On 30 Nov 2009 10:46:19 -0800, eamacn...@yahoo.ca (Ted MacNEIL) wrote: >>They don't actually say it, but it sounds to me like their saying that big >>banks should get off the mainframe. ---- comments? > >Having worked in the financial sector for most of my career, I would say it's >a very bad idea. >Nothing beats the integrity, reliability, and security of mainframe. >(Of course, I'm biased)
I'm biased too. Trouble is in comparing apples and oranges. It makes sense to me that a server farm that is spread out between New Orleans and Denver would be more reliable during Katrina than a mainframe in New Orleans alone. Reliability of a particular server in a properly implemented farm should not matter, and I can see a farm being more reliable for some purposes. Of course, spreading it around would make security much more difficult. I'm not sure what you mean by integrity here. I suspect you are referring to issues such as having Google come up with different matches when queries hit different servers in their farm. This is a trade off in getting everybody a quick response instead of going through one bottleneck. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
