Slashdot Mirror
Retired Mainframe Pros Lured Back Into Workforce
itwbennett writes "Businesses that cut experienced mainframe administrators in an effort to cut costs inadvertently created a skills shortage that is coming back to bite them. Chris O'Malley, CA's mainframe business executive VP, says that mainframe workers were let go because 'it had no immediate effect and the organizations didn't expect to keep mainframes around.' But businesses have kept mainframes around and now they are struggling to find engineers. Prycroft Six managing director Greg Price, a mainframe veteran of some 45 years, put it this way: 'Mainframes are expensive, ergo businesses want to go to cheaper platforms, but [those platforms] have a lot of packaged overheads. If you do a total cost of ownership, the mainframe comes out cheaper, but since the costs of a mainframe are immediately obvious, it is hard to get it past the bean-counters of an organization.'"
As early as 2002, I started to half-jokingly tell young co-workers that were asking that they should learn COBOL as a way to insure them a prosperous career. ;-) Back then, most schools were removing or had removed COBOL programming from their course list.
I was half-jokingly telling them that by 2015 they should be earning 150-200K a year as a simple COBOL developer ;-)))
See this article from last year saying basically the same thing :
http://www.computerweekly.com/Articles/2008/08/07/231774/cobol-programmer-shortage-starts-to-bite.htm
Note: I am to old to start to learn COBOL, this is stuff for young people... ;-)
Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
I learned and taught cobol for awhile, and i can say that cobol is not too far from data entry. It is way too much work to do simple things, and it is way too weak of a language for most things. Its functionality is low that it takes a lot of code to implement simple things. The compiler gives you weird error messages. The language is archane. It is a very miserable language to write in, and I wouldn't code in it for less than several hundreds of dollars per hour, just because its so boring and takes way too much typing to do simple things that would be a snap in other languages.
If recruitment would be any easier if the offer included the right to shout "Where is your 'right-sizing' now, bitches?" into the face of the nearest PHB at will, in addition to the fat salary?
The Mainframe does it job and does it well. Nothing comes close in Data Throughput Processing with the amount of reliability that a mainframe brings.
Computer 'Experts' have been saying that the mainframe is dead since the early 90s, but here we are 20 years later and I still have a job programming for it, and I don't see it going away anytime soon. Small to mid-level servers just don't have the capacity to deal with the growing about of data generated. Fedex does in the neighborhood of 2 billion transactions a day, you cant just wipe together a Beowulf Cluster and think it will do the job reliably.
Or the better question is. How much do you trust the Federal Reserve to run all its processing on Windows machines. Or Wall Street. Ever consider if a transaction there is 'lost' because a windows blue screen? Even linux machines arent as dependable as a Mainframe. The IBM Z boxes actually have their own redundant parts included in them already. Not to mention that it will phone in its own tech support request.
Mainframes are not for everyone, but they do fulfill their job well when you do need them.
There are also enough tools out there like SOA so that even Java "Kids" can write applications for them easily.
Mainframes run the world.
Uh, why?
Mainframes are fucking rock solid, reliable pieces of equipment.
They do the damned job like nobody's business.
The only issue with mainframes is that we haven't kept the people along with the software we chose to run on them decades ago.
from BSG: "Any return to COBOL will exact a price paid in blood."
I went from UNIX in the late 1970's to mainframe zOS (MVS/OS) to VM and Linux on the mainframe. Anything you can do on an Intel box (or a room full of them), you can do on a mainframe, cheaper and more reliably, once you get past the first big financial hit. I've seen the so-called cost studies that supposedly show the room full of Intel white boxes are cheaper. Once you factor in the "unseen" costs, like the article says, and get past the startup, the mainframe looks VERY good.
Current mainframes aren't what people remember from the past. They're (physically) small, agile, and well suited to certain workloads (can you do 256 concurrent DMA transfers on an Intel box?). The problem is, the only companies that seem to be able to justify them for new workloads are ones that already have them for legacy work. IBM hasn't shown much interest in the low-end of the market (sell small boxen, then discontinue them, push licensed emulation, then kill it, etc).
Our biggest problem is finding people who know the technologies. I give classes to our Linux SA's on this, and they're usually surprised at what the current zSeries boxes can do.
Don't misunderstand, there are plenty of applications where Intel boxes make sense, I work both sides of the fence. I just hate to see mainframes maligned as "obsolete" by people who don't understand what they are now.
I have been tracking worldwide server revenues for a few years. Over the past 2-3 years the market share between Mainframe, UNIX, Linux and Windows has been very flat: Windows 40%, Unix 35% Linux 14%, mainframe (ZOS) 11% (IDC Worldwide Server Revenue marketshare).
Quarter Windows Linux UNIX ZOS
02/06 34.20% 12.60% 35.00%
03/06 34.40% 12.40% 34.20% 11.30%
04/06 34.90% 11.40% 33.50% 11.40%
01/07 38.80% 17.00% 35.00%
02/07 38.20% 13.60% 31.70% 9.50%
03/07 40.40% 13.40% 31.10%
04/07 36.60% 12.70% 33.20%
01/08 39.20% 13.70% 30.60% 8.40%
02/08 36.50% 13.40% 32.70% 11.80%
03/08 40.80% 14.00% 29.70% 9.40%
04/08 35.30% 13.60% 36.20%
01/09 37.30% 13.80% 33.10% 9.00%
ZOS is not always reported in press releases and I don't purchase the IDC report.
Looks like neither Mainframe or UNIX is dying, or that Linux is dominating.
...If you do a total cost of ownership, the mainframe comes out cheaper, but since the costs of a mainframe are immediately obvious, it is hard to get it past the bean-counters of an organization.
I've found this to be true of many aspects of IT, not just concerning mainframes. I've watched customers struggle to get decent performance and constantly hit limitations with a certain database product (not Oracle) because it was virtually free and they didn't want to spend the capital cost on an Oracle license. The total man hours spent, time lost, etc on getting their "free" db up to speed vastly exceeded the cost of the Oracle licenses and they still have problems with it.
It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
But I bet google loses lots of data. They certainly have had massive amounts of down time (by main frame standards).
search from 2 places, different results. They don't have highly critical data, so they can sloppily store and syncronize as needed. A liberty that Fedex does not.
Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
Finding people who know how to properly use oracle is a real bear. Sure, you can hire people with oracle experience, but most of them were the 'corporate DBA' types who don't know how to do anything out side of the script. I can't tell you how many clients I've seen struggling with their oracle installs; either because the system does not perform as promised, or because the 'cluster' needs to be rebooted every time one node crashes in an unexpected manner.
Now, I'm just the Linux janitor, not a DBA, but when I see those problems on MySQL or PostgreSQL, I can fix them. I've replaced more than one MSSQL database with a MySQL setup, and often see orders of magnitude speed increases that I suspect are due to misconfiguration of the proprietary database. The open-source stuff is just plain easier to use, at least for Linux janitors like me, and has better support.
I'm sure Oracle and MSSQL are both fine databases if you know how to use it and you configure it correctly; I'm just saying that paying a lot of money doesn't relieve you from needing to know those things. You still need to pay for a technician who actually understands it. The advantage of the free (as in freedom) products is that there are a whole lot more people with real (that is, non-scripted, where you need to do something new or are expected to solve a problem beyond 'reboot and apply the redo logs') experience with the free databases than with multi-million dollar oracle installs, and that sometimes your expensive support people just shrug and say 'I don't know. why don't you upgrade your linux kernel.'
Sticking with the free stuff, using a search engine such as google gets you pretty good support for commonly used free software. Often better support than what you get when you pay lots of money for support.