True. I find it interesting how difficult that they find it to put the benefits into words that don't sound like a brochure.
Surely there should be some specifications behind this? Benchmarks?
Surely there should be some specifications behind this? Benchmarks?
You can open a terminal and come back in a month and it will still be there. Unlikely kunernetes where containers regularly go down.
You can obviously achieve high reliability with Kunernetes, but you'll need queues and retry logic, that you don't need with SystemZ.
You mixing apples and oranges there, by comparing kubernetes workloads to mainframes. Kubernetes isn't really designed to serve long-persistent workloads of that fashion. Although tbf I've had VM's that last for years and real hardware (albeit Sun) that's had over a decade of uptime, so I'm not sure what all the fluff is about.
I assume the achievement part is that any CPU can be replaced transparently to the terminal running?
It wasn't cheap, but it made a typical "modern" high availability setup look like a crude homemade toy.
But as impressive as it was, there are just very few places where that impressiveness provides enough value to justify the cost. And having to deal with IBM.
Not a big deal today, but in the 80s hard drives died more frequently and a bank losing just 5 seconds of transactions could cost them millions.
https://www.anandtech.com/show/16924/did-ibm-just-preview-th...