>>> On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 12:41 AM, in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Steve Comstock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: -snip- > The problem I'm having, then, Ron, is identifying exactly > where z/OS belongs today. > > On the one hand I hear that nothing beats the MF for > reliability, security, recoverability, and so on. Then > I hear people telling me not be so sure about that. So > if these other platforms are up to MF levels, and they > are so much cheaper, why would anyone stay with a > mainframe today?
Well, in terms of DRA, there is no comparison, particularly if you're talking about a non-trivial number of distributed systems. z/OS has its strengths in a number of areas (I would love to have the same batch capability on Linux), and the fact that 60%+ of business data resides on ECKD emulated storage argues strongly for the continued existence of z/OS, ideally in cooperation with other operating systems, both mainframe based and not. > What's the driving factor that gives mainframes any > kind of real life expectancy, given that Windows and > xNIX are now up to MF standards? The fact that they're not. Period. Particularly not in the area of hardware reliability, and DRA. Distributed systems, whether UNIX or Linux, will likely always have their place. (The z10 closes the "performance gap" but the CPU cycles are still much more expensive compared to RISC or Intel/AMD.) The mainframe will also have its place, and more people are coming to realize that as time goes on. That doesn't necessarily mean z/OS, but z/OS in combination with Linux for System z (itself in combination with z/VM) is likely to be around for quite a while longer. Mark Post ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
