«

One thing we don't discuss much in this ng is the ongoing role of mainframes.
From past posts on related subjects there are at least a few in here that are
interested in this - whereas most associate mainframes with legacy applications.
The implication is that both are purely in the ready-for-retirement category.

Most of you who care will be aware of my Unisys background. I am intrigued
though that Unisys and presumably others continue to believe that mainframes can
play a role beyond holding up retirement-age applications. Are other mainframe
manufacturers doing the same? Is the mainframe truly a dead end?

As an example, this is a recent Unisys press release:

http://www.unisys.com/about__unisys/...s/07258560.htm

Anyone else headed in this direction?

Crash.

Crash wrote:
> Most of you who care will be aware of my Unisys background. I am
> intrigued though that Unisys and presumably others continue to believe
> that mainframes can play a role beyond holding up retirement-age
> applications. Are other mainframe manufacturers doing the same? Is the
> mainframe truly a dead end?
>
> As an example, this is a recent Unisys press release:
>
> http://www.unisys.com/about__unisys/...s/07258560.htm
>
> Anyone else headed in this direction?

One of our major clients in the UK, runs our software on a Unisys ES7000
running Windows Data Center. We also have ports for linux on IBM
Z-Series and P-Series.

BTW: I notice from the link you provided Daiutu is reporting from Blue
Bell, last time I ran into him he was in charge of the Treddy plant
(can't remember if he was a VP then, looks like he has moved up in the
Unisys hierarchy).

Bok wrote:
> Crash wrote:
>
>> Most of you who care will be aware of my Unisys background. I am
>> intrigued though that Unisys and presumably others continue to believe
>> that mainframes can play a role beyond holding up retirement-age
>> applications. Are other mainframe manufacturers doing the same? Is
>> the mainframe truly a dead end?
>>
>> As an example, this is a recent Unisys press release:
>>
>> http://www.unisys.com/about__unisys/...s/07258560.htm
>>
>> Anyone else headed in this direction?
>
>
> One of our major clients in the UK, runs our software on a Unisys ES7000
> running Windows Data Center. We also have ports for linux on IBM
> Z-Series and P-Series.

Yeah but they used to use a mainframe did they not? Any planned ports to a
mainframe?
>
> BTW: I notice from the link you provided Daiutu is reporting from Blue
> Bell, last time I ran into him he was in charge of the Treddy plant
> (can't remember if he was a VP then, looks like he has moved up in the
> Unisys hierarchy).

Joe McGrath is Unisys CEO - runs the company - with 9 direct reports, one of
whom is Leo Daiuto. Leo heads up Systems & Technology.

Crash.

Crash wrote:
> Bok wrote:
>> One of our major clients in the UK, runs our software on a Unisys
>> ES7000 running Windows Data Center. We also have ports for linux on
>> IBM Z-Series and P-Series.
>
> Yeah but they used to use a mainframe did they not?
I guess you know the site I'm referring to. They had a V-Series box when
I first had anything to do with them and later moved to A-Series
architecture.

> Any planned ports to a mainframe?
IBM Z-Series are normally considered to be mainframes.

"Crash" <> wrote in message
news:r7EHe.5190$...
> One thing we don't discuss much in this ng is the ongoing role of
> mainframes. From past posts on related subjects there are at least a few
> in here that are interested in this - whereas most associate mainframes
> with legacy applications. The implication is that both are purely in the
> ready-for-retirement category.
>
> Most of you who care will be aware of my Unisys background. I am
> intrigued though that Unisys and presumably others continue to believe
> that mainframes can play a role beyond holding up retirement-age
> applications. Are other mainframe manufacturers doing the same? Is the
> mainframe truly a dead end?
>
> As an example, this is a recent Unisys press release:
>
> http://www.unisys.com/about__unisys/...s/07258560.htm
>
> Anyone else headed in this direction?
>
> Crash.

Mainframes will exist for a long time to come. Some business are just so big
they must have the unparalleled processing power of a proprietary mainframe.

In article <42efd369$>, Bok <> wrote:
>IBM Z-Series are normally considered to be mainframes.

The internal project name for the Z-Series was "T Rex". When it was
announced, one of the publicity posters showed a dinosaur savaging some PC
systems. The slogan was, "Dinosaurs: we're back, and we're ****ed."

--
Don Hills (dmhills at attglobaldotnet) Wellington, New Zealand
"New interface closely resembles Presentation Manager,
preparing you for the wonders of OS/2!"
-- Microsoft advertisement on the box for Windows 2.11 for 286

Crash wrote:
> One thing we don't discuss much in this ng is the ongoing role of
> mainframes. From past posts on related subjects there are at least a few
> in here that are interested in this - whereas most associate mainframes
> with legacy applications. The implication is that both are purely in
> the ready-for-retirement category.
>
> Most of you who care will be aware of my Unisys background. I am
> intrigued though that Unisys and presumably others continue to believe
> that mainframes can play a role beyond holding up retirement-age
> applications. Are other mainframe manufacturers doing the same? Is the
> mainframe truly a dead end?

IBM has been marketing mainframes as - in effect - super servers.

There still isn't much around that can touch mainframes for the sheer
volume of transactions (and data) they can handle.

Another version of the mainframe sees it replacing individual
Intel-based servers.......

For example, an IBM mainframe might be configured to look and act like
500 linux-based file and print servers (actually virtual machines all
running on one mainframe) for a large office or on a large network. The
Canadian banks do stuff like this over their networks out to the
branches....IIRC.

These servers would replace the equivalent in Microsoft server licences,
500 Intel servers...and the support staff required to support the same.

Overall....the cost case for the mainframe in such a configuration is
compelling.

I mention IBM because I know they do it. If any other vendor offers this
sort of thing - then good on'em.

Bok wrote:
> Crash wrote:
>
>> Bok wrote:
>>
>>> One of our major clients in the UK, runs our software on a Unisys
>>> ES7000 running Windows Data Center. We also have ports for linux on
>>> IBM Z-Series and P-Series.
>>
>>
>> Yeah but they used to use a mainframe did they not?
>
> I guess you know the site I'm referring to. They had a V-Series box when
> I first had anything to do with them and later moved to A-Series
> architecture.
>
>> Any planned ports to a mainframe?
>
> IBM Z-Series are normally considered to be mainframes.
>
Linux and mainframe don't connect. By my definition a mainframe environment
requires the use of a proprietary operating system originally designed to run
only on the same vendor's hardware.

Crash.

On Wed, 03 Aug 2005 18:24:34 +1200, someone purporting to be Crash didst
scrawl:

> Bok wrote:
*SNIP*
>> IBM Z-Series are normally considered to be mainframes.
>>
> Linux and mainframe don't connect. By my definition a mainframe environment
> requires the use of a proprietary operating system originally designed to run
> only on the same vendor's hardware.
>
IBM would probably be a little miffed that you don't consider the z-Series
or the S/390s to be mainframes. I think HP will be a little ****ed that
you don't think their non-stop computing stuff will qualify as mainframes
either.
A mainframe is a design, not any specific coupling of hardware and
software. Running Linux doesn't stop it being a mainframe provided that it
meets all the other requirements about I/O, hardware and software
redundancy and failover, etc.

--
Matthew Poole
"Don't use force. Get a bigger hammer."

Matthew Poole wrote:

> IBM would probably be a little miffed that you don't consider the z-Series
> or the S/390s to be mainframes. I think HP will be a little ****ed that
> you don't think their non-stop computing stuff will qualify as mainframes
> either.

There was an article on Slashdot last week regarding Linux and its importance
to the HP non-stop division. Can't find that right now, but the reference is
to an earlier article.
e.g. http://www.computerworld.com.au/inde...7404;relcomp;1

> A mainframe is a design, not any specific coupling of hardware and
> software. Running Linux doesn't stop it being a mainframe provided that it
> meets all the other requirements about I/O, hardware and software
> redundancy and failover, etc.

Mainframe still has the "monolithic" connotation, though. There are many
creative solutions to provide high-performance computing (by any of the useful
mesaures - processing power, redudancy, connectivity, storage) by designs
other than big iron.

Stu

--
IT Management. Tel: +64 3 479 5478
Web and database hosting, Co-location. Web: http://www.wic.co.nz
Software development. Email: