RE: The Common System Interface: Intel's Future Interconnect

-----Original Message-----
From: Doug Phillips [mailto:dphill46@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: August 30, 2007 5:10 PM
To: Info-VAX@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: The Common System Interface: Intel's Future Interconnect

[snip]


Remember the relative importance to Cust's in terms of both what they
have and what they
need In the future:

1. App = 50-60%
2. OS = 25-35%
3. Server HW - 10-15%

I really didn't want to get into this again, but let's talk about
those numbers. You say "relative importance to Cust's" of the App is
50-60% ?? I say relative importance of the App is 100% and the OS &
hardware (and I include workstations, printers and all other
peripherals and infrastructure) fall into the category of "necessary
evils." Your numbers more closely reflect the rough cost of acquiring
the ability to perform the application.


Lets not get silly here ok?

Very few Cust's run an application by itself. There are OS customizations like batch
jobs, OS security on files, custom reports, DCL scripts (and their equivalent in UNIX
world), ISV customizations in terms of support utilities, pre and post processing jobs,
OS specific backups, data archiving, security auditing etc.

These are all typically heavily integrated with the primary App's. on that system.

When looking at new OS platforms, Cust's understand that these are all considerations
that need to be taken into consideration.

Saying the application priority is 100% is a tad naive.

Platform security, support, reliability, performance and all other OS/
hardware factors effect cost and are certainly important but they are
subordinate to and dependent upon the needs of the application.

You don't buy an application you can't run, and you don't buy a
platform that won't run your application. Before anyone else says it,
I'll say it first: "Duh!"


Never said anything otherwise .. are you trying to make a point in there somewhere?


While #3 gets all sorts of attention in techie newsgroups, in the big
picture,
#1 and #2 are much more important to Cust's. With a massive glut in
available compute
cycles in most Cust's environment today, Cust's are not impressed
with fantastic new
computer speeds that will increase their glut of available compute
cycles even more.

Btw, this applies to all platforms.

Also, keep in mind that there is now a massive trend to consolidating
both servers and
DC's. This is a huge change from the distributed computing designs of
the last 10 years.

Imho, the question that will become increasingly important in the
future - "Can a company
afford OS platforms for their future centralized, very HA strategy
that have "one app,
one OS" App/ISV support cultures...

Well, unless you're considering something like ERP or an office
productivity suite a single app, then I guess I'd disagree.

Server consolidation is happening and will continue to happen, but if
OpenVMS doesn't run the applications that are being consolidated, why
would OpenVMS even be a consideration?


Consolidation within the same platform is what I was referring to. Unless it is a very
simple IT service or application, changing OS Platforms during any server consolidation
initiative raises the risk level from 2-3 to something like 7-8.

The "one app, one OS" scene hasn't played in years. Nobody I can think
of today does that other than on existing older equipment that *will*
be consolidated as equipment is replaced (or for very specialized
applications on special purpose servers that *should* be kept
isolated.)


Again, you have obviously not been in real world Operations or IT environments
for awhile.

Why is VMware so hot? Lots of CPU cycles are available, so Why not take 5-10 Windows
Biz applications and put them on a single Windows OS instance?

Because there is a One App, One OS culture and each group does not want their App
sharing the same OS resources as someone else's. Even if both Apps run on servers that
in their peak times only reach 10-15% CPU utilization. That's reality.

VMware shares are going through the roof right now and this is the absolute
biggest reason why this is happening. [Course, VMware does not actually reduce the
work to maintain all the various OS instances, but that's another discussion.]

and where the OS vendors release 5-20 security patches
per month?"


You really should stop using that argument, too. It's been rebutted in
many previous threads.

Windows and *nix are so much better today vs. the past, in every
aspect, that anyone paying even a little attention can predict that
they will only get better.


[Note that I referred to Linux and Windows, not UNIX]

Please, again your statement reflects only that you likely have an application focus
with little DC Operations experience. And likely one that has been bitten by all the
Linux and Windows hype. And likely not someone who has an environment with hundreds of
Wintel/Linux servers that need security patches every month.

Here is the Linux RH web site for security patches:
https://www.redhat.com/archives/enterprise-watch-list/

Now click on "thread" for each month and go back as many months as you want Each
and every month, there are 5-20 security patches (sometimes many more).

Why not create a graph from 2003-2007 to show how the number of security patches
released each month has gone down? [hint - you won't like the trend]

What's to rebut?

Yes, not every security patch applies to all systems, but most shops have no idea
what all the services their development and production systems are using, and each
readme file on the security patch is often vague (for good reason) as to all of the
associated details around each patch. And many of these one line patch links are bundled
security patches as well.

So, saying the Windows (and Linux) server issues are getting any better is really
laughable and is really only an indication of someone bitten by the hype bug.

Microsoft still also releases numerous security patches each and every month. Here is
a recent example:

http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,2127475,00.asp (May 2007)
Microsoft has released patches for 19 vulnerabilities, 14 of which are critical, hitting
at holes in Excel, Word, Office, Exchange, Internet Explorer, cryptographic technology
and the whopper of them all, the zero-day vulnerability in the DNS Server's use of RPC.

[and yes, you do need explorer on your Windows servers]

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=41698 (August 2007)
SOFTWARE GIANT Microsoft has issued patches for nine security flaws, including six
critical ones.

... "Four of the patches keep hackers from breaking into computers through Web pages and
are rated critical. [snip] The other three updates are rated important and one of them
is for the "super secure" Vista OS."

My advice to Cust's - think like Wayne Gretzky (ok, he's a hockey
player) and the way
He became a great player .. "Do not skate to where the puck is, but
where it will be in
the next play sequence .."

:-)

The puck looks to me like it's still heading towards x86. The article
you reference supports this argument better than most I've read.
Thanks.


Once the hype bug has bitten someone, it is tough to get them back to reality.

Hey, I know what it is like. Back in mid 90's, in addition to being an OpenVMS Ambassador,
I used to also be part of the Digital Windows NT Wizards Program. At that time, there were
many monthly Windows security patches, but even back then the std response was "hey, its
getting better and soon Windows will take over the world.." (ok, even then I did not believe
all of the hype, but the hype bug is tough to shake.)

Regards


Kerry Main
Senior Consultant
HP Services Canada
Voice: 613-592-4660
Fax: 613-591-4477
kerryDOTmainAThpDOTcom
(remove the DOT's and AT)

OpenVMS - the secure, multi-site OS that just works.





.