Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: OrangeFish <OrangeFish@invalid.invalid>
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: architectural goals, Byte Addressability And Beyond
Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2024 16:24:03 -0400
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 33
Message-ID: <v3t5t3$1l78m$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v0s17o$2okf4$2@dont-email.me> <v38opv$1gsj2$3@dont-email.me>
 <v38riq$1aqo$1@gal.iecc.com> <niki5jps7jn2qfkj0t3s2t82qmrjoc97pi@4ax.com>
 <v3d9bh$s9a$2@gal.iecc.com> <gf6l5jtdreabgsud0qss6fu0cs17udisdb@4ax.com>
 <v3ejn5$2m8fn$1@dont-email.me> <v3lqo9$48om$4@dont-email.me>
 <soE7O.5245$Ktt5.2694@fx40.iad> <v3o7ot$kfrm$5@dont-email.me>
 <cme26jttmuh5i0l31fo5ch18g221oku84q@4ax.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 06 Jun 2024 22:24:04 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="94eeadd16445324d2be13f157df5f1cb";
	logging-data="1744150"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18Gvh7E8Sij/z6dtE/L8Fuk/2DtyNIcPtM="
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:102.0)
 Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.11.0
Cancel-Lock: sha1:fk8h8tcPPX/kWlGVXrHZLHBsmyU=
In-Reply-To: <cme26jttmuh5i0l31fo5ch18g221oku84q@4ax.com>
Content-Language: en-CA
Bytes: 2784

On 2024-06-06 00:42, George Neuner wrote:
> On Tue, 4 Jun 2024 23:25:18 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro
> <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
> 
>> On Tue, 04 Jun 2024 13:11:52 GMT, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>
>>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> writes:
>>>
>>>> On Sat, 1 Jun 2024 07:47:49 -0000 (UTC), Thomas Koenig wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> One of the main selling points [of zSeries] is the hardware
>>>>> reliability ...
>>>>
>>>> Quite an expensive way to get reliability. How does an outfit like
>>>> Google achieve essentially 0% downtime? By running a swarm of half a
>>>> million commodity servers, that’s how.
>>>
>>> And that's not expensive?
>>
>> Consider the equivalent number of mainframes, with their inbuilt
>> diagnostics capabilities etc, to match that reliability.
> 
> Can't find it now and don't remember many details, but ...
> 
> A long time ago, there was a story going around about Microsoft vs IBM
> regarding the day-to-day operation of their company web sites.  It
> claimed that Microsoft was running a ~1000 machine server farm with a
> crew of ~100, whereas IBM was running 3 mainframes with a crew of ~10.

Not the story but this reminds me of Microsoft Scalability Day: 
https://www.cnet.com/tech/tech-industry/scalability-day-falls-short/

OF.