On Thu, 2007-05-10 at 17:22 -0500, Ron Johnson wrote:
> On 05/10/07 16:12, Greg Folkert wrote:
> [snip]
> >
> >> I guess that's called a mainframe :)
> >
> > No, mainframes are not really that "capable" as a holy grail to set your
> > sights on. Yes they operate on a different set of standards, but over
> > all, they were designed to handle large amounts of input and output in a
> > very reasonable way. They really don't do computing any better or worse
> > (subjective, yes, I know) than any other systems. The only real thing
> > mainframes do better than many other systems, that I know of, is COST a
> > lot of money to maintain and upgrade.
>
> Did you just contradict yourself? They're *great* at IO. And
> they're durable.
Durable, through HUGE maintenance contracts. Though...
I should have said:
Besides IO, the only real thing mainframes do better than many
other systems, that I know of, is COST a lot of money to
maintain and upgrade.
Some costs I have seen in the past, associated with "mainframes":
* $50K just to get TCP/IP enabled on a single network interface.
* $120K to enable another, already there, processor.
* $60K to "update" the disk IO scheduler, that was mistakenly
ordered with the wrong configuration
I could mention others, I don't have all day. These were all done in
about 30 minutes after a P.O. was cut and faxed.
> Does AIX have batch queues?
This response intentionally left blank.
--
greg, greg@gregfolkert.net
PGP key: 1024D/B524687C 2003-08-05
Fingerprint: E1D3 E3D7 5850 957E FED0 2B3A ED66 6971 B524 687C
Alternate Fingerprint: 09F9 1102 9D74 E35B D841 56C5 6356 88C0
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part