On Thu, 2003-05-01 at 15:38, rbstrickland@cox.net wrote:
> > I may be wrong as well, but I see the "new" installations, like Google and
> > many of the other in the top500.org list using clusters of Intel compatible
> > processors in small (2-4) SMP configurations. I see the market for
> > mainframes for the people who started on them, and find it easier to
> > put their legacy apps on newer compatible hardware when parts for the
> > old systems become scarce, than to rewrite the systems they've been
> > running their business on for the last few decades. When, as you pointed
> > out, the apps get ported to Java or whatever, then clusters of cheap
> > computers will look more attractive for the same reason that RAID took
> > over from large hard drives.
> >
> > What "new from scratch" commercial apps are being developed for
> > mainframes? Even Oracle is looking to migrate customers from their
> > big iron to RAC. Resisting change is futile.
>
> The thing is that since mainframes have been around for so long that
> most of the appropriate applications are already out there. I
> remember back in 1981 hearing that within the next 5 to 10 years that
> mainframes would completely vanish. "Big iron" is primarily good for
I remember hearing, and believing, the same thing in the mid 80s. That
was until I worked on a mainframe and saw how a box with 0.6 MIPS (yes,
3/5th of a MIP!) and 6MB RAM running a relational DBMS could handle 60
clerks plus developers compiling code.
That's when I learned to respect IBM's engineering talents...
> one thing (my experience at least) and that is processing massive
> amounts of transactions in a batch-driven, managed environment. And
> they're not resisting change, they are still changing, and being
> developed on. They're just very much a niche market (and have been
> for as long as I've been aware of them) and if you're not part of that
> market then you won't see it. Last I heard (and it was a couple of
> years ago, and I don't remember the numbers well, just my impression
> of them) Oracle was bragging about maximum possible transactional
> throughputs that were about 1-3% of what a mid-range mainframe was
> capable of.
>
> I think its more a matter of the right tool for a particular job. A
> mainframe's not appropriate for an interactive system. A pc's not
> appropriate for handling large numbers of transactions. And Windows
> is not appropriate for much of anything.... but I digress.
I couldn't agree more. However, I'd have to say that while mainframes
running traditional OSs are sucky interactive systems (can't say about
a z/ box running Linux...), they are *great* on-line systems. 3270's
are really expensive, and CICS is a PITA, but the combo, along with
FEPs (front-end processors) drops the CPU & channel load on mainframes
to nill, compares to a Unix or VMS box with terminals attached (even
through terminal servers).
-- +-----------------------------------------------------------+ | Ron Johnson, Jr. Home: ron.l.johnson@cox.net | | Jefferson, LA USA http://members.cox.net/ron.l.johnson | | | | An ad currently being run by the NEA (the US's biggest | | public school TEACHERS UNION) asks a teenager if he can | | find sodium and *chloride* in the periodic table of the | | elements. | | And they wonder why people think public schools suck... | +-----------------------------------------------------------+ ___________________ Nolug mailing list nolug@nolug.orgReceived on 05/01/03
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : 12/19/08 EST