[email protected] (Anne & Lynn Wheeler) writes: > I don't know of any ACIS money that was used for mainframes.
re: http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2013.html#74 mainframe "selling" points modulo the references to funding bitnet ... which was mainframe technology ... similar to what was used for the internal network. as referenced in edson's wiki article there was enormous resistance by the sna/communication organisation to anything that wasn't sna (including opposing tcp/ip use inside the company). the sna/communication organization in the late 80s spread a lot of mis-information as part of moving the internal network to sna (when it would have been enormously more efficient and less expensive to move to tcp/ip). various old internal network related email http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/lhwemail.html#vnet the sna/communication organization was also spreading mis-information as sna/vtam applicable to the NSFNET backbone ... as well as blocking us doing the NSFNET backbone. Somebody in their organization collected a lot of the misinformation communication and forwarded it ... small amount reproduced here http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2006w.html#email870109 and some other mis-information and/or related http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2006x.html#email870302 http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2011.html#email870306 that contributed to the original mainframe tcp/ip product being exceedingly inefficient (about 44kbyte/sec thruput using 3090 processor). I did the enhancements to the product to support RFC1044 and in some throughput tests at cray research got sustained channel throughput between cray and 4341 ... using only modes amount of 4341 processor (possibly 500 times improvement in bytes moved per instruction executed) ... some past posts http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subnetwork.html#1044 and as I've periodically referred in the past, this was also in the period when a senior disk engineer got a talk scheduled at the internal, annual, world-wide communication group conference and opened with the statement that the communication group was going to be responsible for the demise of the disk division. the issue was that the communication group had stranglehold on datacenters (strategic ownership of everything that crossed the datacenter walls, trying to preserve their terminal emulation install base and fight off client/server and distributed computing). The disk division was starting to see the effects of data fleeing the datacenters to more distributed computing friendly platforms with dropoff in disk sales. The disk division had come up with several products to correct the situation ... but they were constantly being vetoed by the communication group. -- virtualization experience starting Jan1968, online at home since Mar1970 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
