-------------------------<snip>---------------------------
And oh boy, I get to be the bad guy again! With all due respect, you
guys need to get out more. Your perceptions on the relative scale and
performance (and even reliability) of the "squatty boxes" are well out
of date.
So how many servers does it take to match one z?
Well, um... one. Less actually depending on what you're comparing. A
typical mainframe -vs- a single seat PC? Well ok, you win that contest
on most (but not all) grounds. Mainframe -vs- Bad Ass(tm) open systems
server box like (say) a mid to high end p series? Or a Superdome? Trust
me, you really don't want to pick on that dude. He'll eat your lunch and
size you up for dinner too.
Honestly guys, I am a pro-mainframe guy. I even used to work in the
sameplace as Steve <mumble> years ago. So take as read that I am not
ignorantly mainframe bashing. Mainframes have many fine attributes, but
they're not the king of the hill any more. Not even close. Sorry.
------------------------<unsnip>------------------------
Chris, I'm afraid that I must disagree. Some of the "squatty boxes" are
blindingly fast at raw compute power, blasting MF engines right out of
the box. But how many business applications are just raw computing? All
the ones I've ever seen require significant amounts of I/O, and MF is
KING for I/O, because of concurrency. And running multiple concurrent
tasks on a "squatty box" rapidly bogs down, no matter how efficiently
the software is written. So in terms of USEFUL work, MF is still The Big
Cahuna. Some day, that might change, but I don't recommend holding your
breath waiting for it.
The bottom line is, and should be, what satisfies my business needs in
the most timely and cost-effective fashion.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
