Slashdot Mirror


Sendmail On IBM Mainframes Running GNU/Linux

raffe writes: "Cnet reports that Sendmail has released a version of its e-mail server software that can run on Linux-powered IBM mainframe computers. In one benchmark test, IBM found that it was possible to house 2 million e-mail accounts on a single server, with 10 percent of the users accessing their mail at any given moment" For some reason though, IBM zSeries machines aren't listed at pricewatch ;)

132 comments

  1. go with qmail by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 1, Troll

    its just less buggy than sendmail.

    --

    --
    "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    1. Re:go with qmail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Flamebait

      Of shove it up your ass. Qmail bigots are such faggots.

      FUCK Qmail.

    2. Re:go with qmail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll

      By the way, I forgot to mention:

      You don't appear to like spam. But you deserve it, bryan@grateful.net for being such a faggot Qmail zealot.

      FUCK YOU TOO!

    3. Re:go with qmail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

      Somebody moderate this karma whoring, first post baiting, mail munging qmail zealot down where he belongs!

    4. Re:go with qmail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      But, but, but, qmail doesn't have the "instant" root exploit (or any other exploit) like sendmail does. How are local users suppose to "get root"?

      P.S. I'm a qmail admin. I sleep at night.

    5. Re:go with qmail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

      What the fuck are you talking about? Sendmail's last exploit was a looong time ago. Post a recent or current link, or shut your cocksucking lying mouth, faggot!

    6. Re:go with qmail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just like a karma whore to first post without making note of the fact. "Oh, I got first post, wow", while behind his holier-than-thou attitude, he's jumping up and down thinking "FIRSTUS POSTUS, BEEOTCHES!".

      Just admit you have a problem (actually two). You can't get well until you do.

    7. Re:go with qmail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

      but sendmail was built by chinks. who wants to use the evil creation of filthy commies?

    8. Re:go with qmail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

      get bizy, yo

    9. Re:go with qmail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

      Shut the fuck up, you racist fuck!
      Nice pasty white skin on yah, faggot. (The "Superior" race, indeed. bwahahah!)

    10. Re:go with qmail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

      Guess your to dump to read bugtraq on security focus.

    11. Re:go with qmail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

      Quit yo yak'n and get to smack'n!

      Biznatch!

    12. Re:go with qmail by Lxy · · Score: 2

      Qmail is stronger only because it doesn't run as root. Sendmail can do the same thing.

      --

      There is no reasonable defense against an idiot with an agenda
      :wq
    13. Re:go with qmail by atheos · · Score: 1

      Ya, it's been a whole freakin week!

    14. Re:go with qmail by Florian+Weimer · · Score: 1

      sendmail is one big monolithic piece of software, qmail is not, and qmail is much simpler than sendmail, too. sendmail doesn't suddenly become ultra-secure just because you don't run it as root.

    15. Re:go with qmail by sfe_software · · Score: 1

      I use nothing but Qmail. Its own programs don't even trust each other, much less the outside world. Qmail even offers a Security Guarantee - I'd like to see Sendmail do that...

      But on topic, I think the port is cool anyway. I'd personally love to get ahold of an S/390, and run about 40 virtual Linux boxes within it. If someone owns one of the virtual boxen (via a Sendmail sploit for example), I suppose it'd be easy enough to clean up...

      --
      NGWave - Fast Sound Editor for Windows
    16. Re:go with qmail by Balinares · · Score: 2

      No, no, no.
      If you want to go the "Sendmail is buggy" way, well, at least, try to be informative where the alternatives are concerned.

      For those who wish to try another MTA, the three big ones, not counting Sendmail, are Exim (small and easy, good for your home net), Qmail, and Postfix (fast and powerful, my personal fav). All four have their good points, and all four are certainly worth checking before you decide on one.

      See? I mean, if Sendmail is still so widely used, there is a reason, you know... :)

      --

      -- B.
      This sig does in fact not have the property it claims not to have.
    17. Re:go with qmail by Lxy · · Score: 2

      I'm not going to get in a flame war with you but SENDMAIL IS BETTER.

      --

      There is no reasonable defense against an idiot with an agenda
      :wq
    18. Re:go with qmail by Florian+Weimer · · Score: 1

      I didn't want to say something else. IMHO, qmail and sendmail are so different that you can hardly say which one is better in general, only for specific purposes there might be a clear winner. (If your main criterion is flexibility, sendmail clearly wins hands down.) If you think qmail can do the job, go with it, if you need a development environment for email address parsers, use sendmail.

      Personally, I use Exim where I can; another large, monolithic piece of software...

    19. Re:go with qmail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Gosh, I'm glad I posted as anonymous coward the newbie moderators are having a field day with offtopic and troll.

    20. Re:go with qmail by Skapare · · Score: 2

      No, no, no.
      If you want to go the "Windows [microsoft.com] is buggy" way, well, at least, try to be informative where the alternatives are concerned.

      For those who wish to try another OS, the three big ones, not counting Windows, are BSD [bsd.org] (four powerful, secure, and robuts variations), Linux [linux.org] (more distributions than you can shake a CAT 5 at), and Solaris [sun.com] (The premiere commercial *Nix). All four have their good points, and all four are certainly worth checking before you decide on one.

      See? I mean, if Windows is still so widely used, there is a reason, you know... :)

      --
      now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
    21. Re:go with qmail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      wanker This is a test of the lameness filter

    22. Re:go with qmail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      fuckaz asdfjkhsdf fjfhff sdfiywermqpour aedfu9yrn uyfyf

    23. Re:go with qmail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      SendWhale must die! Postfix rocks.

    24. Re:go with qmail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      hello sdf asdfasdf asdfihg piyhasefoiug awf asdfasdf sdfsfgggewt rty4eqg

    25. Re:go with qmail by RonVNX · · Score: 1

      LOL! Obviously you've never used qmail.

    26. Re:go with qmail by RonVNX · · Score: 1

      Widely used != Good

      See: Microsoft Windows

    27. Re:go with qmail by Balinares · · Score: 2

      Point taken. :)

      Still, Windows is widely used because it capitalizes on user stupidity. Now try to have a stupid guy configure Sendmail. :)

      --

      -- B.
      This sig does in fact not have the property it claims not to have.
    28. Re:go with qmail by Balinares · · Score: 1

      Funny. :) And good point, too. If Windows is still widely used, there IS a reason (we may or may not like it -- as I pointed out, my fav MTA is Postfix, not Sendmail). Try having your grand'ma understand BSD, Linux or Solaris. :)

      Bottom line: Sendmail works for a lot of people -- and some of them even know what they are doing. :) Since all MTAs are interoperable, as opposed to OSes, it is not a problem for you if other people prefer other MTAs, so let's just all be happy that we have a good choice of them.

      --

      -- B.
      This sig does in fact not have the property it claims not to have.
    29. Re:go with qmail by Nailer · · Score: 2

      Qmail and Postfix are stronger for a variety of reasons. As well as a more modular design, both are designed and configured for modern environments - no 300k configuration file full of UUCP / X400 configuration stuff people won't use. More things to configure mean more things to misconfigure and go wrong. Sendmail also doesn't support maildir AFAIK.

      Not to mention violating Unix philosophy: text should be a common interface. Sure apps like LDAP and RPM use databases to keep their configuration data in (and simply allow interaction via text), but this is for performance reasons rather than legacy compatibility (i.e, just that should have been disposed of or made optional some time ago).

    30. Re:go with qmail by Skapare · · Score: 2

      And Postfix is my favorite, too, after having administered Sendmail for 8 years and Qmail for 1 year. I wouldn't go back. It's quite close in many respects to how I would make an MTA.

      --
      now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
    31. Re:go with qmail by RonVNX · · Score: 1

      Once you go qmail, you'll never go back. It's one of the best decisions I've ever made, although going djbdns was probably the best.

  2. Wow! by roguerez · · Score: 3, Funny

    This makes the ultimate spamrelay.. ;)

  3. The mainframe's not dead... by Jay+Maynard · · Score: 5, Interesting
    This is the kind of thing that mainframes do well: information processing with little or no actual computation. Their I/O abilities really make the difference here.


    Hopefully, this kind of result will show the skeptics that there's a real purpose for the big boxes.

    --
    Disinfect the GNU General Public Virus!
    1. Re:The mainframe's not dead... by MikeBabcock · · Score: 2

      Anyone got some numbers on running something like qmail on the same hardware?

      --
      - Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
    2. Re:The mainframe's not dead... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh please, you are telling me that to justify the purchase of a mainframe you are going to say, 'it runs sendmail?' I hope you have some more important uses for it. To be honest, this is just plain silly. Who really cares? There are much better, cheaper machines for the job.

    3. Re:The mainframe's not dead... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nope, but it'd run twice as fast and have twice the capacity if it were running FreeBSD. Linux isn't good for much besides smalls-scale web servers.

    4. Re:The mainframe's not dead... by Jay+Maynard · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Oh please, you are telling me that to justify the purchase of a mainframe you are going to say, 'it runs sendmail?' I hope you have some more important uses for it.

      Of course there are more important uses for the mainframe. There are mainframes slogging away daily in medium and large companies doing boring things like general ledger and payroll processing...the kind of unglamorous stuff that geeks turn their noses up at, at least until their paycheck doesn't arrive on time.

      My point here is that the mainframe is also good at doing stuff like sendmail (or qmail, if you prefer). For the enterprise that has one (or several), carving off a logical partition to run Linux and handle the enterprise's email may well be a reason to keep it around instead of pushing it out the door and replacing it with a hundred NT boxes. Even sendmail is more secure than Exchange.


      Who really cares? There are much better, cheaper machines for the job.

      Give it a closer look. Quite aside from the cost of a high-end Sun or HP (priced an E10K lately?), study after study has shown that the mainframe provides better reliability at a lower total cost of ownership than Unix or NT systems that provide the same functionality.

      --
      Disinfect the GNU General Public Virus!
    5. Re:The mainframe's not dead... by Jay+Maynard · · Score: 1

      Nope, but it'd run twice as fast and have twice the capacity if it were running FreeBSD.

      BTW, there's an active effort to port NetBSD to the 390...so this isn't as far off as you might think.

      --
      Disinfect the GNU General Public Virus!
    6. Re:The mainframe's not dead... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How amusing, we see once again the twisted logic of the flaming bsd bigots - after being shown concrete evidence of solid Linux performance on the mainframe, they fall back to blindly repeating their "linux sucks" mantra. They are in denial.

      These are miserable, angry people.

      These bsd bigots would be funny if it weren't so sad.

    7. Re:The mainframe's not dead... by CajunArson · · Score: 2, Funny

      Re:The mainframe's not dead...

      That's right IT'S JUST RESTING!!

      --
      AntiFA: An abbreviation for Anti First Amendment.
  4. How I love "Big Iron" by linatux · · Score: 1

    If only I could convince our sysprog to give me an LPAR on ours.

    1. Re:How I love "Big Iron" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

      As the sun rises of God's country, a lone troll climbs from his cave to the top of the ridge, thumps his chest and yowls:

      FIRSTUS POSTUS, BEEOTCHII!!!!



      pleeease?!!!!

  5. WTF is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    GNU\Linux?

    Is that like Linux?

    1. Re:WTF is... by TheMidget · · Score: 2, Funny
      Maybe it is...:

      RMS's personal version of DOS? Ya know, the backslash...

    2. Re:WTF is... by be-fan · · Score: 2

      Its just like GNU/BeOS, GNU/Win2K, GNU/OpenUNIX, GNU/Solaris, GNU/Tru64, and GNU/OSX!

      --
      A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
    3. Re:WTF is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's like GNU-balance sneakers, or GNU-wave music. It's better because it's GNU

  6. Try to imagine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll

    a beowulf cluster of these :)

  7. Timmah, this one's for you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic
    Enjoy my cock:


    _,-%/%|
    _,-' \//%\
    _,-' \%/|%
    _,-' __,-- /%\
    _,-' _,-'%(% ; %)%
    _,-' _,-' %\%, %\
    _,-' _,-' '--%'
    _,-' _,-'
    _,-' _,-'
    _,-' _,-'
    _,-' _,-'
    _,-' _,-'
    _,-' _,-'
    _,-' _,-'
    / / ) _,-'
    \__/_,-'


    SUCK IT.

    Important Stuff:

    • Please try to keep my dick out of your mouth.
    • Try to suck other people's cocks rather than always sucking my cock.
    • Suck other people's cocks before sucking your own to avoid simply duplicating what has already been sucked.
    • Use a clear subject that describes why you want to suck a moderator's cock.
    • Offtopic, Inflammatory, Inappropriate, Illegal, or Offensive comments might be stuffed up your ass. (You can suck everything, even your own cock, by adjusting your threshold on the User Preferences Page)
    • Problems regarding your cock should be shoved up CowboyNeal's ass
    1. Re:Timmah, this one's for you by Cock+Knocker · · Score: 1

      Kapow!

  8. The rest of the article... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny
    In one benchmark test, IBM found that it was possible to house 2 million e-mail accounts on a single server, with 10 percent of the users accessing their mail at any given moment..."


    ...And in another benchmark test, IBM was also proud to announce that the massive I/O and processing infrastructure of its flagship zServer range was able to sustain 2 million Sendmail security holes, with 10 percent of the holes being exploited at any given moment...truly a new world record.

  9. Can you imagine.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    a Beowulf cluster of these?

    1. Re:Can you imagine.. by spauldo · · Score: 1

      Funny thing is, with VM you only need 1 mainframe to have a beowulf cluster of those...

      --
      Those who can't do, teach. Those who can't teach either, do tech support.
  10. Shock the Monkey by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

    I just can't help it. I tried but damn it I just keep on shocking the monkey. What should I do?

    1. Re:Shock the Monkey by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

      If you let him sit in his shit and piss and don't feed him for about two weeks, he'll get ebola. Ask, if you keep feeding him Cokes, he'll puke all over the place.

    2. Re:Shock the Monkey by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

      shock the balls insteed, or the nipples. try it. much more enjoyable

  11. I'll be impressed... by The_Messenger · · Score: 1

    ...when I see mainframes running Exchange.

    --

    --
    I like to watch.

    1. Re:I'll be impressed... by jandersen · · Score: 1

      So would I - but I don't think MS are able handle the task.

    2. Re:I'll be impressed... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't you mean Depressed...?

    3. Re:I'll be impressed... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So get Bochs working on Linux/390, and then install NT on it, and then install Exchange.

      No big deal.

      BTW: qmail (like sendmail) compiles out of the box on Linux/390. So does postfix, for that matter. I personally tend to think that either qmail or postfix is in general a better MTA for most applications than sendmail. But that's the nice thing about Linux/390: it's just Linux. Run what you want.

    4. Re:I'll be impressed... by The_Messenger · · Score: 1
      Foolie. You're missing out on the innovative communications extensions only found in Microsoft Exchnage Server, such as the Fuck Calendar. The Fuck Calendar allows your boss to see all of your meetings and shit. I fucking hate it. That's why I call it Fuck Calendar.

      Oh, and Exchange's Assrape Notes. They're completely useless. They're just annoying, like assrape.

      And don't forget the Retard Journal! It's fucking retarded!

      I hate Exchange.

      --

      --
      I like to watch.

    5. Re:I'll be impressed... by Tony-A · · Score: 1

      No, impressed to see it running. Depressed trying to get it running, (or trying to keep it running ;-)
      I wonder if this (sendmail on big iron) is able to handle an enterprise-wide outbreak of the next outlook virus/worm/whatever.

    6. Re:I'll be impressed... by Drazi100 · · Score: 1

      that would be awesome to see the first piece of software ever to bring a mainframe to its knees

  12. Timmy, why dont you go marry that smelly monk ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

    its not GNU/Linux , you stupid jerk, its

    ll llllllll ll lll l l xxx xxx
    lll llllll llll ll lll lll xxx xxx
    lll ll lllll ll lll lll xxx xxx
    lll ll lll ll ll lll lll xxxxx
    lll ll lll lll ll lll lll xxx
    lll ll lll lllll lll lll xxxxx
    llllllll llllll lll lllll llll llll xxx xxx
    llllllll llllllll ll llll lllllllll xxx xxx

  13. ITS NOT GNU/Linux ! Fuck ! Its Just linux ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

    ll llllllll ll lll l l xxx xxx
    lll llllll llll ll lll lll xxx xxx
    lll ll lllll ll lll lll xxxxxx
    lll ll lll ll ll lll lll xxx
    lll ll lll lll ll lll lll xxx
    lll ll lll lllll lll lll xxx xxx
    llllllll llllll lll lllll llll llll xxx xxx
    llllllll llllllll ll llll lllllllll xxx xxx

    Timothy, go suck it !

  14. Sendmail's been running on USS for awhile by Dammital · · Score: 1

    OS/390 USS ("Unix System Services") has had a sendmail port for a long time. Can't speak to its performance -- we only use it for low volume outbound mail -- but it *is* sendmail.

  15. This pretty much sums up IBM's thoughts on this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

    ___....---"""".
    ." ". S \
    / \ e i
    i i i
    i__ _ i n i
    " "\\ i i
    || i d i
    __.// i _ . - "i
    \ i- " i
    i ii m i
    \ / i i
    "._.--"i a i
    i i
    i i i
    i _i
    i l _.-"
    i _.-"
    i-"

    1. Re:This pretty much sums up IBM's thoughts on this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

      is that a penice? with large balls?

    2. Re:This pretty much sums up IBM's thoughts on this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

      Preview is for dorks like u!

    3. Re:This pretty much sums up IBM's thoughts on this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seeing this first time, it might have been worth the grin.

      Now second time, though.... no, not really funny to any extent.

    4. Re:This pretty much sums up IBM's thoughts on this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ok, so ignore it...

  16. What to do with all this power? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Even more good GNUs here(?tm?). If you see these guise, FEEl ?free? to warn them, that they are about to get GNUked.

  17. "IBM zSeries machines aren't listed at pricewatch" by popeyethesailor · · Score: 1
  18. This pretty much sums up IBM's thoughts on this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    ___....---"""".
    ." ". S \
    / \ e i
    i i i
    i__ _ i n i
    " "\\ i i
    || i d i
    __.// i _ . - "i
    \ i- " i
    i ii m i
    \ / i i
    "._.--"i a i
    i i
    i i i
    i _i
    i l _.-"
    i _.-"
    i-"

  19. Why PC's crash, and mainframes don't by wiredog · · Score: 2

    There was an article in the April 98 Byte that went into the advantages of mainframes over PC's. Too bad the print archive aren't online anymore. When you buy a mainframe, you are buying support. Having the OS crash on a PC is an event that, while rarer than in the recent past, is still fairly common. Yes, even with Linux. When it crashes you reboot and, if you are unlucky, reload from backup. Having the OS crash on a mainframe is a dire event that results in a team of engineers being put on the next flight out to your site. The same applies to hardware problems. PC's have uptime measured in months ,and sometimes years. Mainframes have uptime measured in years, and sometimes in decades.

    1. Re:Why PC's crash, and mainframes don't by valdis · · Score: 1

      A recent issue of the IBM Journal of Research and Development was devoted to reliability issues in the G5 and G6 series chipsets used in recent IBM big iron.

      Let's see - one stray alpha particle can cause a Pentium III to crash. It's not the chip's fault, it's just the way it is.

      On the other hand, here's what the IBM mainframes call error recovery:

      1) Each CPU chip is actually 2 complete CPU's running in lockstep with a "tell me twice" comparator.

      2) At the end of each instruction, the entire internal states of both sides are compared, and if they match, the state is latched out for safekeeping, and the next instruction is started.

      3) If the two sides *dont* compare, this is a "soft" error. The current state is latched out for offline analysis. The saved state from the latch-out is reloaded, and the instruction is retried. The reload will clear any corrupted bits due to alpha hits or the like., so this is all that's needed for recovery.

      4) If after a retry the two sides still don't agree, the known-good latch-out is then loaded into an entirely new spare CPU chipset (a common configuration is 12 CPU and 2 spare, from what I read) and execution is resumed on the new CPU, with no impact on processing.

      5) You don't get a actual "CPU failed" error until it's done a soft retry and then moved to a spare repeatedly, and run out of spares. THAT is why you end up with engineers on a plane - to get to that point the machine has to be seriously sick.

    2. Re:Why PC's crash, and mainframes don't by Xenu · · Score: 2
      This may not be the same article, but it has some interesting descriptions of reliability enhancing features in mainframes.

      IBM S/390 Parallel Enterprise Server G5 fault tolerance: A historical perspective
      by L. Spainhower and T. A. Gregg
      IBM Journal of Research and Development
      Vol. 43, No. 5/6 - IBM S/390 Server G5/G6

  20. Sendmail's an MTA not a MUA by swb · · Score: 3, Insightful

    No end user can access their mail with Sendmail, it's a mail transfer agent for relaying mail, intra or inter-node.

    Mail access means reading the end-user spool through the usual MUAs and support daemons: Pine, Elm, mail(1), imapd, pop, etc.

    End users do use sendmail to relay mail, but they can't access their own mail that way.

    1. Re:Sendmail's an MTA not a MUA by kzinti · · Score: 4, Informative

      Yeah, but read IBM's report of the "benchmark". (It was a 400,000-user test; the 2 million quoted in the articles is an extrapolation of that number.) The test performed was to measure the overall system load, not just that of Sendmail. The IBM writeup says that the simulated users were accessing their e-mail via POP clients. The point was to demonstrate the scalability of the whole system, Sendmail included.

      --Jim

    2. Re:Sendmail's an MTA not a MUA by iceT · · Score: 2

      Sendmail, Inc. provides both a MTA and an MUA (IMAP/POP3/Webmail) with their product.

      --
      -- You can't idiot-proof anything, because they're always coming out with better idiots.
  21. Misleading by Syberghost · · Score: 2, Informative

    The test was of 400,000 users, not 2 million; the 2 million number is a projection that has not been tested.

    If we're going to pretend we're journalists, let's pretend we took at least one semester of it, shall we?

    1. Re:Misleading by n3m6 · · Score: 1

      whatis 10% of 2 million ??

      i've hate to break it to you .. they said.. the system supported 10% of 2million concurrently

      ofcousse 2 million was never tested

      it was the amount of storage that could be given away .a.k.a. hard disk space..and the limits on sendmail.

      i'm sure this isnt' a mindcraft benchmark

      and IBM has every right to blow their trumpets

    2. Re:Misleading by Syberghost · · Score: 2

      whatis 10% of 2 million ??

      An irrelevant, untested number.

      i've hate to break it to you .. they said.. the system supported 10% of 2million concurrently

      No, jackass, they said it supported 10% of 400,000 concurrently.

      Next time, read the fucking article before you go correcting your elders.

  22. WTF?!! I don't get it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

    pacman doesn't have a tail!

  23. Re:"IBM zSeries machines aren't listed at pricewat by kireK · · Score: 1

    Great... $500 for the OS and $1,200,000 for the hardware... Did you read past the link?

    I think I'll stick with Intel based machines for now. Much better for ANY budget.

  24. 1.2 Million dollars! by kireK · · Score: 1

    This thing costs 1.2 Million dollars! Image what I could build with 1.2 million in cheap clone hardware... I think I could do at least twice as much processing, and include the pop/imap servers.

    1. Re:1.2 Million dollars! by servoled · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You certainly could buy a lot of hardware for that money, but who is going to want to admin 1.2 million worth of pc hardware all running in one cluster? You would also need a very large warehouse to store all of those boxes, and the power consumption would be a bitch too. In the long run you would be much better off with the mainframe if you really need that amount of processing power.

      --
      "I have a porkchop, you have a porkchop. I have a veal, you have a veal".
    2. Re:1.2 Million dollars! by Jay+Maynard · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Image what I could build with 1.2 million in cheap clone hardware... I think I could do at least twice as much processing, and include the pop/imap servers.

      Then you get to maintain and run those thousand boxes. Consider power, floor space, and most importantly, people requirements. (Are you going to maintain those systems yourself? Two or three people, maybe? I don't think so.)


      Sometimes you do get what you pay for.

      --
      Disinfect the GNU General Public Virus!
    3. Re:1.2 Million dollars! by Zachary+Kessin · · Score: 2

      The problem is that if you buy 1.2 million in cheap clone hardware, is that you get cheap clone hardware. The 390 mainframe is setup so that if you set it up right it will go years without a reboot. The 1000 pc clones will need a small army of people to look after them etc. Go with the mainframe!

      --
      Erlang Developer and podcaster
    4. Re:1.2 Million dollars! by denshi · · Score: 2
      You might be right, you might have more raw computrons with 1.2 M $ of PCs than a z/390. But not everything lends itself well to distributed computation. So depending on what you run, you could see lower performance and hellish administration.

      You're also forgetting the point of a mainframe - HA. PCs aren't designed for reliability. When you administer a cluster you expect a certain rate of hardware failures. A mainframe is expected to have 99.999+ percent uptime. The hardware is fully scoped, localized, and hot-swappable - right down to the processors. A company that's looking for that kind of uptime really has no other options. What all this Linux/390 stuff is about is selling Linux to groups who won't compromise on the uptime.

    5. Re:1.2 Million dollars! by iankerickson · · Score: 1
      Then you get to maintain and run those thousand boxes. Consider power, floor space, and most importantly, people requirements. (Are you going to maintain those systems yourself? Two or three people, maybe? I don't think so.)

      It's only hard if you don't know how to prepare the setup required to maintain $1 millon in PC hosts:

      http://www.infrastructures.org

      Computers are amazingly good at automatic repetetive logical tasks. 99% of all systems administration involves repetitive logical tasks. The trick is to make the machines do all the work of maintaining themselves that they can programmatically handle.

      So if you're a clueless "paper" sysadmin, yep, it's impossible -- can't be done.

      Still, I'd rather have the z-machine mainframe!

      --
      Democracy. Whiskey. Sexy. Pick any two.
  25. whaa-? by guest12 · · Score: 2, Funny

    oh. for a moment I read "house" as "hose" million email accounts.

  26. Solution for Hotmail? by jcr · · Score: 2

    If microsquish could get over the embarrassment of admitting that NT will never be able to do the job, they could redeploy hotmail on IBM equipment, and make it worth using.

    -jcr

    --
    The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    1. Re:Solution for Hotmail? by Cyberdyne · · Score: 1
      If microsquish could get over the embarrassment of admitting that NT will never be able to do the job, they could redeploy hotmail on IBM equipment, and make it worth using.

      The back-end already lives on Sun boxen (Enterprise 4500) - not quite the big-iron of IBM's zSeries/S/390, but a far cry from an NT system... Only the front end - the WWW servers and CGIs - run on NT, on the PC hardware which ran FreeBSD earlier.

  27. That old IBM statement... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...about needing 5 computers for the entire country may become true soon.

  28. Uh oh! by jpmorgan · · Score: 2, Funny
    IBM announces the Sendmail MTA has been ported to Linux390. For the first time spammers will be able to send mail to everyone in the world at once.

    It brings a tear to my eye. *sniff*

  29. that's a cape. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

    its super pacman, dumbass.

  30. Dead Nietzsche sayz: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    No. There will be 4 computers needed.
    One for the water supply chip at Vault 13.
    One for the air system at Vault 13.
    One for the power supply at Vault 13.
    One for the databases at Vault 13.

    Oh, of course they are only needed after that Win XP crash at the new US missile defense system.

    1. Re:Dead Nietzsche sayz: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If theyre going to use windows for the NMD system they might just as well not build it.

  31. toilet paper? by ZxCv · · Score: 1

    it looks like TP to me

    --

    Perl - $Just @when->$you ${thought} s/yn/tax/ &couldn\'t %get $worse;
  32. The new slashdot sucks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll

    OK, many of you have probably noticed a lot of ascii art flooding this board lately. You're no doubt wondering why CmdrTaco's much encountered "lameness filters" are ineffective against it. To answer that question, I'm going to take you on a Perl journey, deep into slashcode. Think of it as being a bit like "Heart of Darkness", or if you're a typical slashdot pleb, "Apocalypse Now!"

    The first files we'll be looking at are the infamous "bitchslap" and "modslap". I think these are a pretty decent introduction to how Rob's mind works when he's coding angry: Here's bitchslap [slashcode.com]. Scroll down to the section labelled "main program logic". BTW. "main program logic" is a ridiculously grandiloquent phrase for what we are seeing here.

    Note how draconian this is. I like to think of this code as a memorial to slashdot-terminal, it's first victim. You can see how Malda deliberately broke his "self-regulating" moderation system, to give the admins of slashdot dictatorial powers. This code allows any admin using it to drop a user's default threshold to -1 instantly, and drop his karma down to a level from which it is unlikely to recover. I've heard that this script has been used on slashdot in a modified form, with the -defaultpoints set to less than -1, completely eliminating a user's post from normal viewing, unless people edit their query string manually.

    On to modslap [slashcode.com]. Scroll down to "main program logic" again.

    OK, what you're seeing here is Taco's method of restricting the flow of crack to moderators, to keep them nice and jumpy. If you don't mod the way he likes, you're moderating days are over, and your karma plummets to bitchslap levels. An ugly tool.

    To recap, the man we are dealing with here is obviously an anti-democratic tyrant. Censorship is his weapon, and he is vigilantly watching his censors, to ensure that no freedom is allowed to enter his domain. I believe he also lives in a hut with a man driven crazy by his proximity. The hut is surrounded by skulls on poles, but the skulls face inward. Remember that.

    We're nearing the locus of my investigation now. You've heard the legends, now gaze into the face of comments.pl's so-called "troll detection code!"

    comments.pl [slashcode.com]: Scroll down to the section under "here begins the troll detection code".

    You may be wondering why it's such an ungodly piece of crap. I feel that we are seeing evidence of an ingrained unwillingness to think before coding.

    The first few tests are fairly simple, based on regexps and length. They're pretty laughable, from an information theory perspective. If you don't believe me, the parent of this post should supply adequate evidence of what I'm talking about. Language is a complex thing, and a few simple tests are insufficient to distinguish English from ascii art, especially when the ascii artists are willing to take extreme measures to see their work posted. Regular posters do not have the patience for such chicanery.

    The final test is my favourite, though. It begins under the comment ending with this charming sentence: "These ratios are _very_ conservative a comment has to be absolute shit to trip this off". An interesting claim. Considering the number of posts I've tripped this filter on, without doing anything out of the ordinary, I'd say "conservative" means the same thing to Taco as it means to George W. Bush, nb. "nazi". What we are talking about here, is the postercomment compression test. (The horror! The horror!) "postercomment" is just the name of the field your comments are sent in, by the way. It isn't cool top secret slashspeak. It's just a variable name.

    What this does is, it actually compresses you're comment using zlib, then checks the change in size to decide if you are a troll or not! Furthermore, the code comments indicate that if you trip this test, slashcode thinks you are a "luser". Code like this makes it pretty clear that it takes one to know one, Rob!

    As someone who as actually seen Rob Malda use the phrase "it won't scale" to dismiss questions about why parts of the moderation system weren't done in a more equitable fshion, I'd like to take this opportunity to laugh until I give myself a hernia.

    Anyone who has studied information theory knows that the redundancy of english is estimated at about 50%. This value is fairly key in what we are seeing here, it determines a fair estimate of how effective compression of english text can be before we start to lose information. Taco's estimates were based, in his words, on "...testing out several paragraphs of text...". Doesn't sound like a particularly large sample group. What's more, it's indicative of poor software engineering practice. As is the recent bout of outages.

    A few final criticisms. Firstly, there are far better, less memory intensive, and above all, less stupid methods of performing textual analysis than checking it's compression ratio. If Taco had any idea about computer science, he might have investigated a few before making a fool of himself in public like this. It's pretty clear that he's getting more and more frustrated with the situation on slashdot, and doesn't realise that if he ruled with an even hand, rather than a bitchslapping script and an army of trained thought police, the problems would not be so grave.

    Secondly, I thought of a much more effective method of eliminating asci art posts, and it will never cause problems for genuine posters. What's more, it's extremely compact and doesn't even require regexps. I won't reveal it here, as I am not willing to assist in a reign of terror that I find to be reprehensible.

    As further evidence of the lengths Malda and Co. may be willing to go to, you can find a commented out section that enables the deletion of posts and their descendant threads. We have no reason to believe that this will not be employed on slashdot.

    Editorial notes: I don't use Perl and this is really the first time I've examined it closely. It's pretty much convinced me that I'm not missing much. I use real languages such as C and C++ and occasionaly asm to do most of my work, and I, along with 95% of the enterprise world, find Java to be the best solution for web programming. For most scripting tasks, shell script suffices. For more complicated scripting tasks, Python provides a more sensibly designed scripting environment. Additionally, as if to provide further evidence of Malda's incompetence as a programmer, I've hit the junk character post every single time I've previewed this comment, and am now forced to resort to edit it. Regretfully, I have been forced to replace the Perl fragments I was using with hyperlinks. Very unsatisfactory.

  33. Hotmail by Prong · · Score: 1

    Hey, cool! Microsoft now has a solution to their Hotmail scalability issues!

    1. Re:Hotmail by carlfish · · Score: 2

      Given that Microsoft still run their business on AS/400's, it's probably crossed their mind already :)

      --
      The more I learn about the Internet, the more amazed I am that it works at all.
  34. You have been trolled by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    The Troll is not bothered by facts or the truth. Facts can be used to support any argument. The Troll argues without facts, using misattributions and out of context - or completely invented (though rarely inventive) quotes.

    This sort of thing makes sense for mid to large shops, and well funded small ones.

    A million dollars for a mainframe IS a lot of money. You could buy a thousand commodity PCs and get ten times the power. It would also use 100 as much energy for each of their power supplies and the AC to cool off the 200,000 watts an hour of heat they produced. They'd also take up 50 times as much space.

    Small form factor or rackmount cased would cut that problem in half. It would also triple the price. So now you left with 300 odd rackmount systems. But you need standby/fail over reliability. So you use load balancing software, and, statistically speaking, you have 1 server failure per day that you need to swap a hard drive or other out - reboot.

    Acceptable? Sure, but why bother with the PCs when you can just get 1 mainframe, which has a dozen redundant CPUs and power supplies of its own? Server support is provided with the mainframe, even consulting service and configuration. Not so (without paying even more for the equipment vs. commodity PCs) with the thousand headed hydra solution.

    It also lets you give everyone their "own" virtual server to manage themselves, root and all, without them thrashing the rest of your customers raqs.
    The real question is, can your spring the $100k entry price for a mainframe? If so, it is a VALUE, without being cheap, whereas the add another server

  35. GNU/Linux?? by duffbeer703 · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    Maybe I've been smoking too much crack, but I though CmdrTaco stated one short week ago that Linux should not be referred to as GNU/Linux?

    Fuck the lameness filter, here's something really lame, courtesey of Slash:

    # interpolative hash ref. Got these figures by testing out
    # several paragraphs of text and saw how each compressed
    # the key is the ratio it should compress, the array lower,upper
    # for the ratio. These ratios are _very_ conservative
    # a comment has to be absolute shit to trip this off
    if (!$bad) {
    my $limits = {
    1.3 => [10,19],
    1.1 => [20,29],
    .8 => [30,44],
    .5 => [45,99],
    .4 => [100,199],
    .3 => [200,299],
    .2 => [300,399],
    .1 => [400,1000000],
    };

    # Ok, one list ditch effort to skew out the trolls!
    if (length($$comm) >= 10) {
    for (keys %$limits) {
    # DEBUG
    # print "ratio $_ lower $limits->{$_}->[0] upper $limits->{$_}->[1]<br>\n";
    # if it's within lower to upper
    if (length($$comm) >= $limits->{$_}->[0] &&
    length($$comm) <= $limits->{$_}->[1]) {

    # if is >= the ratio, then it's most likely a
    # troll comment
    if ((length(compress($$comm)) /
    length($$comm)) <= $_) {

    # blammo luser
    $$error_message = slashDisplay('errors', {
    type => 'compress filter',
    ratio => $_,
    }, 1);
    editComment('', $$error_message), return unless $preview;
    $bad = 1;
    last;
    }

    }
    }
    }
    }

    --
    Conformity is the jailer of freedom and enemy of growth. -JFK
    1. Re:GNU/Linux?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know you're trolling, but atleast be halfway intelligent and look who posted the article. CmdrTaco != timothy....

    2. Re:GNU/Linux?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Slashbots are all the same

  36. $1.2m/2500=~$500 is the point. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you for some reason you needed 2500 linux server (google?) you could buy 1 IBM mainframe, run 2500 instances of fully capapble linux servers on it, each in their own firewalled sandbox.

    That's where the $500 figure came from. There is no OS charge, and unlike MS, no per user/server/kb data tax.

  37. What did they use to generate 400k users? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Did they use Specmail2001 (from http://www.spec.org) to generate the load on their MTA? If so, I don't think that 400k is that special.

    I've generated very close to that number (minus 100k) with a dual 1Ghz cpu w/1Gb ram system, and a Netapp F820 for storage with the Syntegra Intrastore product. I even had the close to the same CPU utilization they had. This is user space CPU of course. The system CPU time is higher due to the NFS overhead.

    Once I get around a linux 2.4.x virtual memory problems, I'll publish the results to the spec.org site for everyone to see.

    http://intrastore.us.syntegra.com

    1. Re:What did they use to generate 400k users? by valdis · · Score: 2, Interesting
      You did that with ONE system? Interesting - the Mirapoint results for 400K users needed:
      • 2 POP server machines
      • 5 SMTP router machines
      • 10 message store machines
      • 1 benchmark manager machine
      • 1 mail sink machine
      • 5 load generator machines

      Dealing with 300K outbound postings is no biggie - I've been able to deal with that level on an old IBM RS6000-F30 (166mz 604). You don't need really big iron for outbound mail until you have more than 500K or so RCPT TO's on one piece of mail. It's mostly a matter of good queue management, and Sendmail 8.12 has new queue management code that makes it even easier (I should know, I tested it). The only real magic is not getting logjammed due to DNS waits and unreachable destinations.

      On the other hand, having 40K people doing POP accesses while you're dumping mail into their mailboxes is trickier. Some of the more obvious issues:

      • The obvious popd solution leaves you 40K processes running at once. This could be bad.
      • Locking issues get interesting.
      • Even with a journaling filesystem, you can get killed on the I/O. Remember that writing to a file means you also need to do stuff with the inode....
    2. Re:What did they use to generate 400k users? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      More specifically, one system was used as the SMTP/POP server, a Sun E450 with the Syntegra Aphelion LDAP server was used for the directory, and 2 systems were used for client load generation with a small third system acting as a benchmark manager.

  38. Anything with source is able to run on linux/390 by sys$manager · · Score: 1

    I got an account on the z series developer box where I get my own virtual server and compiled qmail, bind, etc, etc. Why did they have to release a special sendmail to run on it? Did they simply cross-compile it?

  39. NO WAY LINUX SUKKS... fuck RMS... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Flamebait

    use closes priportary source code like os/390

    then you'll have non oe the sendmail cracker holez

    in ur mainframne!

  40. Great... by Greyfox · · Score: 2
    Now if they'd only do that internally, instead of that !@$#%! Lotus Notes (Bloated Goats.) Maybe IBM should practise what they preach...


    While we're on the subject, if IBM is so gung-ho about open standards, why haven't we seen any Lotus file formats documented? It sure would be nice if I could load up all those WordPro and 123 documents using Abiword and Gnumeric.

    --

    I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

  41. Not that big of an accomplishment by iceT · · Score: 2

    I read an article that Sendmail, Inc., uses IBM Mainframes for their development anyway.... Sounds to me like IBM just convinced them to sell/support the product natively on that platform.

    --
    -- You can't idiot-proof anything, because they're always coming out with better idiots.
  42. Why not Postfix? by Balinares · · Score: 2

    How come IBM doesn't at least try to use Postfix? I mean, Postfix is an IBM-funded thing, and was developed to be the, quote, "IBM Secure Mailer"...

    --

    -- B.
    This sig does in fact not have the property it claims not to have.
    1. Re:Why not Postfix? by Skapare · · Score: 2
      How come IBM doesn't at least try to use Postfix? I mean, Postfix is an IBM-funded thing, and was developed to be the, quote, "IBM Secure Mailer"...

      Probably because it is so damned hard to even get access to a S/390 or zSeries virtual machine account to do anything serious with. I'd love to port, test, and package my stuff on more platforms, including mainframe, but an account that is limited to 3 months doesn't work for ongoing projects that never end. And one of my projects needs 2 with dual shared DASD. And those guys at IBM never responded to any of my email. So as much as I'd love to work on the mainframe, I'll just stick with Intel, Sparc, and maybe soon PPC.

      --
      now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
  43. Remote error reporting by wiredog · · Score: 2

    I met a guy who worked in a mainframe shop. He said that one day an engineer showed up to fix the machine. They didn't know it was broken. Apparently it reported a problem to the home office, which dispatched a tech to fix the problem.

    1. Re:Remote error reporting by Vulcana · · Score: 1

      My friend worked in a similar office. (unfortunately, he isn't in right now otherwise I would get the name of the machine. Something starting with an S. It had redundant EVERYTHING on it.) Not only did he have engineers show up but every now and then a FEDX would arrive with a new part for the machine. They didn't even know it was down. Sure enough they would take the part out back and there would be an error message for the affected part. This thing called home all the time.

      A very cool box. They don't make them like that any more.

    2. Re:Remote error reporting by RobNich · · Score: 1

      Yes, they do. We run an AS/400 which does exactly the same thing. Twice we've had a hard drive 'about to' go bad. IBM called us up and arranged the replacement part and the technician. No down time, since the system is all about RAID.

      --
      Hello little man. I will destroy you!
    3. Re:Remote error reporting by valdis · · Score: 1

      The IBM 3090-300J processor controller would phone home. The part that floored me was when it put up a dialog box on the hardware control console, asking for permission to make a long-distance phone call...

      Definitely makes you pause when it happens at 2AM.,

  44. The competition ain't in the Open Arena by MrChuck · · Score: 2, Informative
    Remember back when Unix was 12 vendors all yelling about each other that their competitors' Unix sucked and that theirs was best? Who won?

    NT

    It came up behind while the big boys of Unix were standing in their circle peeing at each other.



    In corporate-land, the ones that have mainframes already and are facing huge IT costs and a recession, the ones who are winning the mailboxes are Exchange and Notes. They had virtually no share 10 years ago, now they have lots of network share. They also cost a lot to run (Gartner says $25+ per mailbox per month).



    Now here's a company that runs on Unix, that has an IMAP server that can scale HUGELY on one (or many) boxes. That can give Secretary Joe the ability to do the admin on his group's 100 users and do that for 200 groups so that the system admin can do more important things than deal with adding a mailbox for this month's temp receptionist.



    QMail? Postifix? Who? Go talk to the CEO's, the stockholders. Given Dan's support group a call at 4AM when your TLS mail isn't working right or general stability of the organization, this isn't a choice for those who don't really want to spend all their money running their computers.



    Recall that when you're trying to run mail for 500+ people, there just aren't a lot of options out there. Notes and Exchange tack on the IMAP letters on their product and claim it supports standards.

    For those in the Real World, take a look around at how many actual standards based tools there are with solid commercial support.



    So Sendmail's MTA, IMAP server and Webmail client run on the Mainframe!? Bitchin', now I have something to counter those MSCE's who claim that we must run Exchange to survive.

    1. Re:The competition ain't in the Open Arena by Craig+Maloney · · Score: 2

      Part of the reason Exchange is eating Sendmail's lunch is not just the mail component, but that it interfaces rather well with Outlook and offers calendars and other "groupware" stuff. It has nothing to do with how sterling or crappy Exchange handles mail.

  45. accessing mail? by wobblie · · Score: 1

    sendmail doesn't give users any "access" to their mail ... do you mean that it runs a pop/imap server as well? I imagine it well could

    1. Re:accessing mail? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Hiking over to the announcement and to Sendmail, I see:
      Emeryville, Calif. - August 27, 2001 - Sendmail, Inc., a leading provider of Internet messaging solutions, announced today the immediate availability of its complete line of products for Linux on the IBM mainframe. Sendmail Switch, Sendmail Advanced Message Server and Sendmail Mobile Message Server ...
      which would suggest that the Sendmail POP/IMAP server is available.
  46. I am sexy teen girl! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll

    I provide permission to grasp my buttocks.

    I would like to marry you, but am in impoverished country (can not say which for the government monitors all communication). My parents wish to sell me for the price of five strong oxens, but you must arrange to leave me out of the country. If you come to here, officials in the government will allow you to take home me to your country for the price of twelve strong oxens. Five strong oxens to my parents and twelve strong oxens to the government and you can take home me to your country for us to be married.

    Please help me, peoples in my country are dying. I am using country's only Internet terminal (I trade oral sex for Internet access) and may not be using able to it again for large time, so please reply soonly!

  47. Probably a lot more than that! by Jason+Cwik · · Score: 1
    1.2 Million dollars is the baseline system with 1 processor and 5GB memory. After you add the maximum 640 processors, parallel sysplex, a couple of TB of DASD I'm sure you could get over 10 mil. Any 390 admins around here? How much is the StorageTEK silo to back it up :)

    Of course you're looking at the suprime icon of reliability. Why do you think that banks rely on them for all their processing? A bank can't afford downtime or lost data...

  48. Too bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    *BSD is dying.

    For all practical purposes, *BSD is dead.

  49. FSCK Exchange, Bynari runs on Linux/390! by JohnQPublic · · Score: 1

    I'll be impressed when I see mainframes running Exchange.

    Aw, now, why would you want to go and do that to a nice mainframe? :-) If you really want to "run Exchange" on a mainframe, give Bynari a call. They've ported TradeServer to Linux/390. So yes, you can move your MS-Outlook users to Linux/390-based email. Today! Just ask Winnebago - they're doing it.

  50. Is this supposed to be exciting? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Software available for ten years runs on Linux" ... What next? "BASH Shell runs on AMD K6!"

  51. "GNU/Linux"??? by tswinzig · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    Timothy, you pushover!

    --

    "And like that ... he's gone."
  52. ARGH!! by cabbey · · Score: 2

    and as tommorow dawns and the hundreds of /. reading beemers trickle in and scan slashdot while waiting for Lotus Notes to load up their mail file there will be a cacophony of anguished screams as the poor abused geeks are left stammering in their seats trying their best to explain why the corporation still insists on loading them onto windows based domino servers (excepting those at the IBM Rochester facility who are lucky enough to be housed on AS/400 based domino servers instead).

    (Don't get me wrong folks, domino is a great database and colaboration tool, but that's just NOT what is needed for an email solution.)