A small form factor box like this would be a good platform for OpenVMS in a wide variety of customer and developer contexts. Using it as a VM host would be a good starting point Some complexity would be reduced by direct support for bare hardware operation.

https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2022/06/leak-of-next-gen-intel-nuc-combines-a-12th-gen-cpu-with-intels-discrete-arc-gpu/

On Monday, June 27, 2022 at 7:44:36 AM UTC-4, geze...@rlgsc.com wrote:
> A small form factor box like this would be a good platform for OpenVMS in a wide variety of customer and developer contexts. Using it as a VM host would be a good starting point Some complexity would be reduced by direct support for bare hardware operation.
>
> https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2022/06/leak-of-next-gen-intel-nuc-combines-a-12th-gen-cpu-with-intels-discrete-arc-gpu/
Yikes $1400 with old graphics?!?!

And I keep hearing the Three Stooges saying "Nyuk, nyuk, nyuk".

On 6/27/22 1:58 PM, John Reagan wrote:
> Yikes $1400 with old graphics?!?!

That's got to be the new model.

I've purchased Intel NUCs for < $500 before from Micro Center.

--
Grant. . . .
unix || die

On Monday, June 27, 2022 at 3:58:57 PM UTC-4, xyzz...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, June 27, 2022 at 7:44:36 AM UTC-4, geze...@rlgsc.com wrote:
> > A small form factor box like this would be a good platform for OpenVMS in a wide variety of customer and developer contexts. Using it as a VM host would be a good starting point Some complexity would be reduced by direct support for bare hardware operation.
> >
> > https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2022/06/leak-of-next-gen-intel-nuc-combines-a-12th-gen-cpu-with-intels-discrete-arc-gpu/
> Yikes $1400 with old graphics?!?!
>
> And I keep hearing the Three Stooges saying "Nyuk, nyuk, nyuk".
Given the application, the graphics processor is way overpowered for the majority of applications. In present OpenVMS contexts, the GPU is not particularly helpful.

Getting a NUC without the GPU would be more expensive than just letting the GPU be idle.

Could be used for an onsite nano server farm.

- Bob Gezelter, http://www.rlgsc.com

On 2022-06-27 11:44:33 +0000, Bob Gezelter said:

> A small form factor box like this would be a good platform for OpenVMS
> in a wide variety of customer and developer contexts. Using it as a VM
> host would be a good starting point Some complexity would be reduced by
> direct support for bare hardware operation.

I've been looking at NUCs for a while, and I'm not really sure who
Intel is targeting with those.

For most* developers, I'd expect it'll be hypervisor guests, probably
running on whatever other x86-64-based system the developer is already
using as their main client.

Particularly as the hypervisor setup docs become available and
established for OpenVMS guests.

Whether that hypervisor might be VMware (particularly given the
Broadcom subscription licensing changes) or one of the other
hypervisors?

For production servers needing small server boxes with Xeon D and Xeon
E processors:
https://www.supermicro.com/en/products/embedded/mini-tower

SuperServer 5028L-TN2 is analogous to the HPE ProLiant MicroServer boxes.
https://www.supermicro.com/en/products/system/midtower/5028/sys-5028l-tn2.cfm
https://buy.hpe.com/us/en/servers/proliant-microserver/c/4237916

For those other folks seeking small (cheap, and variously used)
bottom-end server boxes for developers in the general range of Intel
NUC, see this project:
Systems: https://www.servethehome.com/tag/tinyminimicro/
Overview:
https://www.servethehome.com/introducing-project-tinyminimicro-home-lab-revolution/

Usual issue with all of these choices is figuring out which combination
of processor and server hardware is supported by OpenVMS, or the costs
and risk of buying one and testing it yourself.

*This excluding PH, and any others here preferring to running OpenVMS
native boot, and not already running Windows, Mac, Linux, etc., as
their desktop.

ps: CivetWeb and Lua updates just out from VSI.

--
Pure Personal Opinion | HoffmanLabs LLC

On 27/06/2022 12:44, Bob Gezelter wrote:
> A small form factor box like this would be a good platform for OpenVMS in a wide variety of customer and developer contexts. Using it as a VM host would be a good starting point Some complexity would be reduced by direct support for bare hardware operation.
>
> https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2022/06/leak-of-next-gen-intel-nuc-combines-a-12th-gen-cpu-with-intels-discrete-arc-gpu/

Why this particular product for this particular market sector? As Hoff
and others have noted, the Intel-badged NUC product family has long
seemed like a product looking for a niche.

Other x86-64 offerings might be a better fit at more sensible prices for
those still chained to the Wintel deadweight.The Proliant Microserver
family may be worth a look. Yes I know it's HPe, but names like
SuperMicro might not be everybody's choice either, and Apple seemingly
have no official interest in this kind of market.

One word of caution: HPe's Gen10 Plus Microserver has seemingly reverted
to Intel rather than AMD/Opteron/etc, with some corresponding negatives
in price and functionality.

Possible further reading:
https://www.itpro.co.uk/infrastructure/server-storage/358198/hpe-proliant-microserver-gen10-plus-review-pint-sized

https://www.servethehome.com/hpe-proliant-microserver-gen10-review/

On 2022-06-29 09:03:14 +0000, John Wallace said:

> ...and Apple seemingly have no official interest in this kind of market.

Apple is exiting the Intel x86-64 market, with few Intel x86-64 boxes
still offered in the current Mac product line: Mac Pro with Intel, and
one model of mini with Intel.

With Apple silicon Armv8-A boxes, the Mac mini (non-Intel models) is in
this same range as NUC, and Mac Studio is slightly above this product
range.

The Mac mini Intel x86-64 config and other Intel x86-64 Macs will
likely work with OpenVMS via hypervisor, not that I'd suggest
purchasing Mac with Intel x86-64 at this juncture.

Whether OpenVMS might boot on Apple silicon under UTM QEMU? Donno. Not
expecting a VSI OpenVMS native port to Armv9-A this decade, nor to
RISC-V next.

--
Pure Personal Opinion | HoffmanLabs LLC

> The Mac mini Intel x86-64 config and other Intel x86-64 Macs will
> likely work with OpenVMS via hypervisor, [...]

On a Mac Pro (Late 2013), running macOS Monterey / Version 12.4:

V86 $ show system /noproc
OpenVMS E9.2 on node V86 30-JUN-2022 17:49:39.56 Uptime 24 03:33:12

V86 $ show cpu

System: V86, VMware, Inc. VMware7,1

CPU ownership sets:
Active 0,1
Configure 0,1
[...]

That's using:

VMware Fusion Player
Version 12.2.3 (19436697)
Licensed for non-commercial use only.

Configuring the network interface required an excursion beyond the
usual documentation, but nothing extremely exotic.

In article <t9ktg4$20e7o$1@dont-email.me>,
Stephen Hoffman <seaohveh@hoffmanlabs.invalid> wrote:
>On 2022-06-29 09:03:14 +0000, John Wallace said:
>
>> ...and Apple seemingly have no official interest in this kind of market.
>
>Apple is exiting the Intel x86-64 market, with few Intel x86-64 boxes
>still offered in the current Mac product line: Mac Pro with Intel, and
>one model of mini with Intel.
>
>With Apple silicon Armv8-A boxes, the Mac mini (non-Intel models) is in
>this same range as NUC, and Mac Studio is slightly above this product
>range.
>
>The Mac mini Intel x86-64 config and other Intel x86-64 Macs will
>likely work with OpenVMS via hypervisor, not that I'd suggest
>purchasing Mac with Intel x86-64 at this juncture.
>
>Whether OpenVMS might boot on Apple silicon under UTM QEMU? Donno. Not
>expecting a VSI OpenVMS native port to Armv9-A this decade, nor to
>RISC-V next.

That seems short-sighted. If I were VSI, I'd take the opportunity
to support x86_64, Aarch64 and RISC-V as an opportunity to clean up
and modernize the VMS source base and make it truly portable. Each
ISA could be supported under a hypervisor; VMS on bare metal seems
like mostly a dead end.

- Dan C.

On 7/1/2022 7:31 PM, Dan Cross wrote:
> In article <t9ktg4$20e7o$1@dont-email.me>,
> Stephen Hoffman <seaohveh@hoffmanlabs.invalid> wrote:
>> Whether OpenVMS might boot on Apple silicon under UTM QEMU? Donno. Not
>> expecting a VSI OpenVMS native port to Armv9-A this decade, nor to
>> RISC-V next.
>
> That seems short-sighted. If I were VSI, I'd take the opportunity
> to support x86_64, Aarch64 and RISC-V as an opportunity to clean up
> and modernize the VMS source base and make it truly portable. Each
> ISA could be supported under a hypervisor; VMS on bare metal seems
> like mostly a dead end.

VMS has just been ported to its fourth architecture. Not sure how
much portability the fifth and sixth will add.

But in the end it is about money. Porting to a new architecture
cost money - a lot of money (at least a lot of money for a company
the size of VSI). And the market for ARM and RISC-V servers are
still microscopic compared to x86-64. Difficult to see the
business case today. Could ARM and RISC-V servers become more
common in the future? Maybe! Would VMS customers be
interested in those? Maybe! If that happens then VSI would
need to evaluate if/when to port.

I don't think Hoff is ruling such ports out. But he knows
the current market situation and he knows that the VMS x86-64
port took 8 years (from announcement to the release of 9.2).

Arne

On 07/02/22 01:49, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
> On 7/1/2022 7:31 PM, Dan Cross wrote:
>> In article <t9ktg4$20e7o$1@dont-email.me>,
>> Stephen Hoffman <seaohveh@hoffmanlabs.invalid> wrote:
>>> Whether OpenVMS might boot on Apple silicon under UTM QEMU? Donno. Not
>>> expecting a VSI OpenVMS native port to Armv9-A this decade, nor to
>>> RISC-V next.
>>
>> That seems short-sighted. If I were VSI, I'd take the opportunity
>> to support x86_64, Aarch64 and RISC-V as an opportunity to clean up
>> and modernize the VMS source base and make it truly portable. Each
>> ISA could be supported under a hypervisor; VMS on bare metal seems
>> like mostly a dead end.
>
> VMS has just been ported to its fourth architecture. Not sure how
> much portability the fifth and sixth will add.
>
> But in the end it is about money. Porting to a new architecture
> cost money - a lot of money (at least a lot of money for a company
> the size of VSI). And the market for ARM and RISC-V servers are
> still microscopic compared to x86-64. Difficult to see the
> business case today. Could ARM and RISC-V servers become more
> common in the future? Maybe! Would VMS customers be
> interested in those? Maybe! If that happens then VSI would
> need to evaluate if/when to port.
>
> I don't think Hoff is ruling such ports out. But he knows
> the current market situation and he knows that the VMS x86-64
> port took 8 years (from announcement to the release of 9.2).
>
> Arne
>

HP are just about to release a Proliant class server on multicore
arm, which will probably be competitive on price compared to X86.
Looks interesting, as arm base servers have never achieved critical
mass, but that could change with commodity machines like the RL380.

https://www.nextplatform.com/2022/06/29/hpe-is-the-first-big-oem-to-adopt-ampere-computing-arm-chips/

RiscV laptops soon as well, so starting to get interesting again...

Chris

In article <t9rtod$kfv$1@gioia.aioe.org>, chris-nospam@tridac.net (chris)
wrote:

> HP are just about to release a Proliant class server on multicore
> arm, which will probably be competitive on price compared to X86.
> Looks interesting, as arm base servers have never achieved critical
> mass, but that could change with commodity machines like the RL380.
>
> https://www.nextplatform.com/2022/06/29/hpe-is-the-first-big-oem-to-
> adopt-ampere-computing-arm-chips/
>
> RiscV laptops soon as well, so starting to get interesting again...

ARM64 servers have significant traction in cloud services. I ported the
mathematical modeller that I work on to ARM Linux late last year, because
some customers want to run it on Amazon Cloud. When you have datacentres
on the Amazon scale, cooling them becomes a major problem. The better
performance-per-watt of ARM has seen Amazon design and deploy three
generations of their "Graviton" cores for their own use.

They get people to use ARM-based cores by simply charging less money for
them per hour. They also charge less for running their own Linux than
they do for running RHEL or SLES. A lot of what gets run on those ARM
cores is Python, Java, Javascript, or other languages that don't need
specialised software ported to ARM, but people are starting to do that
porting.

/If/ VMS becomes popular in cloud-based deployments, expect customer
demand for an ARM64 version quite rapidly. This should be easier than the
x86 port, because LLVM is fully available on ARM, and not much in the way
of new methods will need to be created.

John

On 7/3/2022 8:13 AM, John Dallman wrote:
> In article <t9rtod$kfv$1@gioia.aioe.org>, chris-nospam@tridac.net (chris)
> wrote:
>> HP are just about to release a Proliant class server on multicore
>> arm, which will probably be competitive on price compared to X86.
>> Looks interesting, as arm base servers have never achieved critical
>> mass, but that could change with commodity machines like the RL380.
>>
>> https://www.nextplatform.com/2022/06/29/hpe-is-the-first-big-oem-to-
>> adopt-ampere-computing-arm-chips/
>>
>> RiscV laptops soon as well, so starting to get interesting again...
>
> ARM64 servers have significant traction in cloud services. I ported the
> mathematical modeller that I work on to ARM Linux late last year, because
> some customers want to run it on Amazon Cloud. When you have datacentres
> on the Amazon scale, cooling them becomes a major problem. The better
> performance-per-watt of ARM has seen Amazon design and deploy three
> generations of their "Graviton" cores for their own use.
>
> They get people to use ARM-based cores by simply charging less money for
> them per hour. They also charge less for running their own Linux than
> they do for running RHEL or SLES. A lot of what gets run on those ARM
> cores is Python, Java, Javascript, or other languages that don't need
> specialised software ported to ARM, but people are starting to do that
> porting.
>
> /If/ VMS becomes popular in cloud-based deployments, expect customer
> demand for an ARM64 version quite rapidly. This should be easier than the
> x86 port, because LLVM is fully available on ARM, and not much in the way
> of new methods will need to be created.

It is absolutely possible that ARM and RISC-V becomes huge
in server market.

ARM is already making some inroads. But there has also been talk
about ARM for servers for many many years. It is not moving so fast.

And VSI cannot afford to invest in a port to a platform that does
not become mainstream, so they need to see actual big market share
before jumping on the train.

So let us say that ARM reaches a critical mass in 2024 or 2026. Add
the 8 years and we have 2032 or 2034.

Would it be nice to see a much shorter porting time? Sure. But VSI
is not a company in the DEC/CPQ/HP/HPE size.

Arne

On 07/03/22 20:24, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
> On 7/3/2022 8:13 AM, John Dallman wrote:
>> In article <t9rtod$kfv$1@gioia.aioe.org>, chris-nospam@tridac.net (chris)
>> wrote:
>>> HP are just about to release a Proliant class server on multicore
>>> arm, which will probably be competitive on price compared to X86.
>>> Looks interesting, as arm base servers have never achieved critical
>>> mass, but that could change with commodity machines like the RL380.
>>>
>>> https://www.nextplatform.com/2022/06/29/hpe-is-the-first-big-oem-to-
>>> adopt-ampere-computing-arm-chips/
>>>
>>> RiscV laptops soon as well, so starting to get interesting again...
>>
>> ARM64 servers have significant traction in cloud services. I ported the
>> mathematical modeller that I work on to ARM Linux late last year, because
>> some customers want to run it on Amazon Cloud. When you have datacentres
>> on the Amazon scale, cooling them becomes a major problem. The better
>> performance-per-watt of ARM has seen Amazon design and deploy three
>> generations of their "Graviton" cores for their own use.
>>
>> They get people to use ARM-based cores by simply charging less money for
>> them per hour. They also charge less for running their own Linux than
>> they do for running RHEL or SLES. A lot of what gets run on those ARM
>> cores is Python, Java, Javascript, or other languages that don't need
>> specialised software ported to ARM, but people are starting to do that
>> porting.
>>
>> /If/ VMS becomes popular in cloud-based deployments, expect customer
>> demand for an ARM64 version quite rapidly. This should be easier than the
>> x86 port, because LLVM is fully available on ARM, and not much in the way
>> of new methods will need to be created.
>
> It is absolutely possible that ARM and RISC-V becomes huge
> in server market.
>
> ARM is already making some inroads. But there has also been talk
> about ARM for servers for many many years. It is not moving so fast.
>
> And VSI cannot afford to invest in a port to a platform that does
> not become mainstream, so they need to see actual big market share
> before jumping on the train.
>
> So let us say that ARM reaches a critical mass in 2024 or 2026. Add
> the 8 years and we have 2032 or 2034.
>
> Would it be nice to see a much shorter porting time? Sure. But VSI
> is not a company in the DEC/CPQ/HP/HPE size.
>
> Arne
>

I just find it refreshing that there will be choices in terms of
processor architectures. X86 in various forms has had an effective
monopoly for far too long now and has inhibited any real progress in
computing. Not suggesting that there could be a return to the vibrant
ecosystems of the 1980's 1990's, but more choice and competition can
only be good for progress. Arm, sysv, let's hope they succeed...

Chris