|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] san rr com> wrote:
>> http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2010/08/western-civilization-runs-on-mainframe.html
>
> I think the article makes it a bit unclear what "mainframe" means.
There isn't a concise or precise definition:
Mainframes are enterprise level (expensive reliable) machines that are
optimised for running large transactional workloads (more optimised for
processing huge amounts of data than performing complex calculations).
They have an obsession for backwards compatibility and most (~95%)
mainframes are IBM machines running an operating system based on the 40
year old System/370 and are backwards compatible with System/360.
> What are you going to replace
> them with? A PC (which would go down immediately when its PSU dies or its
> HD gets a bad sector)? Why would that be a good thing?
There are many PC based servers running *nix/Windows with redundant hot
swappable, power supplies, hard disks (ideally with battery backed
cache) and fans. These have pretty good reliability but are not
mainframes. They generally can't cope with CPU/Memory or board failures.
If you really care about availability you can run multiple redundant
servers (on different sites) or use a proper transactional system.
The thought was that it'd be cheaper to use several smaller cheaper less
proprietary machines to achieve what had previously been done with one
big mainframe. IBM would say it is cheaper and simpler to just run one
big expandable system, than lots of little systems.
The question raised by this story is why is IBM trying to squash
Hercules? Mainframes and their software provide a huge proportion of
IBM's revenue. One of the biggest problems IBM has with its mainframe
business is there are skill shortages, as few people know how to use
mainframes or have access to learn about them. An emulator would help
people get these skills but no-one would get very far trying to replace
a mainframe running on their laptop.
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |