On 19 May 2010 06:17:35 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote: >I remember much levity in my time at Amdahl and IBM's inability to build a >machine that scaled >past 10 (?) engines. >We managed to skip past that o.k. - didn't have anything to do with >limitations in the OS - all the >relevant control blocks had plenty of width ... >Given the current powerPC architecture you'd have to think IBM have the smarts >to do massively >parallel these days.
But is there the desire or long term business need in the mainframe division? If they couldn't justify the expenditure to make FBA work for at least VSAM and the FBA data sets (page, HFS, zFS, etc.), maybe they can't justify the expenditure for massively parallel business computing. Also for what the z is good for, I could make a good case for putting the effort into better geographically dispersed computing and other sysplex features as having more value. > >Shane ... > >On Wed, May 19th, 2010 at 11:06 PM, David Andrews <[email protected]> wrote: > >> "Mainframe operating systems don't scale well past 64 cores in a >> single >> system image" >> >> Wonder what made The Register say that? >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> 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 >> >> >> > >---------------------------------------------------------------------- >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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
