Discussion:
RDB ?
(too old to reply)
Niels S. Eliasen
2017-01-09 09:39:52 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
hi guys
I was tring to find a newsgroup for RDB .. but none found.. or actually..
there is the comp.databases.rdb .. but that appears to be "sleeping" ...

I wam trying to find some documentation for RDB and some helpful hints
to help me... I have a task where I need to work on and restore an old
RDB database .. so any pointers will be greatly appreciated!


--
kind regards/mvh

Niels S. Eliasen
IanD
2017-01-09 10:33:04 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Oracle still has documentation available

http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/database/database-technologies/rdb/documentation/index.html

How old is the rdb DB you are wanting to restore?

Depending on the version, it might be easier to spin up a virtual environment using a VMS emulator and put rdb on it and attempt a restore that way? Depends on where and in what format the backup is in I guess?

If you have journals involved it gets more complicated but getting a straight rbf restored is the easiest and the complexity increases from there with more options involved

Are you wanting to put the DB back in exactly the same place or parse it through an options file and change things as you restore?

There are some other rdb hint pages floating around in Google land too. Rdb hints or rdb how do I, I think used to find them? It's been a while since I had the pleasure of doing stuff with rdb (I miss it, I've moved to a place that uses RMS only, sob sob sob)
Niels S. Eliasen
2017-01-09 11:00:54 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In comp.os.vms, you wrote:
> Oracle still has documentation available
>
> http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/database/database-technologies/rdb/documentation/index.html
Thanks.... I'll have a look!

>
> How old is the rdb DB you are wanting to restore?
yes.... Waiting for that info!
>
> Depending on the version, it might be easier to spin up a virtual environment using a VMS emulator
> and put rdb on it and attempt a restore that way? Depends on where and in what format the backup is in I guess?
The most likely scenario is restoring, and then try to restore the database
>
> If you have journals involved it gets more complicated but getting a straight rbf restored is
> the easiest and the complexity increases from there with more options involved
still to be determined..
>
> Are you wanting to put the DB back in exactly the same place or parse it through an options
> file and change things as you restore?
restore in exactly the same place, get everything running and then move over to virtual environment
>
> There are some other rdb hint pages floating around in Google land too. Rdb hints or rdb how do I,
> I think used to find them? It's been a while since I had the pleasure of doing stuff with rdb
> (I miss it, I've moved to a place that uses RMS only, sob sob sob)
In that case.. stay tuned and I will ask for help! :-)
>


--
kind regards/mvh

Niels S. Eliasen
Jan-Erik Soderholm
2017-01-09 12:33:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Den 2017-01-09 kl. 10:39, skrev Niels S. Eliasen:
> hi guys
> I was tring to find a newsgroup for RDB .. but none found.. or actually..
> there is the comp.databases.rdb .. but that appears to be "sleeping" ...

There is an active mail list, see:

http://www.jcc.com/resources/oracle-rdb-list-server

>
> I wam trying to find some documentation for RDB and some helpful hints
> to help me... I have a task where I need to work on and restore an old
> RDB database .. so any pointers will be greatly appreciated!
>

You will get much better help on the mail list above than here!

Jan-Erik.
IanD
2017-01-10 00:03:22 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Thanks for the JCC link. I didn't know about that one. I just seem to remember JCC took over training for rdb didn't they? I sort of concluded that with that move oracle had mostly abandoned rdb.

Maybe they want to sell rdb to VSI 😀

Although I don't think rdb is really future trending for VMS?? (Puts on flame suite waiting for responses)
Kerry Main
2017-01-10 01:31:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Info-vax [mailto:info-vax-***@rbnsn.com] On Behalf Of
> IanD via Info-vax
> Sent: January 9, 2017 7:03 PM
> To: info-***@rbnsn.com
> Cc: IanD <***@gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Info-vax] RDB ?
>
> Thanks for the JCC link. I didn't know about that one. I just seem to
> remember JCC took over training for rdb didn't they? I sort of
> concluded that with that move oracle had mostly abandoned rdb.
>
> Maybe they want to sell rdb to VSI 😀
>
> Although I don't think rdb is really future trending for VMS?? (Puts on
> flame suite waiting for responses)
>

Rdb as part of a native fully cluster aware high throughput DB on OpenVMS would be a fantastic acquisition for VSI.

How many discussions have there been here about needing one native DB to address the multitude of different repository files on OpenVMS?

Unfortunately, from what I have heard throughout the years, Oracle makes way to much money on Rdb from high profile Cust's to simply give or sell it for any small amount.

Never know though - can always hope times are changing - especially with Oracle focussing so much on cloud these days.


Regards,

Kerry Main
Kerry dot main at starkgaming dot com
IanD
2017-01-10 02:55:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
So we need current rdb folk to abandon it so oracle dump it and VSI can buy it and run with it
:-)

Failing this, something like postgresql revamped to be cluster aware perhaps?

It already has production acceptance

I seem to remember years ago, MS created Access because vendors needed a DB to help sell their OS, that was of course in the days before people purchased of the self applications

Not having a common DB is going to hurt OpenVMS because porting applications to it will be that much harder but I'm not sure rdb is going to help OpenVMS here. What major application producers out there are interested in putting their data on an rdb engine anyhow?

I think focusing on postgresql with OpenVMS clustering extensions and some type of nosql functionality might win a longer term client base than trying to acquire and enhance rdb

I will be interested to see if oracle will port rdb to vms-x86. I think rdb was almost ported to x86 long ago wasn't it?

Oracle will only bother porting rdb to vms-x86 if they will retain customers or if their existing rdb captive customers threaten to jump ship to something totally different

The times I have experienced rdb staying alive in a cluster versus oracle RAC falling over when you need it, makes rdb well worth it but oracle a company in my opinion is a devil to deal with and I don't trust them further than I could spit on them, so escaping the oracle devil would be high on my list of properties
Arne Vajhøj
2017-01-10 03:37:22 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 1/9/2017 9:55 PM, IanD wrote:
> Failing this, something like postgresql revamped to be cluster aware
> perhaps?

Do you need the cluster awareness?

> It already has production acceptance

MySQL/MariahDB has bigger marketshare.

> Not having a common DB is going to hurt OpenVMS because porting
> applications to it will be that much harder but I'm not sure rdb is
> going to help OpenVMS here. What major application producers out
> there are interested in putting their data on an rdb engine anyhow?

Yep.

> I will be interested to see if oracle will port rdb to vms-x86. I
> think rdb was almost ported to x86 long ago wasn't it?

Some early release of RDB 8.0 for Win32/x86 was released many years
ago.

> The times I have experienced rdb staying alive in a cluster versus
> oracle RAC falling over when you need it, makes rdb well worth it

You don't need active-active to get basic HA.

Arne
Richard Maher
2017-01-10 05:13:24 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 10-Jan-17 11:37 AM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
> On 1/9/2017 9:55 PM, IanD wrote:
>> Failing this, something like postgresql revamped to be cluster aware
>> perhaps?
>
> Do you need the cluster awareness?

Interesting question!

Has the max-node max-distance architecture been superseded?

But isn't there a bottle-neck/single-point of failure with everything else?
Richard Maher
2017-01-10 13:13:52 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 10-Jan-17 1:13 PM, Richard Maher wrote:
> On 10-Jan-17 11:37 AM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>> On 1/9/2017 9:55 PM, IanD wrote:
>>> Failing this, something like postgresql revamped to be cluster aware
>>> perhaps?
>>
>> Do you need the cluster awareness?
>
> Interesting question!
>
> Has the max-node max-distance architecture been superseded?
>
> But isn't there a bottle-neck/single-point of failure with everything else?
>

Is Oracle RAC currently the only Active/Active cluster database offering
on *nix or Windows?
Forster, Michael
2017-01-10 23:57:24 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
MS-SQL should have active-active clusters. I recall seeing option however don't need more than a/p.


Michael Forster
Enterprise Storage and IDX Architect | Information Services
Medical College of Wisconsin
O: (414) 955-4967 | ***@mcw.edu


________________________________________
From: Info-vax <info-vax-***@rbnsn.com> on behalf of Richard Maher via Info-vax <info-***@rbnsn.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2017 7:13:52 AM
To: info-***@rbnsn.com
Cc: Richard Maher
Subject: Re: [Info-vax] Are clusters passe`?

On 10-Jan-17 1:13 PM, Richard Maher wrote:
> On 10-Jan-17 11:37 AM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>> On 1/9/2017 9:55 PM, IanD wrote:
>>> Failing this, something like postgresql revamped to be cluster aware
>>> perhaps?
>>
>> Do you need the cluster awareness?
>
> Interesting question!
>
> Has the max-node max-distance architecture been superseded?
>
> But isn't there a bottle-neck/single-point of failure with everything else?
>

Is Oracle RAC currently the only Active/Active cluster database offering
on *nix or Windows?
Richard Maher
2017-01-11 00:20:53 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 11-Jan-17 7:57 AM, Forster, Michael wrote:
> MS-SQL should have active-active clusters. I recall seeing option however don't need more than a/p.
>
>
> Michael Forster
> Enterprise Storage and IDX Architect | Information Services
> Medical College of Wisconsin
> O: (414) 955-4967 | ***@mcw.edu
>
>
> ________________________________________
> From: Info-vax <info-vax-***@rbnsn.com> on behalf of Richard Maher via Info-vax <info-***@rbnsn.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2017 7:13:52 AM
> To: info-***@rbnsn.com
> Cc: Richard Maher
> Subject: Re: [Info-vax] Are clusters passe`?
>
> On 10-Jan-17 1:13 PM, Richard Maher wrote:
>> On 10-Jan-17 11:37 AM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>> On 1/9/2017 9:55 PM, IanD wrote:
>>>> Failing this, something like postgresql revamped to be cluster aware
>>>> perhaps?
>>>
>>> Do you need the cluster awareness?
>>
>> Interesting question!
>>
>> Has the max-node max-distance architecture been superseded?
>>
>> But isn't there a bottle-neck/single-point of failure with everything else?
>>
>
> Is Oracle RAC currently the only Active/Active cluster database offering
> on *nix or Windows?
> _______________________________________________
> Info-vax mailing list
> Info-***@rbnsn.com
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__rbnsn.com_mailman_listinfo_info-2Dvax-5Frbnsn.com&d=DgIGaQ&c=aFamLAsxMIDYjNglYHTMV0iqFn3z4pVFYPQkjgspw4Y&r=2i3Iy38OaXCqI2PNgrM4Aw&m=xzpcl8E7sMeazGxHo8OlV3G3X75xb3mO34RrmjN0cfw&s=jn5ZzAQinoIYq3Xbnpc4KmbduIaVZ173u1zsgSjnhy0&e=
>


I have a Windows "Cluster" at the moment (cluster manager etc) and it is
purely fail-over. I also manage an Azure IaaS Sitecore implementation
with the Content Manager as a single-point of failure. Without a
distributed lock manager (a la mode Rdb/Oracle) I cannot see how MS SQL
could achieve this.
j***@yahoo.co.uk
2017-01-11 16:48:02 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wednesday, 11 January 2017 00:00:04 UTC, Forster, Michael wrote:
> MS-SQL should have active-active clusters. I recall seeing option however don't need more than a/p.
>
>
> Michael Forster
> Enterprise Storage and IDX Architect | Information Services
> Medical College of Wisconsin
> O: (414) 955-4967 | ***@mcw.edu
>
>
> ________________________________________
> From: Info-vax <info-vax-***@rbnsn.com> on behalf of Richard Maher via Info-vax <info-***@rbnsn.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2017 7:13:52 AM
> To: info-***@rbnsn.com
> Cc: Richard Maher
> Subject: Re: [Info-vax] Are clusters passe`?
>
> On 10-Jan-17 1:13 PM, Richard Maher wrote:
> > On 10-Jan-17 11:37 AM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
> >> On 1/9/2017 9:55 PM, IanD wrote:
> >>> Failing this, something like postgresql revamped to be cluster aware
> >>> perhaps?
> >>
> >> Do you need the cluster awareness?
> >
> > Interesting question!
> >
> > Has the max-node max-distance architecture been superseded?
> >
> > But isn't there a bottle-neck/single-point of failure with everything else?
> >
>
> Is Oracle RAC currently the only Active/Active cluster database offering
> on *nix or Windows?
> _______________________________________________
> Info-vax mailing list
> Info-***@rbnsn.com
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__rbnsn.com_mailman_listinfo_info-2Dvax-5Frbnsn.com&d=DgIGaQ&c=aFamLAsxMIDYjNglYHTMV0iqFn3z4pVFYPQkjgspw4Y&r=2i3Iy38OaXCqI2PNgrM4Aw&m=xzpcl8E7sMeazGxHo8OlV3G3X75xb3mO34RrmjN0cfw&s=jn5ZzAQinoIYq3Xbnpc4KmbduIaVZ173u1zsgSjnhy0&e=

Based on my recollection of looking into this a
year or so ago...

Whether MS SQL does active-active rather depends on
the definition of active-active, surely?

You want load balancing? Solution A applies.

You want failover ? Solution B applies.

Any given implentation of Solution A may or may
not be compatible with any given implementation
of Solution B.

Where can one get definitive info on which
versions of MS SQL offer which capabilities,
and on which versions of Windows ?
Arne Vajhøj
2017-01-11 00:39:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 1/10/2017 8:13 AM, Richard Maher wrote:
> On 10-Jan-17 1:13 PM, Richard Maher wrote:
>> On 10-Jan-17 11:37 AM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>> On 1/9/2017 9:55 PM, IanD wrote:
>>>> Failing this, something like postgresql revamped to be cluster aware
>>>> perhaps?
>>>
>>> Do you need the cluster awareness?
>>
>> Interesting question!
>>
>> Has the max-node max-distance architecture been superseded?
>>
>> But isn't there a bottle-neck/single-point of failure with everything
>> else?
>
> Is Oracle RAC currently the only Active/Active cluster database offering
> on *nix or Windows?

No.

DB2 PureScale is wellknown.

And I also think there are a few more exotic solutions.

Arne
Richard Maher
2017-01-11 05:23:54 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 11-Jan-17 8:39 AM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
> On 1/10/2017 8:13 AM, Richard Maher wrote:
>> On 10-Jan-17 1:13 PM, Richard Maher wrote:
>>> On 10-Jan-17 11:37 AM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>>> On 1/9/2017 9:55 PM, IanD wrote:
>>>>> Failing this, something like postgresql revamped to be cluster aware
>>>>> perhaps?
>>>>
>>>> Do you need the cluster awareness?
>>>
>>> Interesting question!
>>>
>>> Has the max-node max-distance architecture been superseded?
>>>
>>> But isn't there a bottle-neck/single-point of failure with everything
>>> else?
>>
>> Is Oracle RAC currently the only Active/Active cluster database offering
>> on *nix or Windows?
>
> No.
>
> DB2 PureScale is wellknown.
>
> And I also think there are a few more exotic solutions.
>
> Arne
>
>
>


Cool! Did not know PureScale ran in Linux. Is it available on RHEL?

So on the list of those database still floundering around with no such
active/active capability are: -

MS SQL Server
MySQL
MariaDB
BerkleyDB

Any others?
Bill Gunshannon
2017-01-11 13:06:23 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 1/11/17 12:23 AM, Richard Maher wrote:
> On 11-Jan-17 8:39 AM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>> On 1/10/2017 8:13 AM, Richard Maher wrote:
>>> On 10-Jan-17 1:13 PM, Richard Maher wrote:
>>>> On 10-Jan-17 11:37 AM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>>>> On 1/9/2017 9:55 PM, IanD wrote:
>>>>>> Failing this, something like postgresql revamped to be cluster aware
>>>>>> perhaps?
>>>>>
>>>>> Do you need the cluster awareness?
>>>>
>>>> Interesting question!
>>>>
>>>> Has the max-node max-distance architecture been superseded?
>>>>
>>>> But isn't there a bottle-neck/single-point of failure with everything
>>>> else?
>>>
>>> Is Oracle RAC currently the only Active/Active cluster database offering
>>> on *nix or Windows?
>>
>> No.
>>
>> DB2 PureScale is wellknown.
>>
>> And I also think there are a few more exotic solutions.
>>
>> Arne
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> Cool! Did not know PureScale ran in Linux. Is it available on RHEL?
>
> So on the list of those database still floundering around with no such
> active/active capability are: -
>
> MS SQL Server
> MySQL
> MariaDB
> BerkleyDB
>
> Any others?

Does anyone really consider BerkleyDB to be an actual database system?
In that case, add RIM to your list. :-)

bill
David Froble
2017-01-11 16:54:46 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Bill Gunshannon wrote:
> On 1/11/17 12:23 AM, Richard Maher wrote:
>> On 11-Jan-17 8:39 AM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>> On 1/10/2017 8:13 AM, Richard Maher wrote:
>>>> On 10-Jan-17 1:13 PM, Richard Maher wrote:
>>>>> On 10-Jan-17 11:37 AM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>>>>> On 1/9/2017 9:55 PM, IanD wrote:
>>>>>>> Failing this, something like postgresql revamped to be cluster aware
>>>>>>> perhaps?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Do you need the cluster awareness?
>>>>>
>>>>> Interesting question!
>>>>>
>>>>> Has the max-node max-distance architecture been superseded?
>>>>>
>>>>> But isn't there a bottle-neck/single-point of failure with everything
>>>>> else?
>>>>
>>>> Is Oracle RAC currently the only Active/Active cluster database
>>>> offering
>>>> on *nix or Windows?
>>>
>>> No.
>>>
>>> DB2 PureScale is wellknown.
>>>
>>> And I also think there are a few more exotic solutions.
>>>
>>> Arne
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> Cool! Did not know PureScale ran in Linux. Is it available on RHEL?
>>
>> So on the list of those database still floundering around with no such
>> active/active capability are: -
>>
>> MS SQL Server
>> MySQL
>> MariaDB
>> BerkleyDB
>>
>> Any others?
>
> Does anyone really consider BerkleyDB to be an actual database system?
> In that case, add RIM to your list. :-)
>
> bill
>

I guess it depends upon the definition of "database". I'm not sure if there is
a good definition. For example, is RMS a database system? I'm also not sure
that it matters.
Bill Gunshannon
2017-01-11 17:18:37 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 1/11/17 11:54 AM, David Froble wrote:
> Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>> On 1/11/17 12:23 AM, Richard Maher wrote:
>>> On 11-Jan-17 8:39 AM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>>> On 1/10/2017 8:13 AM, Richard Maher wrote:
>>>>> On 10-Jan-17 1:13 PM, Richard Maher wrote:
>>>>>> On 10-Jan-17 11:37 AM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>>>>>> On 1/9/2017 9:55 PM, IanD wrote:
>>>>>>>> Failing this, something like postgresql revamped to be cluster
>>>>>>>> aware
>>>>>>>> perhaps?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Do you need the cluster awareness?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Interesting question!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Has the max-node max-distance architecture been superseded?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But isn't there a bottle-neck/single-point of failure with everything
>>>>>> else?
>>>>>
>>>>> Is Oracle RAC currently the only Active/Active cluster database
>>>>> offering
>>>>> on *nix or Windows?
>>>>
>>>> No.
>>>>
>>>> DB2 PureScale is wellknown.
>>>>
>>>> And I also think there are a few more exotic solutions.
>>>>
>>>> Arne
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Cool! Did not know PureScale ran in Linux. Is it available on RHEL?
>>>
>>> So on the list of those database still floundering around with no such
>>> active/active capability are: -
>>>
>>> MS SQL Server
>>> MySQL
>>> MariaDB
>>> BerkleyDB
>>>
>>> Any others?
>>
>> Does anyone really consider BerkleyDB to be an actual database system?
>> In that case, add RIM to your list. :-)
>>
>> bill
>>
>
> I guess it depends upon the definition of "database". I'm not sure if
> there is a good definition. For example, is RMS a database system? I'm
> also not sure that it matters.

Well, I think it matters if you want to compare apples to
apples rather than to oranges. Another one on the list would
be SQLite. That is probably very close, conceptually to
RMS.

bill
Bob Koehler
2017-01-11 17:45:27 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In article <o55nto$u9f$***@dont-email.me>, David Froble <***@tsoft-inc.com> writes:
>
> I guess it depends upon the definition of "database". I'm not sure if there is
> a good definition. For example, is RMS a database system? I'm also not sure
> that it matters.

I, for one, always define RMS as NOT a DBMS. I expect things from a
DBMS that RMS just doesn't have.

The ability to organize and find data is only the start of having a
database.
David Froble
2017-01-11 22:34:05 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Bob Koehler wrote:
> In article <o55nto$u9f$***@dont-email.me>, David Froble <***@tsoft-inc.com> writes:
>> I guess it depends upon the definition of "database". I'm not sure if there is
>> a good definition. For example, is RMS a database system? I'm also not sure
>> that it matters.
>
> I, for one, always define RMS as NOT a DBMS. I expect things from a
> DBMS that RMS just doesn't have.
>
> The ability to organize and find data is only the start of having a
> database.
>

Well Bob, you actually muddied the water. "Database" and DBMS (Database
Management System) ((maybe)) just might be two different things, one a superset
of the other.

Then there are RDBMS, adding "Relational" to the definition (and product).

I was just pointing out that sometimes we get a bit too loose with our terminology.

For me anyway:

Database - a place (structure) to store data

DBMS - a database with some management tools / features

and RDBMS - the above using relationships for keying
Arne Vajhøj
2017-01-12 02:04:54 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 1/11/2017 5:34 PM, David Froble wrote:
> Bob Koehler wrote:
>> In article <o55nto$u9f$***@dont-email.me>, David Froble
>> <***@tsoft-inc.com> writes:
>>> I guess it depends upon the definition of "database". I'm not sure
>>> if there is a good definition. For example, is RMS a database
>>> system? I'm also not sure that it matters.
>>
>> I, for one, always define RMS as NOT a DBMS. I expect things from a
>> DBMS that RMS just doesn't have.
>>
>> The ability to organize and find data is only the start of having a
>> database.
>>
>
> Well Bob, you actually muddied the water. "Database" and DBMS (Database
> Management System) ((maybe)) just might be two different things, one a
> superset of the other.
>
> Then there are RDBMS, adding "Relational" to the definition (and product).
>
> I was just pointing out that sometimes we get a bit too loose with our
> terminology.
>
> For me anyway:
>
> Database - a place (structure) to store data
>
> DBMS - a database with some management tools / features
>
> and RDBMS - the above using relationships for keying

I think a more common definition would be:

data store - a place to store data

database - a data store with some management tools

DBMS - the software running the database

Arne
Craig A. Berry
2017-01-12 03:08:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 1/11/17 4:34 PM, David Froble wrote:
>
> Then there are RDBMS, adding "Relational" to the definition (and product).
>
> I was just pointing out that sometimes we get a bit too loose with our
> terminology.
>
> For me anyway:
>
> Database - a place (structure) to store data
>
> DBMS - a database with some management tools / features
>
> and RDBMS - the above using relationships for keying

Indexing for improved join performance is in no way an exclusive
property of relational databases, and also has nothing to do with what
makes an RDBMS relational.
Paul Sture
2017-01-12 16:03:24 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 2017-01-11, Bill Gunshannon <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 1/11/17 12:23 AM, Richard Maher wrote:
>> On 11-Jan-17 8:39 AM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>> On 1/10/2017 8:13 AM, Richard Maher wrote:
>>>> On 10-Jan-17 1:13 PM, Richard Maher wrote:
>>>>> On 10-Jan-17 11:37 AM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>>>>> On 1/9/2017 9:55 PM, IanD wrote:
>>>>>>> Failing this, something like postgresql revamped to be cluster aware
>>>>>>> perhaps?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Do you need the cluster awareness?
>>>>>
>>>>> Interesting question!
>>>>>
>>>>> Has the max-node max-distance architecture been superseded?
>>>>>
>>>>> But isn't there a bottle-neck/single-point of failure with everything
>>>>> else?
>>>>
>>>> Is Oracle RAC currently the only Active/Active cluster database offering
>>>> on *nix or Windows?
>>>
>>> No.
>>>
>>> DB2 PureScale is wellknown.
>>>
>>> And I also think there are a few more exotic solutions.
>>>
>>> Arne
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> Cool! Did not know PureScale ran in Linux. Is it available on RHEL?
>>
>> So on the list of those database still floundering around with no such
>> active/active capability are: -
>>
>> MS SQL Server
>> MySQL
>> MariaDB
>> BerkleyDB
>>
>> Any others?
>
> Does anyone really consider BerkleyDB to be an actual database system?
> In that case, add RIM to your list. :-)
>

Ahem. BerkeleyDB is what you get with the default GnuCOBOL binary builds.

<http://open-cobol.sourceforge.net/faq/index.html#id62>

and it belongs to Oracle:

"Berkeley Data Base license:

Please note: this applies to default GnuCOBOL binary builds.

Any verion of the compiler that is configured to use Berkeley DB
beyond version 1.85 must abide by the Oracle license, and sources of
the COBOL programs that use libdb must be shipped with any binaries.
There are alternatives to libdb, but deep down, GnuCOBOL encourages
free software.

GnuCOBOL, by default is built with libdb for ISAM operations. Be
aware of the implications, call Oracle, or build in something like
the VBISAM engine."

:-)

--
A supercomputer is a device for turning compute-bound problems into
I/O-bound problems. ---Ken Batcher
Bill Gunshannon
2017-01-12 19:51:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 1/12/17 11:03 AM, Paul Sture wrote:
> On 2017-01-11, Bill Gunshannon <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 1/11/17 12:23 AM, Richard Maher wrote:
>>> On 11-Jan-17 8:39 AM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>>> On 1/10/2017 8:13 AM, Richard Maher wrote:
>>>>> On 10-Jan-17 1:13 PM, Richard Maher wrote:
>>>>>> On 10-Jan-17 11:37 AM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>>>>>> On 1/9/2017 9:55 PM, IanD wrote:
>>>>>>>> Failing this, something like postgresql revamped to be cluster aware
>>>>>>>> perhaps?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Do you need the cluster awareness?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Interesting question!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Has the max-node max-distance architecture been superseded?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But isn't there a bottle-neck/single-point of failure with everything
>>>>>> else?
>>>>>
>>>>> Is Oracle RAC currently the only Active/Active cluster database offering
>>>>> on *nix or Windows?
>>>>
>>>> No.
>>>>
>>>> DB2 PureScale is wellknown.
>>>>
>>>> And I also think there are a few more exotic solutions.
>>>>
>>>> Arne
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Cool! Did not know PureScale ran in Linux. Is it available on RHEL?
>>>
>>> So on the list of those database still floundering around with no such
>>> active/active capability are: -
>>>
>>> MS SQL Server
>>> MySQL
>>> MariaDB
>>> BerkleyDB
>>>
>>> Any others?
>>
>> Does anyone really consider BerkleyDB to be an actual database system?
>> In that case, add RIM to your list. :-)
>>
>
> Ahem. BerkeleyDB is what you get with the default GnuCOBOL binary builds.

What's your point? It is used for a pseudo-ISAM. If you want a real
database with GnuCOBOL you use a real database like Postgres or MySQL.

>
> <http://open-cobol.sourceforge.net/faq/index.html#id62>
>
> and it belongs to Oracle:

The current one claiming to be Berkeley belongs to Oracle, the
original is still out there and works as well.

>
> "Berkeley Data Base license:
>
> Please note: this applies to default GnuCOBOL binary builds.
>
> Any verion of the compiler that is configured to use Berkeley DB
> beyond version 1.85 must abide by the Oracle license, and sources of
> the COBOL programs that use libdb must be shipped with any binaries.
> There are alternatives to libdb, but deep down, GnuCOBOL encourages
> free software.
>
> GnuCOBOL, by default is built with libdb for ISAM operations. Be
> aware of the implications, call Oracle, or build in something like
> the VBISAM engine."
>
> :-)

bill
Arne Vajhøj
2017-01-12 00:47:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 1/11/2017 12:23 AM, Richard Maher wrote:
> On 11-Jan-17 8:39 AM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>> On 1/10/2017 8:13 AM, Richard Maher wrote:
>>> On 10-Jan-17 1:13 PM, Richard Maher wrote:
>>>> On 10-Jan-17 11:37 AM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>>>> On 1/9/2017 9:55 PM, IanD wrote:
>>>>>> Failing this, something like postgresql revamped to be cluster aware
>>>>>> perhaps?
>>>>>
>>>>> Do you need the cluster awareness?
>>>>
>>>> Interesting question!
>>>>
>>>> Has the max-node max-distance architecture been superseded?
>>>>
>>>> But isn't there a bottle-neck/single-point of failure with everything
>>>> else?
>>>
>>> Is Oracle RAC currently the only Active/Active cluster database offering
>>> on *nix or Windows?
>>
>> No.
>>
>> DB2 PureScale is wellknown.
>>
>> And I also think there are a few more exotic solutions.
>
> Cool! Did not know PureScale ran in Linux. Is it available on RHEL?

Yes. RHEL and SLES.

> So on the list of those database still floundering around with no such
> active/active capability are: -
>
> MS SQL Server
> MySQL
> MariaDB
> BerkleyDB
>
> Any others?

There are the more exotic solutions.

Kerry posted a link to such for MySQL a little while ago.

Arne
IanD
2017-01-10 06:30:52 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
By cluster aware, I am meaning the VMS clustering ability of VMS so that rdb keeps going when a node goes belly up

It's saved our bacon numerous times

As for mysql and Maria dB, they are still heavily oracle linked and postgresql is run much more independently

Oracle are trickle feeding the good stuff into mysql if at all

Maria in terms of market share is way down the totem pole

dB engine shows postgresql as gaining ground and way ahead of Maria

Yes, I dislike oracle, hence my favouritism of postgresql over anything oracle linked
Arne Vajhøj
2017-01-11 00:41:02 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 1/10/2017 1:30 AM, IanD wrote:
> By cluster aware, I am meaning the VMS clustering ability of VMS so that rdb keeps going when a node goes belly up
>
> It's saved our bacon numerous times

Sure.

But you do not need active-active cluster nor OS cluster to support HA.

Plain old active-passive cluster with replication and automatic failover
from application is sufficient.

Arne
Richard Maher
2017-01-11 05:20:41 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 11-Jan-17 8:41 AM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
> On 1/10/2017 1:30 AM, IanD wrote:
>> By cluster aware, I am meaning the VMS clustering ability of VMS so
>> that rdb keeps going when a node goes belly up
>>
>> It's saved our bacon numerous times
>
> Sure.
>
> But you do not need active-active cluster nor OS cluster to support HA.
>
> Plain old active-passive cluster with replication and automatic failover
> from application is sufficient.
>

Can someone point to the RFP that Arne is responding to in this thread?
I can't recall the uptime requirements.
Alan Greig
2017-01-13 19:18:24 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tuesday, January 10, 2017 at 6:30:56 AM UTC, IanD wrote:
> By cluster aware, I am meaning the VMS clustering ability of VMS so that rdb keeps going when a node goes belly up
>
> It's saved our bacon numerous times
>
> As for mysql and Maria dB, they are still heavily oracle linked and postgresql is run much more independently
>
> Oracle are trickle feeding the good stuff into mysql if at all
>
> Maria in terms of market share is way down the totem pole

I wouldn't take that rating seriously as it is based on scanning web pages for references and search queries. mariadb is now the default in many Linux distros including Red Hat/Centos 7 and that a lot of people still refer to mysql generically. On Red Hat for example if you type yum install mysql it actually installs mariadb.

yum install mysql
..
...
Package 1:mariadb-5.5.52-1.el7.x86_64 already installed and latest version


> dB engine shows postgresql as gaining ground and way ahead of Maria
>
> Yes, I dislike oracle, hence my favouritism of postgresql over anything oracle linked
Jan-Erik Soderholm
2017-01-10 14:47:02 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Den 2017-01-10 kl. 04:37, skrev Arne Vajhøj:
> On 1/9/2017 9:55 PM, IanD wrote:
>> Failing this, something like postgresql revamped to be cluster aware
>> perhaps?
>
> Do you need the cluster awareness?
>
>> It already has production acceptance
>
> MySQL/MariahDB has bigger marketshare.
>
>> Not having a common DB is going to hurt OpenVMS because porting
>> applications to it will be that much harder but I'm not sure rdb is
>> going to help OpenVMS here. What major application producers out
>> there are interested in putting their data on an rdb engine anyhow?
>
> Yep.
>
>> I will be interested to see if oracle will port rdb to vms-x86. I
>> think rdb was almost ported to x86 long ago wasn't it?
>
> Some early release of RDB 8.0 for Win32/x86 was released many years
> ago.

But note that the Rdb 8.0 from that time was running under Win-NT
(32 bit). I would expect a port from VMS Alpha/Itanium to VMS-x86
to be easier.

In particular since they (Oracle) now will have supported
development tools (Bliss in particular) to work with.
Arne Vajhøj
2017-01-11 00:43:41 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 1/10/2017 9:47 AM, Jan-Erik Soderholm wrote:
> Den 2017-01-10 kl. 04:37, skrev Arne Vajhøj:
>> On 1/9/2017 9:55 PM, IanD wrote:
>>> I will be interested to see if oracle will port rdb to vms-x86. I
>>> think rdb was almost ported to x86 long ago wasn't it?
>>
>> Some early release of RDB 8.0 for Win32/x86 was released many years
>> ago.
>
> But note that the Rdb 8.0 from that time was running under Win-NT
> (32 bit). I would expect a port from VMS Alpha/Itanium to VMS-x86
> to be easier.
>
> In particular since they (Oracle) now will have supported
> development tools (Bliss in particular) to work with.

Yes. The situation will be much better.

Not new OS+HW only new HW.

Strong support for Bliss from VMS "owner".

Arne
Alan Greig
2017-01-14 01:24:43 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tuesday, January 10, 2017 at 2:47:06 PM UTC, Jan-Erik Soderholm wrote:
> Den 2017-01-10 kl. 04:37, skrev Arne Vajhøj:
> > On 1/9/2017 9:55 PM, IanD wrote:
> >> Failing this, something like postgresql revamped to be cluster aware
> >> perhaps?
> >
> > Do you need the cluster awareness?
> >
> >> It already has production acceptance
> >
> > MySQL/MariahDB has bigger marketshare.
> >
> >> Not having a common DB is going to hurt OpenVMS because porting
> >> applications to it will be that much harder but I'm not sure rdb is
> >> going to help OpenVMS here. What major application producers out
> >> there are interested in putting their data on an rdb engine anyhow?
> >
> > Yep.
> >
> >> I will be interested to see if oracle will port rdb to vms-x86. I
> >> think rdb was almost ported to x86 long ago wasn't it?
> >
> > Some early release of RDB 8.0 for Win32/x86 was released many years
> > ago.
>


The insane decision to port RDB to Windows (and Unix) was - well maybe not insane but stupid. Sent a message to customers that "We DEC (oops sorry Digital) are not serious about VMS". Same message they sent when they earlier killed PDP-10/TOPS-10/TOPS-20 (DON'T TRUST US). Reinforced the belief amongst lots of people later to become senior managers who remembered the PDP-10 debacle.

I still honestly date the demise of DEC to have begun with the killing of the PDP-10 range after they promised wonders in non-disclosure talks about the forthcoming Jupiter system only to cancel just like that. I knew many influential people who said to me "How can you still trust them".

Thank you the VMS staff who have fought to keep VMS alive.
Jan-Erik Soderholm
2017-01-10 10:49:23 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Den 2017-01-10 kl. 03:55, skrev IanD:
> So we need current rdb folk to abandon it so oracle dump it and VSI can
> buy it and run with it :-)
>
> Failing this, something like postgresql revamped to be cluster aware
> perhaps?
>
> It already has production acceptance
>
> I seem to remember years ago, MS created Access because vendors needed a
> DB to help sell their OS, that was of course in the days before people
> purchased of the self applications
>
> Not having a common DB is going to hurt OpenVMS because porting
> applications to it will be that much harder but I'm not sure rdb is
> going to help OpenVMS here. What major application producers out there
> are interested in putting their data on an rdb engine anyhow?
>
> I think focusing on postgresql with OpenVMS clustering extensions and
> some type of nosql functionality might win a longer term client base
> than trying to acquire and enhance rdb
>
> I will be interested to see if oracle will port rdb to vms-x86.

An OpenVMS port to X86 *without* Rdb will definitely fail.
David Froble
2017-01-10 13:59:09 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Jan-Erik Soderholm wrote:
> Den 2017-01-10 kl. 03:55, skrev IanD:
>> So we need current rdb folk to abandon it so oracle dump it and VSI can
>> buy it and run with it :-)
>>
>> Failing this, something like postgresql revamped to be cluster aware
>> perhaps?
>>
>> It already has production acceptance
>>
>> I seem to remember years ago, MS created Access because vendors needed a
>> DB to help sell their OS, that was of course in the days before people
>> purchased of the self applications
>>
>> Not having a common DB is going to hurt OpenVMS because porting
>> applications to it will be that much harder but I'm not sure rdb is
>> going to help OpenVMS here. What major application producers out there
>> are interested in putting their data on an rdb engine anyhow?
>>
>> I think focusing on postgresql with OpenVMS clustering extensions and
>> some type of nosql functionality might win a longer term client base
>> than trying to acquire and enhance rdb
>>
>> I will be interested to see if oracle will port rdb to vms-x86.
>
> An OpenVMS port to X86 *without* Rdb will definitely fail.
>

Funny, how some feel that what they do is what everyone is doing.

Maybe I'm not the only one who doesn't get out much?
Jan-Erik Soderholm
2017-01-10 14:26:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Den 2017-01-10 kl. 14:59, skrev David Froble:
> Jan-Erik Soderholm wrote:
>> Den 2017-01-10 kl. 03:55, skrev IanD:
>>> So we need current rdb folk to abandon it so oracle dump it and VSI can
>>> buy it and run with it :-)
>>>
>>> Failing this, something like postgresql revamped to be cluster aware
>>> perhaps?
>>>
>>> It already has production acceptance
>>>
>>> I seem to remember years ago, MS created Access because vendors needed a
>>> DB to help sell their OS, that was of course in the days before people
>>> purchased of the self applications
>>>
>>> Not having a common DB is going to hurt OpenVMS because porting
>>> applications to it will be that much harder but I'm not sure rdb is
>>> going to help OpenVMS here. What major application producers out there
>>> are interested in putting their data on an rdb engine anyhow?
>>>
>>> I think focusing on postgresql with OpenVMS clustering extensions and
>>> some type of nosql functionality might win a longer term client base
>>> than trying to acquire and enhance rdb
>>>
>>> I will be interested to see if oracle will port rdb to vms-x86.
>>
>> An OpenVMS port to X86 *without* Rdb will definitely fail.
>>
>
> Funny, how some feel that what they do is what everyone is doing.
>

Where did you see that I talked about "everyone"? I definitely
didn't meant to talk about "everyone", at least.

But there are too many high profile VMS customers that also
use Rdb to make a VMS-x86 port without Rdb a failure.

> Maybe I'm not the only one who doesn't get out much?

I do not see what getting out has anything to do with that.

Anyway, It would surprice me *a lot* if we will not see an
Rdb release for VMS-x86.

If you look here:

http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/database/database-technologies/rdb/community/index-101986.html

and download the link "Remote Access Materials for Osaka, Japan"

and then check PDF file: "02 - Oracle Rdb Product Update_jpn.pdf"

On page 73 called "Rdb Roadmap through H1 CY18" there is an arrow
from "H1CY2017" and pointing into the future saying "7.3 x86 Port".
Scott Dorsey
2017-01-10 14:35:52 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Jan-Erik Soderholm <jan-***@telia.com> wrote:
>
>But there are too many high profile VMS customers that also
>use Rdb to make a VMS-x86 port without Rdb a failure.

I would tend to agree, in fact I would say that income from Rdb users has
likely been the main thing keeping VMS alive for a while.

The thing is that it's not anything that VSI can control, although it is
surely something VSI can encourage.

>On page 73 called "Rdb Roadmap through H1 CY18" there is an arrow
>from "H1CY2017" and pointing into the future saying "7.3 x86 Port".

This is very, very good news. But for this to happen, VSI has to deliver
running systems and development tools to Oracle before Oracle can start
porting. Oracle has kept the Rdb team kind of pared down for some time,
so either they're going to have to add people (and bring them up to speed)
or they're going to have to spend a good bit of time. My suspicion is that
it will be the latter.

So the strategy then becomes one of keeping things going until Oracle can
eke a port out. This may not be too bad, it merely depends on having
enough momentum and enough capital.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
David Froble
2017-01-10 19:46:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Jan-Erik Soderholm wrote:
> Den 2017-01-10 kl. 14:59, skrev David Froble:
>> Jan-Erik Soderholm wrote:
>>> Den 2017-01-10 kl. 03:55, skrev IanD:
>>>> So we need current rdb folk to abandon it so oracle dump it and VSI can
>>>> buy it and run with it :-)
>>>>
>>>> Failing this, something like postgresql revamped to be cluster aware
>>>> perhaps?
>>>>
>>>> It already has production acceptance
>>>>
>>>> I seem to remember years ago, MS created Access because vendors
>>>> needed a
>>>> DB to help sell their OS, that was of course in the days before people
>>>> purchased of the self applications
>>>>
>>>> Not having a common DB is going to hurt OpenVMS because porting
>>>> applications to it will be that much harder but I'm not sure rdb is
>>>> going to help OpenVMS here. What major application producers out there
>>>> are interested in putting their data on an rdb engine anyhow?
>>>>
>>>> I think focusing on postgresql with OpenVMS clustering extensions and
>>>> some type of nosql functionality might win a longer term client base
>>>> than trying to acquire and enhance rdb
>>>>
>>>> I will be interested to see if oracle will port rdb to vms-x86.
>>>
>>> An OpenVMS port to X86 *without* Rdb will definitely fail.
>>>
>>
>> Funny, how some feel that what they do is what everyone is doing.
>>
>
> Where did you see that I talked about "everyone"? I definitely
> didn't meant to talk about "everyone", at least.
>
> But there are too many high profile VMS customers that also
> use Rdb to make a VMS-x86 port without Rdb a failure.
>
> > Maybe I'm not the only one who doesn't get out much?
>
> I do not see what getting out has anything to do with that.
>
> Anyway, It would surprice me *a lot* if we will not see an
> Rdb release for VMS-x86.
>
> If you look here:
>
> http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/database/database-technologies/rdb/community/index-101986.html
>
>
> and download the link "Remote Access Materials for Osaka, Japan"
>
> and then check PDF file: "02 - Oracle Rdb Product Update_jpn.pdf"
>
> On page 73 called "Rdb Roadmap through H1 CY18" there is an arrow
> from "H1CY2017" and pointing into the future saying "7.3 x86 Port".
>
>

I agree that Oracle will most likely port RDB to VSI's VMS on x86. Anything
else would be shooting themselves in the foot, or perhaps bank account.

Now I'll ask, do you have any idea how many VMS users do not use RDB? Without
that knowledge your statement is baseless. Perhaps there are more than enough
that VSI could be successful with RDB.

Of course, more is better ...
Bill Gunshannon
2017-01-10 20:13:27 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 1/10/17 2:46 PM, David Froble wrote:
> Jan-Erik Soderholm wrote:
>> Den 2017-01-10 kl. 14:59, skrev David Froble:
>>> Jan-Erik Soderholm wrote:
>>>> Den 2017-01-10 kl. 03:55, skrev IanD:
>>>>> So we need current rdb folk to abandon it so oracle dump it and VSI
>>>>> can
>>>>> buy it and run with it :-)
>>>>>
>>>>> Failing this, something like postgresql revamped to be cluster aware
>>>>> perhaps?
>>>>>
>>>>> It already has production acceptance
>>>>>
>>>>> I seem to remember years ago, MS created Access because vendors
>>>>> needed a
>>>>> DB to help sell their OS, that was of course in the days before people
>>>>> purchased of the self applications
>>>>>
>>>>> Not having a common DB is going to hurt OpenVMS because porting
>>>>> applications to it will be that much harder but I'm not sure rdb is
>>>>> going to help OpenVMS here. What major application producers out there
>>>>> are interested in putting their data on an rdb engine anyhow?
>>>>>
>>>>> I think focusing on postgresql with OpenVMS clustering extensions and
>>>>> some type of nosql functionality might win a longer term client base
>>>>> than trying to acquire and enhance rdb
>>>>>
>>>>> I will be interested to see if oracle will port rdb to vms-x86.
>>>>
>>>> An OpenVMS port to X86 *without* Rdb will definitely fail.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Funny, how some feel that what they do is what everyone is doing.
>>>
>>
>> Where did you see that I talked about "everyone"? I definitely
>> didn't meant to talk about "everyone", at least.
>>
>> But there are too many high profile VMS customers that also
>> use Rdb to make a VMS-x86 port without Rdb a failure.
>>
>> > Maybe I'm not the only one who doesn't get out much?
>>
>> I do not see what getting out has anything to do with that.
>>
>> Anyway, It would surprice me *a lot* if we will not see an
>> Rdb release for VMS-x86.
>>
>> If you look here:
>>
>> http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/database/database-technologies/rdb/community/index-101986.html
>>
>>
>> and download the link "Remote Access Materials for Osaka, Japan"
>>
>> and then check PDF file: "02 - Oracle Rdb Product Update_jpn.pdf"
>>
>> On page 73 called "Rdb Roadmap through H1 CY18" there is an arrow
>> from "H1CY2017" and pointing into the future saying "7.3 x86 Port".
>>
>>
>
> I agree that Oracle will most likely port RDB to VSI's VMS on x86.
> Anything else would be shooting themselves in the foot, or perhaps bank
> account.
>
> Now I'll ask, do you have any idea how many VMS users do not use RDB?
> Without that knowledge your statement is baseless. Perhaps there are
> more than enough that VSI could be successful with RDB.
>
> Of course, more is better ...

Well, they don't use VMS at all any more but I can tell you from
personal experience that for it's entire time as a VMS shop (a
couple decades) The University did not use RDB. It used the real
Oracle Database.

bill
Jan-Erik Soderholm
2017-01-10 20:53:19 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Den 2017-01-10 kl. 20:46, skrev David Froble:
> Jan-Erik Soderholm wrote:
>> Den 2017-01-10 kl. 14:59, skrev David Froble:
>>> Jan-Erik Soderholm wrote:
>>>> Den 2017-01-10 kl. 03:55, skrev IanD:
>>>>> So we need current rdb folk to abandon it so oracle dump it and
>>>>> VSI can buy it and run with it :-)
>>>>>
>>>>> Failing this, something like postgresql revamped to be cluster
>>>>> aware perhaps?
>>>>>
>>>>> It already has production acceptance
>>>>>
>>>>> I seem to remember years ago, MS created Access because vendors
>>>>> needed a DB to help sell their OS, that was of course in the
>>>>> days before people purchased of the self applications
>>>>>
>>>>> Not having a common DB is going to hurt OpenVMS because porting
>>>>> applications to it will be that much harder but I'm not sure rdb
>>>>> is going to help OpenVMS here. What major application producers
>>>>> out there are interested in putting their data on an rdb engine
>>>>> anyhow?
>>>>>
>>>>> I think focusing on postgresql with OpenVMS clustering
>>>>> extensions and some type of nosql functionality might win a
>>>>> longer term client base than trying to acquire and enhance rdb
>>>>>
>>>>> I will be interested to see if oracle will port rdb to vms-x86.
>>>>
>>>> An OpenVMS port to X86 *without* Rdb will definitely fail.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Funny, how some feel that what they do is what everyone is doing.
>>>
>>
>> Where did you see that I talked about "everyone"? I definitely didn't
>> meant to talk about "everyone", at least.
>>
>> But there are too many high profile VMS customers that also use Rdb to
>> make a VMS-x86 port without Rdb a failure.
>>
>>> Maybe I'm not the only one who doesn't get out much?
>>
>> I do not see what getting out has anything to do with that.
>>
>> Anyway, It would surprice me *a lot* if we will not see an Rdb release
>> for VMS-x86.
>>
>> If you look here:
>>
>> http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/database/database-technologies/rdb/community/index-101986.html
>>
>>and download the link "Remote Access Materials for Osaka, Japan"
>>
>> and then check PDF file: "02 - Oracle Rdb Product Update_jpn.pdf"
>>
>> On page 73 called "Rdb Roadmap through H1 CY18" there is an arrow from
>> "H1CY2017" and pointing into the future saying "7.3 x86 Port".
>>
>>
>
> I agree that Oracle will most likely port RDB to VSI's VMS on x86.
> Anything else would be shooting themselves in the foot, or perhaps bank
> account.
>
> Now I'll ask, do you have any idea how many VMS users do not use RDB?

You mean a number like "47" or "234"? No, I do not have that number.

But I have a fairly good view of the general Swedish and probably
European VMS markets. I can also compare the crowds at the "VMS update"
days and the "Rdb update" days (when was your last visit to one of them?).
Mostly the same people and companies. If I say that 90% of VMS customers
in Sweden uses Rdb, I'd not be far of the correct number.

The Rdb users are also the larger VMS users such as banks, lotterys
and such as IKEA.

> Without that knowledge your statement is baseless.

Then tell me/us about it! You seams to know, right?

I have no reason to try to prove anything to someone
that "doesn't get out much"...

> Perhaps there are
> more than enough that VSI could be successful with RDB.
>

That should be "without Rdb", right? And it is "Rdb"...

But no, I do not think so. That is not my personal impression.
I can also say "perhaps", but I still do not think so.
Arne Vajhøj
2017-01-11 00:35:19 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 1/10/2017 2:46 PM, David Froble wrote:
> Now I'll ask, do you have any idea how many VMS users do not use RDB?
> Without that knowledge your statement is baseless. Perhaps there are
> more than enough that VSI could be successful with RDB.

I would put it like: if existing RDB/VMS/Alpha or I64 customers
will be a significant part of VMS/x86-64 market, then it is
bad new news for VMS/x86-64 no matter what the percentage is,
because VMS need to grow a lot to become viable.

That said then RDB customers may be a good solid
revenue while trying to grow VMS market.

Arne
IanD
2017-01-10 23:39:46 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wednesday, January 11, 2017 at 12:59:12 AM UTC+11, David Froble wrote:
> Jan-Erik Soderholm wrote:
> > Den 2017-01-10 kl. 03:55, skrev IanD:
> >> So we need current rdb folk to abandon it so oracle dump it and VSI can
> >> buy it and run with it :-)
> >>
> >> Failing this, something like postgresql revamped to be cluster aware
> >> perhaps?
> >>
> >> It already has production acceptance
> >>
> >> I seem to remember years ago, MS created Access because vendors needed a
> >> DB to help sell their OS, that was of course in the days before people
> >> purchased of the self applications
> >>
> >> Not having a common DB is going to hurt OpenVMS because porting
> >> applications to it will be that much harder but I'm not sure rdb is
> >> going to help OpenVMS here. What major application producers out there
> >> are interested in putting their data on an rdb engine anyhow?
> >>
> >> I think focusing on postgresql with OpenVMS clustering extensions and
> >> some type of nosql functionality might win a longer term client base
> >> than trying to acquire and enhance rdb
> >>
> >> I will be interested to see if oracle will port rdb to vms-x86.
> >
> > An OpenVMS port to X86 *without* Rdb will definitely fail.
> >
>
> Funny, how some feel that what they do is what everyone is doing.
>
> Maybe I'm not the only one who doesn't get out much?

lol

Too true and I'm just as guilty of this as others, so no finger pointing from me

That's what makes this forum place good. I can post the craziest of ideas and most times people correct my naive view of the world based on other knowledge I don't have and/or other viewpoints I am totally ignorant of. Isn't that the purpose of a forum? Iron sharpens Iron, as they say?

I've always been a future focused person, often to the point of impracticability but that's my nature, which is why I come here, for a bit of balance and correction and real world tampering of my ideas (just don't kick me too hard when toppling me off my cloud dream)

I reluctantly agree, keeping existing RDB users would be a good thing but it depends on the numbers and it depends whether or not it takes away resources that might be better spent elsewhere in getting other databases onto VMS-x86-64

I highly doubt the likes of SAP and other enterprise wide applications etc are going to ever port to RDB as their DB engine of choice, so isn't it's really just existing RDB customers that one would be keeping?. What future RDB users would want to port to RDB unless it offers a lot of additional functionality over the existing DB's

I also doubt oracle will invent enough money into RDB to add the likes of noSQL functionality into RDB. Based on this, I only see RDB as a short term project with RDB souls eventually migrating away to the likes of Oracle proper and other DB's, hopefully on VMS-x86-64. Of course, I could be wrong and RDB may suddenly have more functionality than Oracle proper but knowing the Oracle devil, this is never going to happen - Oracle's first love is to Oracle proper and that's never going to change. RDB will always be a second class citizen IMO
Loading...