Not sure if the article was on slashdot or somewhere else, but the FBI listened in on regular conversations while no phone call was happening because they had downloaded software (with a warrent) onto the person's phone allowing them to control it.
I understand the desire for VM's so this question really isn't about that, but why can't you have 5 or 6 versions of your software on 1 box? When I worked for an ERP company it was pretty common for our servers to have multiple versions of the software.
Why are you making plans to pick her up for soccer practice 10 minutes ahead of time instead of a day or a week? When I had after school or weekend activities as a child I knew which parent would be taking me, and when, at least a few days in advance.
Lets check and see how that would work:
As I pick up daughter for soccer, she asks: "You're late, why didn't you call?"
Me: "Traffic was bad but Sparr0 didn't want me to use my cell to make a voice call, so I used my cell and text'd my status to the Soccer Parents forum, I hoped you might have seen it there."
Daughter: "I don't go to that forum"
Me: "Dang"
Daughter: "Who's Sparr0?"
Me: "He's a poster on slashdot, seems to know all situations in which a cell phone might be used, turns out they just aren't efficient. Anyway, instead of me just telling you, why don't you check the the wiki I setup, it should explain everything."
3000 minutes a month? WTF? You need to find more efficient ways to communicate
My grandpa uses 0 minutes per month, man that guy is really efficient!
Introduce your friends/coworkers to email, forums, wikis, SMS, etc
My daughter uses SMS and is much more efficient than me because I use voice, here is an example of a speed comparison:
Me speaking on cell phone to daughter: "I will pick you up in 10 minutes for soccer practice"
Daughter texting: OK
As you can see texting is clearly faster, now let's try a wiki example:
Me speaking on cell phone to co-worker: "To boot the server, just flip the big red switch"
Co-worker using wiki: {1 mouse click on hyperlink to "Booting the Server"}
Again, no comparison. Let's make sure a forum is more efficient also:
Me speaking on cell phone to friend: "Man I wish I knew if Sony had cut the price of the PS3, I really think I would buy one if they did, unfortunately I don't know and neither do you because we're both having this conversation on this dang cell phone!"
Friend reading slashdot: "Sony Drops PS3 Price"
It's pretty clear, the cell phone is probably one of the less efficient tools in our arsenal.
Tune in next week for another in depth efficiency article titled "The Wheel - What Went Wrong?"
so logically we can't call anything as intelligent as a human unless it's at least this good at compression
It all depends on your definition of intelligence, doesn't it? There are many different things we can do that we consider part of intelligence but each of us does them well to a different degree. I'm not sure it makes sense to try to simplify it with comparison like "as intelligent as a human".
But any modern OS has something very similar. Things like memory management and address partitions are very basic OS features.
No, they don't have the features I listed (yes they all have some form of memory management, but that's not what I posted, I specifically stated single level store and capability based addressing). If you do some research, you will find that most of the activity surrounding those types of attributes are in acedemia or R&D labs. These attributes offer some very important benefits regarding security and reliability.
The combination of object orientation, single level store and capability based security are the reasons the AS400 doesn't have viruses and the types of security holes that are found in other systems.
It's an interesting topic, I think you can find something in wikipedia even.
And the bit about running stuff on a "abstract machine"? Those are very common. Ever use Java or.NET?
Hardware changes on the as400 don't impact the code. I have run programs compiled in 1988 on a 48bit cisc machine run on the newer power5 machines, there's nothing to do. Yes Java and.NET provide and abstract machine, probably the biggest difference is that people using the System/38 and it's successor the as400 have had it since 1978 and it's completely integrated in the system.
In any case, we're talking about the fundamental features of the hardware
It's both hardware and software. Not sure what your point is, you said there is nothing special about an AS400 and I am just pointing out those things that are.
That's separate from the OS, which could easily be ported to another platform, if there were any demand for it
If there's no demand then why is there active research surrounding those capabilities? Why did WindowsNT copy the hardware abstraction idea? Why is capability based security being added to Linux and other OS's?
It's just a microcomputer, no more powerful than most PCs
The Power6 by itself is more powerful than the CPU in any PC. When you combine it with all of the other stuff inside an as400, you get a server that far exceeds the power of a PC. You could certainly add all of that other stuff to a PC but guess what, you wouldn't have a PC anymore, and it would cost quite a bit more money.
Recent models even use a POWER CPU, which is the same CPU Macs used before they went over to Intel.
The Power4, Power5, Power5+ and Power6 are not and never were the same as the PowerPC G4 processor. The former are server processors and designed with server workloads in mind, the latter was targetted at a very different market at a different price per cpu and with different trade-offs in the physical design.
If your application(s) is/are even remotely horizontally scalable, a rack full of servers is almost certainly a better option
Have you accounted for the difference in payroll requirements to support 1 AS400 vs a rack full of servers. It's not a trivial amount of money, especially over 5 years.
The iSeries is virtually the SAME as the pSeries. In fact, it runs the same processor, a Power5 in the newest machines
The RS6000 began using the AS400's processor in 1997 (Code name Apache, developed in AS400 unit in Rochester, first full PowerPC architecture that the 2 boxes shared, 64 bits, etc.).
Bit settings allow the processor to run in as400 single level storage memory model.
AS400 scales well, but it doesn't go beyond the low end of the mainframe. There certainly is overlap, but even with that I think the "mainframe" term probably isn't the best for an AS400.
Why would you want a MRT on the AS400? If I remember right the advantage to a MRT was the program loaded once into memory used multiple times, but that's how the AS400 worked by default, each user ran the exact same code in memory but had a different PAG which held that jobs variables etc.
I'm sure there are situations where an admin/operator and/or dba is required in as400 shops, my point was that these needs are significantly reduced. To the point where in most of our small to small/medium customers (in the 10 to 100million size range), the controller changed backup tapes and the occasional problem with varying on a device was handled by a network/pc admin or remote support.
This is taken from a website from Christopher Brown on operating systems (I didn't feel like typing it):
Object-based organization. Everything is an object, and only the relevant operations can be performed on them. You cannot 'open' a program object and 'read' it like a file, etc.
Capability-based addressing. System pointers are 128 bits wide, of which 96 bits are the address, and the remainder the authority. The hardware uses a tagged architecture to make it impossible to counterfeit a system pointer.
Single-level storage. Every object has a permanent, system-wide virtual address. From the OS's point of view, everything is always in memory, with disk pages to support it physically.
Abstract machine. Compilers for all object types target a high-level, registerless abstract machine, which does not change much from version to version. (In addition to executable code, program objects can contain a program 'template', which can be rendered into machine code on demand. Because of this, prgrams originally compiled for the 16-bit System/38 can be migrated to the newest 64-bit AS/400 without 'recompiling'; the program template is simply re-rendered as machine code when the OS detects that the executable out of date.)
I can only speak for the AS/400, not mainframes, but I can tell you there are numerous things in the system that simply are not found in PC's and PC OS's. Many of the time saving or satbility/realiability things the other poster was referring to really are technology issues.
I would also point out that modern mainframes are not really "mainframes" in the original sense. The original mainframes used technology that became obsolete on the day microprocessor-based systems became more cost effective. What we now call "mainframes" are just specialized microcomputers that are optimized to run legacy mainframe code.
While it's true IBM is closing in on a common CPU for all platforms, I don't think this supports your argument. Mainframes have always had multiple processors for various functions on various boards, and I don't think that's any different today. It's not that much different from a PC either, just a matter of degree, more stuff in IBM mainframes and mini's were offloaded to other processors than in a PC.
It's true the AS/400 is an expensive platform. It's also true you save money every year because you don't need sysadmin's or DBA's (at all at the low to medium end and much less at the upper end). Additionally, in my experience with similar workloads between AS/400 and PC servers, you need lots of PC servers to match the throughput in OLTP applications.
I think when you balance these things, the AS/400 is much less expensive than it may seem when you are buying disk or memory at extremely high prices.
I read most of the article, until it starting repeating itself and I still hadn't read anything new. I see in some other comments references to PRAM so I'll check that out, but they sure didn't do themselves any favors with that article.
Has the industry hit a wall? How long will it take to get back to above 3GHz for a mainstream processor
Power6 is a mainstream server processor operating at 4.7ghz in servers today, and at 6ghz in the lab. While it's clear that gains are more difficult now, it would appear the industry has not hit the wall yet.
In the late 80's I wrote software to allow our client to search their customer database (30million rows) with the following methods:
Zip City State/City Address Line 1 Name Phone etc. etc. etc. etc.
I'm also absolutely certain there is a mainframe app that did the same thing back in the 60's, and probably a bunch more on every environment imaginable over the last few decades.
What makes the patent unique? Because the database is accessed over TCP/IP instead of SNA? Is it because the database contains businesses instead of the businesses and consumers that were in the db I worked on?
Slashdot Mirror
Isn't this inbound stuff? Isn't this the same crap that ZoneAlarm blocks for me constantly?
Not sure if the article was on slashdot or somewhere else, but the FBI listened in on regular conversations while no phone call was happening because they had downloaded software (with a warrent) onto the person's phone allowing them to control it.
I understand the desire for VM's so this question really isn't about that, but why can't you have 5 or 6 versions of your software on 1 box? When I worked for an ERP company it was pretty common for our servers to have multiple versions of the software.
You found someone's wallet? Are there rules requiring it to be turned in?
What about the armored car that accidentally drops a pallet of money on the sidewalk, and you move it inside your house, is that ok?
He was supposed to give her back $90 in change.
Why are you making plans to pick her up for soccer practice 10 minutes ahead of time instead of a day or a week? When I had after school or weekend activities as a child I knew which parent would be taking me, and when, at least a few days in advance.
Lets check and see how that would work:
As I pick up daughter for soccer, she asks: "You're late, why didn't you call?"
Me: "Traffic was bad but Sparr0 didn't want me to use my cell to make a voice call, so I used my cell and text'd my status to the Soccer Parents forum, I hoped you might have seen it there."
Daughter: "I don't go to that forum"
Me: "Dang"
Daughter: "Who's Sparr0?"
Me: "He's a poster on slashdot, seems to know all situations in which a cell phone might be used, turns out they just aren't efficient. Anyway, instead of me just telling you, why don't you check the the wiki I setup, it should explain everything."
3000 minutes a month? WTF? You need to find more efficient ways to communicate
My grandpa uses 0 minutes per month, man that guy is really efficient!
Introduce your friends/coworkers to email, forums, wikis, SMS, etc
My daughter uses SMS and is much more efficient than me because I use voice, here is an example of a speed comparison:
Me speaking on cell phone to daughter: "I will pick you up in 10 minutes for soccer practice"
Daughter texting: OK
As you can see texting is clearly faster, now let's try a wiki example:
Me speaking on cell phone to co-worker: "To boot the server, just flip the big red switch"
Co-worker using wiki: {1 mouse click on hyperlink to "Booting the Server"}
Again, no comparison. Let's make sure a forum is more efficient also:
Me speaking on cell phone to friend: "Man I wish I knew if Sony had cut the price of the PS3, I really think I would buy one if they did, unfortunately I don't know and neither do you because we're both having this conversation on this dang cell phone!"
Friend reading slashdot: "Sony Drops PS3 Price"
It's pretty clear, the cell phone is probably one of the less efficient tools in our arsenal.
Tune in next week for another in depth efficiency article titled "The Wheel - What Went Wrong?"
I used to program in jimble jamble, some think I still do.
so logically we can't call anything as intelligent as a human unless it's at least this good at compression
It all depends on your definition of intelligence, doesn't it? There are many different things we can do that we consider part of intelligence but each of us does them well to a different degree. I'm not sure it makes sense to try to simplify it with comparison like "as intelligent as a human".
But any modern OS has something very similar. Things like memory management and address partitions are very basic OS features.
.NET?
.NET provide and abstract machine, probably the biggest difference is that people using the System/38 and it's successor the as400 have had it since 1978 and it's completely integrated in the system.
No, they don't have the features I listed (yes they all have some form of memory management, but that's not what I posted, I specifically stated single level store and capability based addressing). If you do some research, you will find that most of the activity surrounding those types of attributes are in acedemia or R&D labs. These attributes offer some very important benefits regarding security and reliability.
The combination of object orientation, single level store and capability based security are the reasons the AS400 doesn't have viruses and the types of security holes that are found in other systems.
It's an interesting topic, I think you can find something in wikipedia even.
And the bit about running stuff on a "abstract machine"? Those are very common. Ever use Java or
Hardware changes on the as400 don't impact the code. I have run programs compiled in 1988 on a 48bit cisc machine run on the newer power5 machines, there's nothing to do. Yes Java and
In any case, we're talking about the fundamental features of the hardware
It's both hardware and software. Not sure what your point is, you said there is nothing special about an AS400 and I am just pointing out those things that are.
That's separate from the OS, which could easily be ported to another platform, if there were any demand for it
If there's no demand then why is there active research surrounding those capabilities? Why did WindowsNT copy the hardware abstraction idea? Why is capability based security being added to Linux and other OS's?
It's just a microcomputer, no more powerful than most PCs
The Power6 by itself is more powerful than the CPU in any PC. When you combine it with all of the other stuff inside an as400, you get a server that far exceeds the power of a PC. You could certainly add all of that other stuff to a PC but guess what, you wouldn't have a PC anymore, and it would cost quite a bit more money.
Recent models even use a POWER CPU, which is the same CPU Macs used before they went over to Intel.
The Power4, Power5, Power5+ and Power6 are not and never were the same as the PowerPC G4 processor. The former are server processors and designed with server workloads in mind, the latter was targetted at a very different market at a different price per cpu and with different trade-offs in the physical design.
If your application(s) is/are even remotely horizontally scalable, a rack full of servers is almost certainly a better option
Have you accounted for the difference in payroll requirements to support 1 AS400 vs a rack full of servers. It's not a trivial amount of money, especially over 5 years.
Thank you, it all comes back now (although I only did those on system36's, and only rarely)
The iSeries is virtually the SAME as the pSeries. In fact, it runs the same processor, a Power5 in the newest machines
The RS6000 began using the AS400's processor in 1997 (Code name Apache, developed in AS400 unit in Rochester, first full PowerPC architecture that the 2 boxes shared, 64 bits, etc.).
Bit settings allow the processor to run in as400 single level storage memory model.
AS400 scales well, but it doesn't go beyond the low end of the mainframe. There certainly is overlap, but even with that I think the "mainframe" term probably isn't the best for an AS400.
Why would you want a MRT on the AS400? If I remember right the advantage to a MRT was the program loaded once into memory used multiple times, but that's how the AS400 worked by default, each user ran the exact same code in memory but had a different PAG which held that jobs variables etc.
Those are AS400 attributes. Please list the systems (pc or otherwise) that contain those attributes.
I'm sure there are situations where an admin/operator and/or dba is required in as400 shops, my point was that these needs are significantly reduced. To the point where in most of our small to small/medium customers (in the 10 to 100million size range), the controller changed backup tapes and the occasional problem with varying on a device was handled by a network/pc admin or remote support.
For example?
This is taken from a website from Christopher Brown on operating systems (I didn't feel like typing it):
Object-based organization. Everything is an object, and only the relevant operations can be performed on them. You cannot 'open' a program object and 'read' it like a file, etc.
Capability-based addressing. System pointers are 128 bits wide, of which 96 bits are the address, and the remainder the authority. The hardware uses a tagged architecture to make it impossible to counterfeit a system pointer.
Single-level storage. Every object has a permanent, system-wide virtual address. From the OS's point of view, everything is always in memory, with disk pages to support it physically.
Abstract machine. Compilers for all object types target a high-level, registerless abstract machine, which does not change much from version to version. (In addition to executable code, program objects can contain a program 'template', which can be rendered into machine code on demand. Because of this, prgrams originally compiled for the 16-bit System/38 can be migrated to the newest 64-bit AS/400 without 'recompiling'; the program template is simply re-rendered as machine code when the OS detects that the executable out of date.)
But that's a matter of economics, not technology
I can only speak for the AS/400, not mainframes, but I can tell you there are numerous things in the system that simply are not found in PC's and PC OS's. Many of the time saving or satbility/realiability things the other poster was referring to really are technology issues.
I would also point out that modern mainframes are not really "mainframes" in the original sense. The original mainframes used technology that became obsolete on the day microprocessor-based systems became more cost effective. What we now call "mainframes" are just specialized microcomputers that are optimized to run legacy mainframe code.
While it's true IBM is closing in on a common CPU for all platforms, I don't think this supports your argument. Mainframes have always had multiple processors for various functions on various boards, and I don't think that's any different today. It's not that much different from a PC either, just a matter of degree, more stuff in IBM mainframes and mini's were offloaded to other processors than in a PC.
It's true the AS/400 is an expensive platform. It's also true you save money every year because you don't need sysadmin's or DBA's (at all at the low to medium end and much less at the upper end). Additionally, in my experience with similar workloads between AS/400 and PC servers, you need lots of PC servers to match the throughput in OLTP applications.
I think when you balance these things, the AS/400 is much less expensive than it may seem when you are buying disk or memory at extremely high prices.
How do you propose musicians and song writers pay for rent and food?
I would truly appreciate an answer to this question.
I read most of the article, until it starting repeating itself and I still hadn't read anything new. I see in some other comments references to PRAM so I'll check that out, but they sure didn't do themselves any favors with that article.
Has the industry hit a wall? How long will it take to get back to above 3GHz for a mainstream processor
Power6 is a mainstream server processor operating at 4.7ghz in servers today, and at 6ghz in the lab. While it's clear that gains are more difficult now, it would appear the industry has not hit the wall yet.
In the late 80's I wrote software to allow our client to search their customer database (30million rows) with the following methods:
Zip
City
State/City
Address Line 1
Name
Phone
etc. etc. etc. etc.
I'm also absolutely certain there is a mainframe app that did the same thing back in the 60's, and probably a bunch more on every environment imaginable over the last few decades.
What makes the patent unique? Because the database is accessed over TCP/IP instead of SNA? Is it because the database contains businesses instead of the businesses and consumers that were in the db I worked on?
However, if you learn how to speak properly I wouldn't have to read it twice to understand it.
I hear what you are thinking, but I'm not sure I see what you are saying.