3 ms·

<You can't just throw a switch and stop all financial activity in a big bank, while you swap a new system in place, because every second of downtime costs milli

by DrScump 10y ago

<You can't just throw a switch and stop all financial activity in a big bank, while you swap a new system in place, because every second of downtime costs millions.> It's been done. Design and implement a replacement system, run it in parallel for a meaningful timeframe, then switch over. You need a parallel implementation simply as a "hot backup" in case your primary system fails for whatever reason anyway, and it's easier to implement real-time redundancy in current systems anyway. (This was the niche that Tandem Computers served.) I think most mainframes in the USA are used to run old legacy systems that will be needed not much longer (or that's the plan, anyway), like shop-order control for old weapons systems -- tasks for which no replacement system would be necessary because the need ends with the project.

Zelmor 10y ago
Without disclosure of past employers: huge international banks still use mainframes. Regular employees access them via custom software to flip data left and right as necessary. In my experience, penny-grabbing and a lack of will to push to new technologies is what keeps these system alive. It is not in the interest of anyone to make change happen. Management is there for their annual bonus, not their 10 year goal to spend money substituting systems that are working 'fine' in the here and now. That is not how you make a career in these institutions. See Dilbert for more information.
- gadders 10y ago
  I'm not a massive fan, but it's a risk-reward calculation. What could new hardware do or offer that is compelling enough to spend millions of [currency] and run the risk of putting in place a new platform?
- DrScump 10y ago
  I really can't imagine that cost is a factor... it has to cost more to support a mainframe environment (especially assuming the need for a raised-floor, Halon-protected, chilled computer room and oversized, power-hungry peripherals) in anything but the shortest term.
- YeGoblynQueenne 10y ago
  >> See Dilbert for more information. I guess we 've worked in the same place then :)
YeGoblynQueenne 10y ago
>> You need a parallel implementation simply as a "hot backup" in case your primary system fails for whatever reason anyway Mainframes have backup built-in already, and then they're also ran in twos with one as further backup. The amount of redundancy built in those systems is just insane and quite unmatched by anything in the "distributed" world. So for example where I work(ed) the mainframe network is touted as having 99,999% uptime. In my time there, there was an "outage" that affected the whole business quite severely... and it was on a distributed (not a mainframe) server. I don't think anyone remembers the mainframes ever having failed for good. They're just beasts. There's solid reasons to use them the way they're used. The fact that they're a bit archaic... well, to be fair so is Linux. So what? If it works, it works.

by DrScump 10y ago

Zelmor 10y ago

Without disclosure of past employers: huge international banks still use mainframes. Regular employees access them via custom software to flip data left and right as necessary. In my experience, penny-grabbing and a lack of will to push to new technologies is what keeps these system alive. It is not in the interest of anyone to make change happen. Management is there for their annual bonus, not their 10 year goal to spend money substituting systems that are working 'fine' in the here and now. That is not how you make a career in these institutions. See Dilbert for more information.

gadders 10y ago
I'm not a massive fan, but it's a risk-reward calculation. What could new hardware do or offer that is compelling enough to spend millions of [currency] and run the risk of putting in place a new platform?
DrScump 10y ago
I really can't imagine that cost is a factor... it has to cost more to support a mainframe environment (especially assuming the need for a raised-floor, Halon-protected, chilled computer room and oversized, power-hungry peripherals) in anything but the shortest term.
YeGoblynQueenne 10y ago
>> See Dilbert for more information. I guess we 've worked in the same place then :)

YeGoblynQueenne 10y ago

>> You need a parallel implementation simply as a "hot backup" in case your primary system fails for whatever reason anyway Mainframes have backup built-in already, and then they're also ran in twos with one as further backup. The amount of redundancy built in those systems is just insane and quite unmatched by anything in the "distributed" world. So for example where I work(ed) the mainframe network is touted as having 99,999% uptime. In my time there, there was an "outage" that affected the whole business quite severely... and it was on a distributed (not a mainframe) server. I don't think anyone remembers the mainframes ever having failed for good. They're just beasts. There's solid reasons to use them the way they're used. The fact that they're a bit archaic... well, to be fair so is Linux. So what? If it works, it works.