In our experience, the report from TechWise is unusual in that it takes into account the actual costs of downtime as discovered in those interviews. It reached the startling conclusion that if downtime costs $50,000 per hour for a medium size enterprise system, then based on the average reported downtime, this is equivalent to 50% of the total cost of ownership over five years. If downtime rises to $100,000 per hour then on average it accounts for 80% of total costs. By contrast the acquisition is 26% in the first instance and just 10% in the second.
It seems that the financial advantage of Linux might be far less than people imagine especially if it accrues more than the average of 9.2 hours of downtime used in the above calculations, but that's a story for another day.
The upshot of the TechWise report was that when the average cost of downtime, $71,000 per hour, is included in the total cost of ownership over five years, the OpenVMS clusters are a clear winner. That's mainly due to their average annual downtime being 11.0 hours compared to the IBM clusters at 18.4 hours, HP clusters at 22.8 hours and Sun clusters at 28.7 hours.
Depending on the cluster configuration, the financial advantage of running OpenVMS was between $1.7 million and $6.8 million.
Your mileage may vary of course and these figures are somewhat dated, but they do give cause for thought -- both in relation to the clusters mentioned here and how Linux might stack up against them. It seems reasonable to suggest that if Linux clusters are used in environments where downtime is expensive, then it would only take about 25 hours downtime per year before the cost advantage of using Linux might be completely negated.
As to the cluster operated by our Dutch friends, if that operated in a commercial environment and had no downtime in five years, then compared to clusters from other manufacturers with their average downtime, the savings could easily exceed $10 million.
That's an amount that buys quite a few applications and certainly covers the costs of personnel.
These stark facts may also shake HP from construing VMS as Vendor Marketing Silence, and maybe make them think the neglected OS could be a Veritable Money Spinner. �
With changing technologies and cheaper, more energy efficient materials and designs, nothing will ever remain forever (isn't that true of all of us?). It will always eventually be cheaper and more cost efficient to replace rather than repair. No amount of marketing will ever make buggy whips sell in an automobile salesroom, so marketing isn't the issue. Product live cycle is what's important. Market it when its growning, but milk it for the best profits when its reached its peak.
At one point, thee were some who thought that a stripped down VMS might make a reasonable competitor for Windows, ... if DEC management has though that PCs would grow to be more than a toy.
Man come out of the cave and see the light. The dinosaurs are dead and buried.
Yes Vax/ VMS WAS a GREAT PRODUCT .... BUT no spin will get it back to life...
Its been sucked dry by the gifted orators Palmer, Cappellas, Carli.... and there is no future...
I'm sorry to see it ... BUT the fact is NEW ENGLAND will not have a computer presence of any note within 2 years...
I think its fair to say that within 18 months anyone working for HP in NEW England will fit inside Littleton.... and the rest of the property will be sold or mothballed...
sad but true...
Please explain why you think that OpenVMS does not have a future. Is it because it is "old"? Son, unix is old, too. Does that make unix a "dinosaur"?
Is it because it's not reliable? I can't believe anyone would be stupid enough to answer 'yes' to that question. Other than MVS and MPE, name me one OS that has the reliability reputation of OpenVMS. Linux??? Don't make me laugh.
Do you think the bits within OpenVMS are the same as they were 25 years ago? 15 years ago? 5 years ago? 2 years ago? Let me help you...if you answered 'yes', then you're an idiot. Don't be an idiot. OpenVMS has been constantly and consistently enhanced over the years and is not the same VMS as 25 years ago. Although, it would be nice if some of the other operating systems would incorporate the upward compatibility features for which OpenVMS and MPE are famous.
Do you know what Mikey Dell uses to run his order processing database?
Hint: It's not a DELL.
Answer: A VMS Cluster running on Alpha's.
Use your Visa card recently? That transaction was processed on a VMS Cluster running on Alpha's.
Trade on NASDAQ? More than likely, your trade passed through a VMS Cluster.
Pt 2: Yes, VAX is dead. VMS move on from there to OpenVMS. Come up to the 21st century.
Wasn't saying yeah or neah to the article, just thought that it was interesting that it even came out, in view of the the fact that most think that VMS is a dinosaur. Guess that I got the reaction that I expected. Our election system, here in our state, is run totally on VMS and is considered the best election system in the country. Believe me, it isn't going anywhere anytime soon. It's funny, having been involved in the education scene in the '70's with all of the "new" theories and processes, I have seen how education has come full circle and gone back to some "old" theories and processes even though they were termed 'dinosaurs'. I think that the point of this article is that aspects of VMS can be used to migrate into the future. Just because it is old does not mean that aspects can't be built upon.