Sujet : Re: architectural goals, Byte Addressability And Beyond
De : OrangeFish (at) *nospam* invalid.invalid (OrangeFish)
Groupes : comp.archDate : 06. Jun 2024, 21:24:03
Autres entêtes
Organisation : A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID : <v3t5t3$1l78m$1@dont-email.me>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
User-Agent : Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.11.0
On 2024-06-06 00:42, George Neuner wrote:
On Tue, 4 Jun 2024 23:25:18 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro
<ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Tue, 04 Jun 2024 13:11:52 GMT, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> writes:
>
On Sat, 1 Jun 2024 07:47:49 -0000 (UTC), Thomas Koenig wrote:
>
One of the main selling points [of zSeries] is the hardware
reliability ...
>
Quite an expensive way to get reliability. How does an outfit like
Google achieve essentially 0% downtime? By running a swarm of half a
million commodity servers, that’s how.
>
And that's not expensive?
>
Consider the equivalent number of mainframes, with their inbuilt
diagnostics capabilities etc, to match that reliability.
Can't find it now and don't remember many details, but ...
A long time ago, there was a story going around about Microsoft vs IBM
regarding the day-to-day operation of their company web sites. It
claimed that Microsoft was running a ~1000 machine server farm with a
crew of ~100, whereas IBM was running 3 mainframes with a crew of ~10.
Not the story but this reminds me of Microsoft Scalability Day:
https://www.cnet.com/tech/tech-industry/scalability-day-falls-short/OF.
Re: architectural goals, Byte Addressability And Beyond
Re: architectural goals, Byte Addressability And Beyond