4 ms·

You statement and question are different things. Its also worth pointing out that a mainframe can mean different things. Here I will use the definition of a lar

You statement and question are different things. Its also worth pointing out that a mainframe can mean different things. Here I will use the definition of a large central machine (or cluster) designed for HPC. > Why hasnt cloud killed the mainframe A mainframe is typically a very powerful machine/cluster. You may be able to get those in the cloud (although I doubt you can get a single machine with >32TB RAM, for example) , but why pay a premium to the cloud provider on top of the base cost? > Why do newer companies not use mainframes Some do, but with your examples, its because they have been engineered to scale horizontally instead of vertically - i.e. using lots of less powerful machines instead of a single big machine. > Are mainframes used because of lock-in In some cases, sure. But there are many cases where big powerful machines are needed (where you cant have any of the issues that come with distributed computing - i.e. CAP trade-offs)

ak_111 3y ago
No, the questions are related. I am asking does the mainframe really deliver better cost/performance than the cloud (some of the mainframe prices are quite huge without even accounting for maintenance and recruitment costs)? Is this the reason why it is still a significant market?
- Ekaros 3y ago
  Consider also investment needed for the move. And the horror stories of that sort of moves have surfaced. Cloud might be cheaper, but moving to it is uncertainty where as current systems simply work. And cloud is not only option, you could also instead of mainframe, build your own data centres and get most what cloud offers. CAPEX vs. OPEX is a thing, but it is not like these are startups that need to scale. Or the scaling limits are pretty well known.
- threeseed 3y ago
  > I am asking does the mainframe really deliver better cost/performance than the cloud It is irrelevant because those companies don't care about cost/performance. They care about risks e.g. operational, security, regulatory etc. And I would trust a mainframe over the cloud for those criteria any day of the week.
scrlk 3y ago
> but why pay a premium to rent instead of buy? I think that most customers lease their mainframe. IIRC IBM will often ship more hardware than the customer requires, with additional CPU/memory etc. being activated if a licence is purchased.
- toomuchtodo 3y ago
  You can also pay for additional compute on demand with IBM’s mainframes, bursting above your steady state resource rate.
- supermatt 3y ago
  For sure, thats true of a lot of equipment :) I was more making the point that the cloud provider isnt a charity and will be charging a premium on top of that base cost. Ive updated to better reflect this.
smokefoot 3y ago
The word mainframe is often used ambiguously. In my experience it could mean: System Z - as I understand it, this is descendant from IBMs earliest computers like System 360. Typically apps are written in COBOL, PL1, tied together with JCL. “Newer” apps use DB2, but there are older non-relational databases as well. System P - an IBM alternative server architecture based on the Power chipset. I think these mostly run UNIX, but I’ve never been hands on. AS400 - technically an IBM minicomputer, but similarly esoteric with a bespoke OS and some nifty functionality for business apps (very SQL centric). HP Tandem - traditionally used in high availability transaction processing applications. Others? I think most of the other surviving old stuff is basically UNIX Typically people are thinking of System Z. I think both the inertia and scalable ACID explanations are relevant. That said, I’m not sure how DB2 on System Z compares to say Oracle RAC.
- TristanBall 3y ago
  I've never heard p-series called mainframe, and while it's been a while, I've both used and sold them ( as a side effect of that company's app often being sold bundled with a p-series ) While there's technically overlap in performance between the lowest spec Z and the higher end P, and these days lots of performance overlap between P and X ranges, P-series is called "midrange" by everyone I've every met. The Power hardware has been the basis for both the AS-400 and P-Series/AIX line for a long time now, although you can buy p-series with linux too. As an asside, AIX, with the exception of its volume manager which irks me deeply, is an incredibly usable Unix.. I mean you can really manage the whole thing via the SMIT UI without ever touching the command line. Not my preference, but you can. Some things, like cpu usage reporting are still better on AIX ( core utilisation via hyperthreads for example ) I'm still not a fan as such, mostly I'm annoyed by how good it is, but credit where credit is due. Of course there are some people, (usually older but not always), who will call any server, or anything in a server room "the mainframe", in the same way the any desktop tower gets called "the cpu" (technically correct via some broader definitions but still..), or they'll call whichever office app they primarily use as "Microsoft", and of course you need to take that into account when communicating with people, the the incorrect usage of mainframe seems pretty rare these days just because mainframes themselves are rare.. and people in businesses who have them generally can distinguish.

ak_111 3y ago

No, the questions are related. I am asking does the mainframe really deliver better cost/performance than the cloud (some of the mainframe prices are quite huge without even accounting for maintenance and recruitment costs)? Is this the reason why it is still a significant market?

Ekaros 3y ago
Consider also investment needed for the move. And the horror stories of that sort of moves have surfaced. Cloud might be cheaper, but moving to it is uncertainty where as current systems simply work. And cloud is not only option, you could also instead of mainframe, build your own data centres and get most what cloud offers. CAPEX vs. OPEX is a thing, but it is not like these are startups that need to scale. Or the scaling limits are pretty well known.
threeseed 3y ago
> I am asking does the mainframe really deliver better cost/performance than the cloud It is irrelevant because those companies don't care about cost/performance. They care about risks e.g. operational, security, regulatory etc. And I would trust a mainframe over the cloud for those criteria any day of the week.

scrlk 3y ago

> but why pay a premium to rent instead of buy? I think that most customers lease their mainframe. IIRC IBM will often ship more hardware than the customer requires, with additional CPU/memory etc. being activated if a licence is purchased.

toomuchtodo 3y ago
You can also pay for additional compute on demand with IBM’s mainframes, bursting above your steady state resource rate.
supermatt 3y ago
For sure, thats true of a lot of equipment :) I was more making the point that the cloud provider isnt a charity and will be charging a premium on top of that base cost. Ive updated to better reflect this.

smokefoot 3y ago

The word mainframe is often used ambiguously. In my experience it could mean: System Z - as I understand it, this is descendant from IBMs earliest computers like System 360. Typically apps are written in COBOL, PL1, tied together with JCL. “Newer” apps use DB2, but there are older non-relational databases as well. System P - an IBM alternative server architecture based on the Power chipset. I think these mostly run UNIX, but I’ve never been hands on. AS400 - technically an IBM minicomputer, but similarly esoteric with a bespoke OS and some nifty functionality for business apps (very SQL centric). HP Tandem - traditionally used in high availability transaction processing applications. Others? I think most of the other surviving old stuff is basically UNIX Typically people are thinking of System Z. I think both the inertia and scalable ACID explanations are relevant. That said, I’m not sure how DB2 on System Z compares to say Oracle RAC.

TristanBall 3y ago
I've never heard p-series called mainframe, and while it's been a while, I've both used and sold them ( as a side effect of that company's app often being sold bundled with a p-series ) While there's technically overlap in performance between the lowest spec Z and the higher end P, and these days lots of performance overlap between P and X ranges, P-series is called "midrange" by everyone I've every met. The Power hardware has been the basis for both the AS-400 and P-Series/AIX line for a long time now, although you can buy p-series with linux too. As an asside, AIX, with the exception of its volume manager which irks me deeply, is an incredibly usable Unix.. I mean you can really manage the whole thing via the SMIT UI without ever touching the command line. Not my preference, but you can. Some things, like cpu usage reporting are still better on AIX ( core utilisation via hyperthreads for example ) I'm still not a fan as such, mostly I'm annoyed by how good it is, but credit where credit is due. Of course there are some people, (usually older but not always), who will call any server, or anything in a server room "the mainframe", in the same way the any desktop tower gets called "the cpu" (technically correct via some broader definitions but still..), or they'll call whichever office app they primarily use as "Microsoft", and of course you need to take that into account when communicating with people, the the incorrect usage of mainframe seems pretty rare these days just because mainframes themselves are rare.. and people in businesses who have them generally can distinguish.