1 |
On Wednesday 16 December 2009 16:25:43 Dale wrote: |
2 |
> Alan McKinnon wrote: |
3 |
> > On Wednesday 16 December 2009 01:34:33 Dale wrote: |
4 |
> >>> A real world scenario would be a bank server doing transactions. Those |
5 |
> >>> big irons do never ever get shut down. |
6 |
> >>> (But they also don't ever get really updated ;) |
7 |
> >>> |
8 |
Not true.* :-) |
9 |
|
10 |
> >>> Did you know, that they still use cobol-code from decades ago. The code |
11 |
> >>> has to interact with newer systems, but the existing code is not |
12 |
> >>> allowed to be altered, they just run it inside hugh java application |
13 |
> >>> servers on their main frames :D |
14 |
> >>> |
15 |
Somewhat true, but inaccurate. :-) |
16 |
> >>> Bye, |
17 |
> >>> Daniel |
18 |
> >> |
19 |
> >> Well, I wish someone would tell my bank that. They are down pretty |
20 |
> >> regular "upgrading" something. I use the term upgrading lightly here. |
21 |
> >> It usually makes things worse but anyway. They run windoze on their rig |
22 |
> >> so they most likely can't help that. ;-) |
23 |
> > |
24 |
> > They upgrade the *front*ends*, not the real stuff at the back. |
25 |
> > |
26 |
> > Switching a mainframe off is not a supported activity :-) |
27 |
> > |
28 |
Again, not true. But sometimes they run so long between IPLs the operations |
29 |
staff have to look up the procedures for doing it. :-) |
30 |
|
31 |
> > Along those lines I could tell you some funny stories about monumental |
32 |
> > cockups banks do to their front ends (my S.O. does banking data |
33 |
> > warehousing), but I'm not actually supposed to know some of that stuff so |
34 |
> > I won't :-) |
35 |
> |
36 |
> I'm not sure about back end or front end but they sure make a mess of it |
37 |
> at times. |
38 |
> |
39 |
Of course, not all banks use the same technology, nor do they all have the |
40 |
same level of competence. :-) |
41 |
|
42 |
> >> Hearing they use old code is not to surprising actually. Look at air |
43 |
> >> traffic control. Every time they try to upgrade, it crashes. I guess |
44 |
> >> the cheapest bidder is not always the best. o_O |
45 |
> > |
46 |
> > Every such crash after an upgrade I know of is trying to run the thing on |
47 |
> > Windows... |
48 |
> |
49 |
> Yep, I read the same thing. Why not use a real OS? I'm thinking BSD or |
50 |
> something. Linux would be good but I think BSD is even better suited |
51 |
> for basically 100% uptime. |
52 |
> |
53 |
> Dale |
54 |
> |
55 |
* This is an interesting discussion, but I feel obligated to point out that |
56 |
much of it is fantasy. :-) |
57 |
|
58 |
As a 30-year veteran of the IBM mainframe programming environment, I can say |
59 |
with authority that most of the enterprises that use them for |
60 |
mission-critical business applications (banking, stock-brokerage, etc.) are |
61 |
running systems that are updated frequently (sometimes daily) and are fully |
62 |
capable of being shut down and restarted (on purpose :-D ). Yes, some of |
63 |
them are front-ended with Linux servers; mainframe systems are not well |
64 |
designed for managing dynamic web traffic, although systems that do not have |
65 |
to support very high-volume workflows can do it themselves. The last system |
66 |
that I worked on was only shut down and restarted twice per year, because 90% |
67 |
of maintenance could be done while it was running (just like Linux), and |
68 |
because it was not a business-critical system, it was only required to be |
69 |
available 99.95% of the time. :-) |
70 |
|
71 |
The banking and brokerage systems that I first referred to use a more robust |
72 |
configuration than we did, which is capable of providing services 100% of the |
73 |
time, much like a Linux cluster system does. IBM calls the |
74 |
configuration "Parallel Sysplex." Here's an excerpt of their technical |
75 |
description, from |
76 |
<http://www-03.ibm.com/systems/z/advantages/pso/sysover.html>: |
77 |
|
78 |
'This "shared data" (as opposed to "shared nothing") approach enables |
79 |
workloads to be dynamically balanced across all servers in the Parallel |
80 |
Sysplex cluster. This approach allows critical business applications to take |
81 |
advantage of the aggregate capacity of multiple servers to help ensure |
82 |
maximum system throughput and performance during peak processing periods. In |
83 |
the event of a hardware or software outage, either planned or unplanned, |
84 |
workloads can be dynamically redirected to available servers thus providing |
85 |
near continuous application availability. |
86 |
Another significant and unique advantage of using Parallel Sysplex technology |
87 |
is the ability to perform hardware and software maintenance and installations |
88 |
in a nondisruptive manner. Through data sharing and dynamic workload |
89 |
management, servers can be dynamically removed from or added to the cluster |
90 |
allowing installation and maintenance activities to be performed while the |
91 |
remaining systems continue to process work. Furthermore, by adhering to IBM's |
92 |
software and hardware coexistence policy, software and/or hardware upgrades |
93 |
can be introduced one system at a time. This capability allows customers to |
94 |
roll changes through systems at a pace that makes sense for their business. |
95 |
The ability to perform rolling hardware and software maintenance in a |
96 |
nondisruptive manner allows business to implement critical business function |
97 |
and react to rapid growth without affecting customer availability.' |
98 |
|
99 |
Respectfully, |
100 |
|
101 |
Leslie |