Good lord! Can you PLEASE try to post *vaguely* relevant material? This makes you look like a troll.
On Sun, Aug 26, 2012 at 3:46 PM, Anne & Lynn Wheeler <l...@garlic.com>wrote: > scott_j_f...@yahoo.com (Scott Ford) writes: > > I saw the same exercise in a pharm. company trying to go from MVS, > > multiple Lpars to unix. Several millions of $$$ and it was a > > bust....some applications were difficult to convert > > in the 90s, one of the biggest efforts was by the financial industry > (large concentration in manhatten) to move from overnight batch window > to straight-through process ... using large numbers of "killer micros" > ... where several billions were dumped down the drain. These efforts > contributed to the "mainframe is dead" stories from the period. > > "real-time" transactions had been added to traditional batch ... but the > actual processing was still being down in the overnight batch window. > With globalization, there was combination of more work as well as > decreasing window size ... that was putting enormous pressure on the > paradigm. > > billions were spent on parallized implementation using large numbers > "killer micros" implementing "straight-through" processing > ... eliminated most of the work in the overnight batch window. They used > some parallelization technology with roll-your-own implementations that > looked good in the toy demos. However, they failed to so the > speeds&feeds and when it came to production rollout ... the whole thing > imploded horribly. The parallelization technology being used introduced > an increase in overhead of 100 times (compared to cobol batch) > ... totally swamping any anticipated throughput increase from large > number of "killer micros" > > I had done some simple speeds&feeds and pointed out the issue before > deployments but was ignored. I also got to work on improving performance > of cobol batch that ran everynight batch window on more than 40 maxed > out mainframes (40+ needed to handle workload, datacenter took pride in > saying no mainframe was older than 18months). > > At least by the last half of the last decade, most of the major > non-mainframe RDBMS vendors (including IBM) had made significant strides > in non-mainframe RDBMS cluster-scaleup. I participated in demonstration > of straight-through processing implementations that involved translating > operations into fine-grain SQL operations that would could be easily > parallelized by latest generation of non-mainframe RDBMS cluster > implementations (more like factor of 3-5 times compared to cobol batch > rather than 100 times). The financial industry standards organizations > were interested but there were lots of comments there was still enormous > resistance and risk aversion because of the lingering effects of the 90s > disastrous failures. > > these large financial institutions continue to be major mainframe > customer market. > > -- > virtualization experience starting Jan1968, online at home since Mar1970 > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, > send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN > -- zMan -- "I've got a mainframe and I'm not afraid to use it" ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
