[Info-vax] The Future of Server Hardware?

[Stephen Hoffman]

On 2012-10-02 16:32:12 +0000, JF Mezei said:

> Since I am good at asking stupid questions...
> 
> 
> Assuming, for the sake of discussion that todays's x86 , Power and the
> architecture that started as the 360 have equal CPU horsepower.

Mainframes typically excel at providing high bandwidth and low latency 
into and out of the processors, and not strictly at raw CPU speed.   
Though they're typically no slouches there, either.

Mainframes are centrally designed for error detection and correction; 
what HP calls RAS.

And with the IBM boxes I've worked with, the I/O channels are gonzo fast, too.

The older IBM mainframe boxes I've used were painful to set up - you 
had to specify everything, and in detail - but once you had the jobs 
configured, even the small mainframes were silly-fast.  Batch was 
screaming fast.  (Why "older"?  I haven't had to configure DASD and the 
other related tasks in many years, and I suspect that IBM has 
substantially improved here.)

Few folks will choose to run large-scale web servers and web sites on 
mainframes for that matter, though it is technically possible.  Other 
than those folks with very specific requirments or that have a 
willingness to spend far more money on iron than the average, that is.  
 There are other (and usually more cost-effective) ways to serve (for 
instance) web requests, though you might well find a mainframe as a 
back-end somewhere.

Mainframes are good for some jobs.  Roadrunner or Jaguar at other jobs. 
 Racks of x86 or ARM boxes at others.  And yes, Itanium has its place 
here, too.

-- 
Pure Personal Opinion | HoffmanLabs LLC