Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!cmcl2!nrl-cmf!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!bloom-beacon!mit-eddie!killer!elg
From: elg@killer.UUCP (Eric Green)
Newsgroups: comp.society.futures
Subject: Re: What's the future of the mainframe?
Message-ID: <3614@killer.UUCP>
Date: 7 Mar 88 07:39:33 GMT
References: <8803052348.AA21708@bu-cs.bu.edu>
Organization: Bayou Telecommunications
Lines: 58

in article <8803052348.AA21708@bu-cs.bu.edu>, bzs@BU-CS.BU.EDU (Barry Shein) says:
> The mainframe seems to be getting more threadbare as each year passes.
> Typical mainframes these days (eg. IBM3090) deliver about 30MIPs per
> processor, 1..6 processors and large memory systems which remains
> somewhat, but not very, impressive. 

> But what percentage of the computing growth needs mainframes anymore?
> people who bought IBM back when it was the only thing that would
> handle their few hundred thousand records (perhaps a few dozen
> megabytes) and don't realize that today you could process that kind of
> data on a relatively modest processor?

Well. Let's see. At educational price levels, a IBM 3090 goes for about $6
million.  $6,000,000. Assuming base-line Suns, at $10,000 apiece (average
cost, after distributing server costs), you could get 600 Suns for that same
price. 600 users.  Or, if we look at, say, Pyramids, which certainly can
handle everything that a IBM mainframe can handle, at least up to 500mb...
average cost, maybe $250,000 apiece (this was 4 years ago, mind you). 4 per
mil. 24 for 6 mil. Can handle over 720 users that way, at 30 users apiece.
But what do you get for your $6M? Well: You get a line editor that imitates a
page editor that imitates a screen editor. You get an operating system less
sophisticated than CP/M, and much more complex. You get a system that can
handle, maybe, 300 users. Frankly, I don't see why anybody would buy an IBM
3090, unless they needed access to absolutely huge databases that exceed the
size of most minicomputer disk packs (e.g. the 1 gigabyte supereagles).

> Even on the academic campus more and more people I speak to seem to be
> frustrated enough with the centralized approach (even the modest
> time-sharing systems) to computing that they would rather deal with
> less than deal with the bureaucracies these large "data centers"
> inevitably grow to become.

Most academic campuses today are still stuck in the 60's, as far as computing
center policies go. That is, their policies are based upon MINIMIZING use of
the computing facilities, because back in the 60's, computing facilities were
a rare and expensive resource. Most of them are having extreme difficulties
adjusting to times where a $6M mainframe can handle the entire contingent of
CS students online all at the same time, especially now that the CS rush of
the early 80's (which produced a temporary problem with computer availability
at most colleges) is over and CS enrollments have dropped back down to a more
reasonable level.  With all that equipment bought to handle the rush still
around. E.g. what do you do with a practically unused VMS cluster, when you
just bought a brand new 3090 and your professors prefer Unix on a bunch of
Pyramids and Encores? Most colleges are still set up for handling, "I have 600
CS students clamoring for access to a 120 user system", instead of "I have 600
CS students, and systems capable of handling 600 users". 

Note that I don't include Crays and other supercomputers as "mainframes",
because they're not general-purpose computers. Although I think Crays are
pretty neat, and when I'm a multibillionaire I'll have one for every room :-).
After all, on what other computer can you say that GNU Emacs is a small
process?! 

--
Eric Lee Green  elg@usl.CSNET    Snail Mail P.O. Box 92191        
{cbosgd,ihnp4}!killer!elg        Lafayette, LA 70509              

"Human evolution ended when civilization began".