Mary, Mary, Mary,
This is what I've been trying to tell you all these years about the difference
between mainframes and servers and how small servers are going to replace
mainframes.
Servers can do anything mainframes do - only better. You distribute applications
and data over thousands of servers to improve performance and lower your cost.
There are times when it makes sense to divide up the computing task, and times when it's better to leave it all together. Sounds like the internet server application is the former:
As an example, take SI's hot people for instance. If everyone is clicking on Paul
Engel's and Ibexx's profile at the same time and reading what they have posted -
the system slows down for everybody else reading other messages. But if you put
all of Engel's or Ibexx's messages on servers of their own, all the people reading
these messages will not impact anyone else.
Paul and Ibexx hot people, I saw that. ;-)
The latter would be, for example, Aetna's or Prudential's customer base. They damn well want that all in one image, on one fast as possible and secure as possible (hardware encription, multi-levels of user hardware access keys), super high RAS, super high I/O machine. The same will be said for American Airlines reservation system, or Daimler-Chrysler's ERP system. No splitting of those jobs, no way. In fact, the vast majority of Fortune 100 companies continue to upgrade to the latest and greatest CMOS S390's (mainframe is a dinosaur word and is out, I won't use it any more). Didn't you notice the post I made referring to IBM's S390 MIPS being up 80% YOY?
I'm sure we'll have this exchange again in the not too distant future.
Best Regards,
Tony |
