18 Dec
2000
18 Dec
'00
10:40 a.m.
I have seen several articles on why companies are choosing mainframes as
servers for PC networks.
1. Scalability If you need a PC based server for every 100 PC's and a
system administrator for each server and you have 2000 PC's then you need 20
system administrators, also 20 backups, also 20 sets of passwords,
permissions and rights lists. How do you keep the systems synchronized and
running. Logistics nightmare.
2. Predictability. You can buy a "mainframe" from IBM and know what costs,
licenses, and hardware will cost. Your software probably won't need an
infinite number of patches to run. You can buy known network and backup
solutions.
3. Stable OS. The operating system is a known quantity with predictable
costs to support. You can hire staff that have mainframe experience.
4. IBM actually is selling more "mainframe" hardware than ever before.
Enough with the big iron.
Mike
mmcfadden(a)cmh.edu
18 Dec
18 Dec
4:22 p.m.
----- Original Message -----
From: "McFadden, Mike" <mmcfadden(a)cmh.edu>
To: <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2000 3:10 AM
Subject: Re: The debate on what per say is a mini...
I have seen several articles on why companies are
choosing mainframes
as
servers for PC networks.
1. Scalability If you need a PC based server for every 100 PC's and a
system administrator for each server and you have 2000 PC's then you
need 20
system administrators, also 20 backups, also 20 sets
of passwords,
permissions and rights lists. How do you keep the systems
synchronized and
running. Logistics nightmare.
Uh, it does depend a bit on what sever O/S. NT is a nightmare, and it
crashes a lot, though it's quite stable if no-one is using it,(!)
another Catholic School in the next town has an uptime on an NT box
around the 400 day mark, but it has no user access, and just runs a
proxy and dhcp server. Unix, though infinitely more stable, is not an
ideal platform to integrate into a PC Win9x environment, (yes, I know
about Samba, but it has its share of problems as well.). The best of
the breed for this appears (IMHO) to be Novell Netware. It allows
multiple servers in a single directory services tree, and it's quite
feasible for one or two suitably trained individuals to preside over
quite a large network. There are also high reliablilty variants
available.
2. Predictability. You can buy a
"mainframe" from IBM and know what
costs,
licenses, and hardware will cost. Your software
probably won't need
an
infinite number of patches to run. You can buy known
network and
backup
solutions.
True enough. Substitute DEC^H^H^H Compaq Alpha for IBM and Tru64 or VMS
for the O/S and
similar things apply. Compatibility, particularly in the
document/spreadsheet/database environment with other organisations who
are mostly using MS crud is more of a problem, (in the school
environment it would be very difficult)
3. Stable OS. The operating system is a known quantity
with
predictable
costs to support. You can hire staff that have
mainframe experience.
4. IBM actually is selling more "mainframe" hardware than ever before.
IF you are big enough to afford it. Yes. Those of us without the IT
budget of BHP (Hmmm, make it US Steel for the US types)
would find it impossible to contemplate. But it would be nice, though I
think I would fancy DEC/Compaq over IBM personally,
(and yes, I realise an Alphaserver with X x 1Ghz CPU's and 1Gb of ram is
not a mainframe, but then a System 390 is just one box these days too.)
Enough with the big iron.
Can never have enough Big Iron. Bite your tongue. ;^) (Looks at Vax
6000-440 in machine room)
Cheers
Geoff Roberts
Computer Systems Manager
Saint Mark's College
Port Pirie,
South Australia
geoffrob(a)stmarks.pp.catholic.edu.au
ICQ: 1970476
8795
days inactive
8795
days old
1 comments
2 participants
participants (2)
-
geoffrob＠stmarks.pp.catholic.edu.au -
mmcfadden＠cmh.edu