Slashdot Mirror
US House Decommissions Its Last Mainframe
coondoggie writes "The US House of Representatives has taken its last mainframe offline, signaling the end of an era in Washington, DC computing. The last mainframe supposedly enjoyed 'quasi-celebrity status' within the House data center, having spent 12 years keeping the House's inventory control records and financial management data, among other tasks. But it was time for a change, with the House spending $30,000 a year to power the mainframe and another $700,000 each year for maintenance and support."
Really? This is a story? They were running a server from 1997, and now they're running a server from 2009. Really guys?
The article notes that the House of Representatives took at least 5 years to replace the applications on its 12 year old mainframe. The costs (i.e. taxpayer funds) to perform this migration work were not disclosed, but it's a pretty safe assumption those costs dwarfed any others. Moreover, the article seems to suggest that it took at least 20 other servers to replace a single 12 year old mainframe, and that's even using virtualization on the new servers. One wonders how many (more) servers the House could have replaced with a single new mainframe.
But here's a more profound question: why is the House of Representatives running its own, separate data centers (primary and disaster)? Couldn't they at least consolidate with, oh I don't know, the Senate?!?! And, a related question: for all those 12 years, why didn't the House simply move its comparatively tiny mainframe workload to a bigger mainframe anywhere else in the federal government? (Yes, they can do that without also delegating any security control. Mainframes do that.) Quite simply, it sounds like the House was, and is, wasting a lot of taxpayer money. (Shocking, I know.)
$700K/yr for software support and hardware maintenance isn't really out of line for a high-capacity system with 99.999% uptime.
Maybe they don't need that level of reliability, but if they do five-9s, they will probably find that whatever system or group of systems replaces it will have similar support costs.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
But here's a more profound question: why is the House of Representatives running its own, separate data centers (primary and disaster)? Couldn't they at least consolidate with, oh I don't know, the Senate?!?!
I don't know. I kind of like the current situation: Two different significantly powerful political entities (House and Congress) to have their own separate data that the other entity has no control over. I could certainly see potential benefits from that in the times of major political upheavals.
I don't care what part of the political spectrum you fall under, that's change we can all get behind.
Congratulations! You may pick up your IT Peace Prize at the door!
Unless your job was supporting old, proprietary big iron.
Um, on second thought, never mind.
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
Either that, or the IBM salespeople forgot to tell the politicians that a mainframe is too big to fail!
Uh... what? No wonder they had to pull this thing offline, that's 1.68 - 2.52 GW per week!
It's been online for 12 years, so by the time it was shut off it must have been using at least 1.57TW.
:x
Decommission the representatives. Then put the mainframe in charge. I'm sure it is much more efficient at processing bribes, though it probably lacks sex scandal capabilities.