare metal. Only in VM.
And I'd guess that there were reasons.

>
> A DL20 is the "DS10L lookalike" starting around 2 K$ right?

I don't know what exactly was DS10L.
Would guess that it was much much smaller than DL20 in terms
of capacity and a little higher up in terms of market positioning.
But top DL20 is something VMS certainly can handle.
And the HW is a lot simpler than DL380. Also, support for DL20
would mean that in practice VMS wil run on plenty of Intel-based
desktop computers that are very similar to DL20 in terms of HW.
Which would be nice for developers even if VSI does not support
these machines officially.

>
> Arne

Den 2022-05-20 kl. 18:23, skrev Michael S:
> On Friday, May 20, 2022 at 6:49:33 PM UTC+3, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>> On 5/20/2022 11:43 AM, Michael S wrote:
>>> On Friday, May 20, 2022 at 2:48:50 AM UTC+3, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>>> On 5/19/2022 4:58 PM, Dave Froble wrote:
>>>>> On 5/19/2022 3:22 PM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/19/22 13:49, Simon Clubley wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2022-05-19, Bill Gunshannon <bill.gu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 5/12/22 17:03, Jan-Erik Söderholm wrote:
>>>>>>>>> The roadmap still has "full support for HPE DL380" for 9.2-x.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Ah yes, lets continue to rely on the company we have despised for
>>>>>>>> so long because of their unreliability. That bodes well.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> They had to pick _a_ server for their initial hardware target.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Which one would you have suggested instead ?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No idea as I am not in the market and it is a rapidly moving
>>>>>> target. I was just pointing out the fact that for years now
>>>>>> people here have considered HPE the enemy but they kinda want
>>>>>> to still put money in their pocket.
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, it really sucks when all your options are poor to bad options.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sometimes one must sort the options, and pick the least poor one. From
>>>>> my perspective, which is way back in the cheap seats, HPe produces some
>>>>> reasonable x86 server systems.
>>>> Yes.
>>>>
>>>> It had to be a brand name so HPE or Dell.
>>>>
>>>> VSI got a business relationship with HPE so HPE.
>>>>
>>>> It had to be a widely used model at an appropriate
>>>> mid size. DL380 seems like a fine choice.
>>>
>>> Fully-loaded DL380 G10 (even without Plus) is probably bigger than anything VMS
>>> was ever running on, both in terms of memory size and in terms of # of cores/threads.
>>> In bare metal scenario I would expect surprising scalability hazards.
>>> Also, DL380 is more expensive than it really worth.
>>>
>>> If I had to pick one HP server model for bare-metal support and if it had to be Intel-based,
>>> I'd likely go for smaller gear. I.e. by now DL20 Gen 10.
>> I thought DL380 was starting around 5 K$. Which is not an unreasonable
>> starting point for a VMS system.
>>
>> But yes - they may be more powerful than last Itanium's that are
>> really an decade old design.
>
> They, may be, not much more powerful than biggest Itanium Superdome
> of the latest generation, may be, even somewhat less powerful in some aspects,
> but, according to my understanding, VMS never was capable to run on
> fully-loaded Superdome on bare metal. Only in VM.
> And I'd guess that there were reasons.
>
>>
>> A DL20 is the "DS10L lookalike" starting around 2 K$ right?
>
> I don't know what exactly was DS10L.
> Would guess that it was much much smaller than DL20 in terms
> of capacity and a little higher up in terms of market positioning.
> But top DL20 is something VMS certainly can handle.
> And the HW is a lot simpler than DL380. Also, support for DL20
> would mean that in practice VMS wil run on plenty of Intel-based
> desktop computers that are very similar to DL20 in terms of HW.
> Which would be nice for developers even if VSI does not support
> these machines officially.
>

On the desktop I expect that a VM work better. Then you still
have your usual "office" environment there also.

And desptop systems are probably not the best for a "server".

>>
>> Arne

On 05/20/22 17:28, Jan-Erik Söderholm wrote:
> Den 2022-05-20 kl. 18:23, skrev Michael S:
>> On Friday, May 20, 2022 at 6:49:33 PM UTC+3, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>> On 5/20/2022 11:43 AM, Michael S wrote:
>>>> On Friday, May 20, 2022 at 2:48:50 AM UTC+3, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>>>> On 5/19/2022 4:58 PM, Dave Froble wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/19/2022 3:22 PM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 5/19/22 13:49, Simon Clubley wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2022-05-19, Bill Gunshannon <bill.gu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 5/12/22 17:03, Jan-Erik Söderholm wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> The roadmap still has "full support for HPE DL380" for 9.2-x.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Ah yes, lets continue to rely on the company we have despised for
>>>>>>>>> so long because of their unreliability. That bodes well.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> They had to pick _a_ server for their initial hardware target.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Which one would you have suggested instead ?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No idea as I am not in the market and it is a rapidly moving
>>>>>>> target. I was just pointing out the fact that for years now
>>>>>>> people here have considered HPE the enemy but they kinda want
>>>>>>> to still put money in their pocket.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Well, it really sucks when all your options are poor to bad options.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sometimes one must sort the options, and pick the least poor one.
>>>>>> From
>>>>>> my perspective, which is way back in the cheap seats, HPe produces
>>>>>> some
>>>>>> reasonable x86 server systems.
>>>>> Yes.
>>>>>
>>>>> It had to be a brand name so HPE or Dell.
>>>>>
>>>>> VSI got a business relationship with HPE so HPE.
>>>>>
>>>>> It had to be a widely used model at an appropriate
>>>>> mid size. DL380 seems like a fine choice.
>>>>
>>>> Fully-loaded DL380 G10 (even without Plus) is probably bigger than
>>>> anything VMS
>>>> was ever running on, both in terms of memory size and in terms of #
>>>> of cores/threads.
>>>> In bare metal scenario I would expect surprising scalability hazards.
>>>> Also, DL380 is more expensive than it really worth.
>>>>
>>>> If I had to pick one HP server model for bare-metal support and if
>>>> it had to be Intel-based,
>>>> I'd likely go for smaller gear. I.e. by now DL20 Gen 10.
>>> I thought DL380 was starting around 5 K$. Which is not an unreasonable
>>> starting point for a VMS system.
>>>
>>> But yes - they may be more powerful than last Itanium's that are
>>> really an decade old design.
>>
>> They, may be, not much more powerful than biggest Itanium Superdome
>> of the latest generation, may be, even somewhat less powerful in some
>> aspects,
>> but, according to my understanding, VMS never was capable to run on
>> fully-loaded Superdome on bare metal. Only in VM.
>> And I'd guess that there were reasons.
>>
>>>
>>> A DL20 is the "DS10L lookalike" starting around 2 K$ right?
>>
>> I don't know what exactly was DS10L.
>> Would guess that it was much much smaller than DL20 in terms
>> of capacity and a little higher up in terms of market positioning.
>> But top DL20 is something VMS certainly can handle.
>> And the HW is a lot simpler than DL380. Also, support for DL20
>> would mean that in practice VMS wil run on plenty of Intel-based
>> desktop computers that are very similar to DL20 in terms of HW.
>> Which would be nice for developers even if VSI does not support
>> these machines officially.
>>
>
> On the desktop I expect that a VM work better. Then you still
> have your usual "office" environment there also.
>
> And desptop systems are probably not the best for a "server".
>
>
>
>
>>>
>>> Arne
>

The dl two digit are generally the low end Proliants. The DL320,
DL360 abd DL380 are more the industry standard types, with
a very wide range of options. That's rack mount, but for deskside,
the MLxxx series apply and have more card slots and other options.
There are others, but they are the mainstream types. Still using
G8 series here, as a sweet spot price wise, but iirc, were the last
series that included a traditional bios, whereas from G9 onwards,
the only bios available is uefi.

Have used Proliants here for decades, mainly DL360 (1U) and DL380
(2U) and are well built with solid reliability. One of the primary
reasons why HP wanted to buy Compaq. Consistent construction and
manageability throughout the range...

Chris

On 5/20/2022 12:23 PM, Michael S wrote:
> On Friday, May 20, 2022 at 6:49:33 PM UTC+3, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>> A DL20 is the "DS10L lookalike" starting around 2 K$ right?
>
> I don't know what exactly was DS10L.

Low height rack mounted Alpha.

https://people.freebsd.org/~wilko/Alpha-gallery/DS10L/dcp_0589.jpg

> Would guess that it was much much smaller than DL20 in terms
> of capacity and a little higher up in terms of market positioning.
>
> But top DL20 is something VMS certainly can handle.
> And the HW is a lot simpler than DL380. Also, support for DL20
> would mean that in practice VMS wil run on plenty of Intel-based
> desktop computers that are very similar to DL20 in terms of HW.
> Which would be nice for developers even if VSI does not support
> these machines officially.

I would expect practically all developers to use VM.

Arne

On 5/20/2022 12:50 PM, chris wrote:
> The dl two digit  are generally the low end Proliants. The DL320,
> DL360 abd DL380 are more the industry standard types, with
> a very wide range of options. That's rack mount, but for deskside,
> the MLxxx series apply and have more card slots and other options.
> There are others, but they are the mainstream types. Still using
> G8 series here, as a sweet spot price wise, but iirc, were the last
> series that included a  traditional bios, whereas from G9 onwards,
> the only bios available is uefi.
>
> Have used Proliants here for decades, mainly DL360 (1U) and DL380
> (2U) and are well built with solid reliability. One of the primary
> reasons why HP wanted to buy Compaq. Consistent construction and
> manageability throughout the range...

So you like the choice of DL380 as first supported physical?

Arne

On 05/20/22 18:05, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
> On 5/20/2022 12:50 PM, chris wrote:
>> The dl two digit are generally the low end Proliants. The DL320,
>> DL360 abd DL380 are more the industry standard types, with
>> a very wide range of options. That's rack mount, but for deskside,
>> the MLxxx series apply and have more card slots and other options.
>> There are others, but they are the mainstream types. Still using
>> G8 series here, as a sweet spot price wise, but iirc, were the last
>> series that included a traditional bios, whereas from G9 onwards,
>> the only bios available is uefi.
>>
>> Have used Proliants here for decades, mainly DL360 (1U) and DL380
>> (2U) and are well built with solid reliability. One of the primary
>> reasons why HP wanted to buy Compaq. Consistent construction and
>> manageability throughout the range...
>
> So you like the choice of DL380 as first supported physical?
>
> Arne
>

Have no experience of the G9 and up series, but they will be
just an incremental development of the range. There is a lot
of built in capability in DL380. One or two multicore processors.
Memory is all ECC with iirc, interleaving and other modes, loads
of memory slots. Smart array sas / sata controllers, with 8 x 2.5"
disk backplane. Dual power supplies, up to 6 io slots and a bios
with pages of options. Easy to setup for remote ilom access,
just setup a network address and point a browser at it. Remote and
local aided provisioning within the bios. Oh yes, 4 network ports
standard, as well as dedicated ilom network port + usual serial
and usb ports. Check out the quickspecs on the hp site to get an
idea of what's available.

Yes, do like Proliant. Quite often have to setup offbeat or test
machines and nothing gets in the way of doing that. Don't work
for them, but as an engineer, do appreciate properly sorted,
well engineered systems, one of the things that we used to
respect about DEC...

Chris

On Thursday, May 19, 2022 at 11:33:40 PM UTC-7, David Wade wrote:
> These days I would say HP is the best of a bad bunch. The realistic
> alternatives? Well DELL who change specs at the drop of a hat, and
> Lenovo who kind of carried on from IBM so totally Chinese?

Lenovo's pretty good at making PCs. I fully understand and support IBM offloading their x86 business, because it wasn't going to generate sufficient profit margins for IBM's sales-heavy business model. They've been focusing completely on mainframes and POWER-based systems and it seems to be working out well for them. Other divisions IBM has offloaded include POS systems (to Toshiba), and hard drives (to Hitachi).

I own a Lenovo Ideacentre that I bought from Best Buy and upgraded, and more recently I bought a custom Lenovo ThinkStation P340 Tower with exactly the specs I wanted, including the fastest CPU available and two RS-232 serial ports (the extra ports cost $5 to add, and the entire PC was discounted by 42%). Made in Mexico (presumably to avoid tariffs). No complaints at all, except that I had to manually upgrade it to Ubuntu 22.04 LTS because they hadn't flipped the switch on the OEM-supported pre-installed Ubuntu 20.04 to make the update available.

The first Lenovo came with Windows 10, and the keyboard and other components are lower quality than the new Lenovo. They are built to a price, after all. My new Lenovo came with Ubuntu 20.04 LTS and I saved $300+ compared to buying it with Windows 10 Pro for Workstations, which the custom build web page said would be required if I wanted to use Windows with the Xeon CPU that I ordered. No extra charge to run Ubuntu on server-grade Intel and AMD CPUs.

Regards,
Jake

On 2022-05-19 23:48:40 +0000, Arne Vajhj said:

> It had to be a brand name so HPE or Dell.

I've suggested SuperMicro as an alternative to HPE and Dell, and with a
very large selection of servers.

--
Pure Personal Opinion | HoffmanLabs LLC

On 5/20/2022 4:41 PM, Stephen Hoffman wrote:
> On 2022-05-19 23:48:40 +0000, Arne Vajhj said:
>> It had to be a brand name so HPE or Dell.
>
> I've suggested SuperMicro as an alternative to HPE and Dell, and with a
> very large selection of servers.

They sell a lot of servers.

Their servers may be just as good as what HPE and Dell sells.

But I don't think they have the brand name that at least some
VMS shops may require.

Arne

On 05/21/22 00:25, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
> On 5/20/2022 4:41 PM, Stephen Hoffman wrote:
>> On 2022-05-19 23:48:40 +0000, Arne Vajhj said:
>>> It had to be a brand name so HPE or Dell.
>>
>> I've suggested SuperMicro as an alternative to HPE and Dell, and with
>> a very large selection of servers.
>
> They sell a lot of servers.
>
> Their servers may be just as good as what HPE and Dell sells.
>
> But I don't think they have the brand name that at least some
> VMS shops may require.
>
> Arne
>

There was also the report in the Register and elsewhere about
the possibility of management processors that reported back
to China. Just the possibility of spyware in hardware would
make me think twice about using such machines.

With engineer hat on, always found Dell to be a bit lightweight,
but IBM also make a 1 and 2U server platforms and most IBM kit
is very well engineered. Always interested in build quality
and what's under the hood here, as it's assumed that most major
vendor's kit will run all windows server and Linux distros
without serious issues...

Chris

On 5/21/22 07:25, chris wrote:
> On 05/21/22 00:25, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>> On 5/20/2022 4:41 PM, Stephen Hoffman wrote:
>>> On 2022-05-19 23:48:40 +0000, Arne Vajhj said:
>>>> It had to be a brand name so HPE or Dell.
>>>
>>> I've suggested SuperMicro as an alternative to HPE and Dell, and with
>>> a very large selection of servers.
>>
>> They sell a lot of servers.
>>
>> Their servers may be just as good as what HPE and Dell sells.
>>
>> But I don't think they have the brand name that at least some
>> VMS shops may require.
>>
>> Arne
>>
>
> There was also the report in the Register and elsewhere about
> the possibility of management processors that reported back
> to China. Just the possibility of spyware in hardware would
> make me think twice about using such machines.

One would hope by now that people have learned to keep production
systems isolated from the internet. That keeps them from reporting
back. :-) If nothing else, monitoring by your competent network
people :-) would identify this and it could be blocked at the firewall.

>
> With engineer hat on, always found Dell to be a bit lightweight,
> but IBM also make a 1 and 2U server platforms and most IBM kit
> is very well engineered. Always interested in build quality
> and what's under the hood here, as it's assumed that most major
> vendor's kit will run all windows server and Linux distros
> without serious issues...

If I were still doing this and had the money I would go with IBM
any day. Unless it turns out they, too, are made in China. At
that point all bets are off. We had a problem with Lenovo laptops
back in 2007 where there was a claim that they reported their
locations back to somewhere in China. Being DOD we were not happy
with that possibility and, true or not, it probably cost Lenovo
a lot of business.

bill

In article <jes6g6Fckl0U1@mid.individual.net>, bill.gunshannon@gmail.com
(Bill Gunshannon) wrote:

> If I were still doing this and had the money I would go with IBM
> any day. Unless it turns out they, too, are made in China. At
> that point all bets are off.

The last time I bought low-end POWER servers from IBM, they were made in
China. So I think you can expect anything x86-based to come from there
too.

John