Howard Brazee <[email protected]> writes: > For various values of "pull it off", other manufacturers *have* > succeeded. There are companies running their old "mission critical" > mainframe applications on Suns. Capabilities go up for IBM and for > its competing hardware, and "good enough" varies considerably for > different customers.
re: http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2010g.html#24 Intel Nehalem-EX Aims for the Mainframe http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2010g.html#27 Intel Nehalem-EX Aims for the Mainframe jim's '84 fault tolerant study pointed out that hardware was becoming increasingly smaller & smaller percentage of the failures http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/graft84.pdf similar thread with various references: http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2009p.html#0 big iron mainframe vs. x86 servers which has citation for another paper Jim did on failures Why Do Computers Stop and What Can Be Done About It? http://www.hpl.hp.com/techreports/tandem/TR-85.7.pdf from above: An analysis of the failure statistics of a commercially available fault-tolerant system shows that administration and software are the major contributors to failure. ... snip ... fall-over & hot-standby have been used to mask hardware and software failures .... as well as other kinds of planned & unplanned outages (like for maintenance) ... which are largely software-based RAS in this recent post http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2010f.html#2 Entry point for a Mainframe? I mentioned that IMS hot-standby was looking at the alternative solution to compensate for VTAM restart on the hot-standby machine taking periods measured in hrs (for large configuration). -- 42yrs virtualization experience (since Jan68), online at home since Mar1970 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
