3 ms·
We're talking about two different issues here. First is the architecture/software of a mainframe system, with all of its redundancy and scaling. Second is the i
by openasocket 10y ago
We're talking about two different issues here. First is the architecture/software of a mainframe system, with all of its redundancy and scaling. Second is the issue of hosting and maintaining your own hardware. On the first issue I'll admit I don't know enough about mainframes, perhaps they provide redundancy transparently to the programmer, but I'm a bit skeptical. Perhaps you simply think the redundancy is transparent because you understand the mainframe infrastructure deeply and internalized it? The second issue I'll push back on.
If you just want to host your servers on EC2, the SLA is 99.95% uptime. So that's about 4 hours of downtime due to outage a year. Put your servers in a multi-AZ autoscaling group and you're pretty solid. Bonus points for having autoscaling groups in more than one region. If you don't want to use any of the other services AWS provides, you can simply use them as a basic hosting service and get pretty amazing uptime. I've never used an old mainframe system, can you get greater uptime than that? Including hardware failures, power outages, network outages?
- myrandomcomment 10y agoThere was one point in my life when I was working for a large mainframe company ;) A bank wanted to move a system to a new site. The uptime on that system was 11 years. Uptime on a mainframe system is pretty much considered 100% 4 hours downtime a year is just way to much for some systems. Just have a google for "mainframe uptime". Yes the software is abstracted from the HW redundancy. You can pull CPUs with running code in systems and things keep working. Really - walk up and pull the CPU out. No impact to running code. Heck you can run your private cloud on one: https://www.fool.com/investing/general/2015/01/24/heres-why-ibm-is-still-building-mainframes.aspx https://www.fool.com/investing/general/2015/01/24/heres-why-...