| Clark F Morris 2006-07-30, 9:55 pm |
| On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 00:31:57 +1200, "Pete Dashwood"
<dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>
>"Jürgen Vetter" <vetter@dokom.net> wrote in message
>news:44cc9cb5$1@news.knipp.de...
[color=darkred]
>
>Yes, I know several, and I subscripe to a server farm in the USA which has
>99,98% And work doesn't stop every Monday morning for routine maintenance...
>:-) Neither does it require a bevy of systems experts and programmers to
>keep it running.
If there is any real volume you need a bevy of some kind of experts to
decide whether a system fix should be applied and review the risks, to
keep track of usage, to handle communications problems, etc. Some of
these tasks are simplified by using a mainframe as the base, other by
using other computer configurations. Things that I can ignore on my
home computer are not an option if you are running a major operation
on which many people depend. Little things like backups. Little
things like making sure an operating system, database or middleware
fix doesn't blow up the loved application. Security is a complex zoo
regardless of platform. For many online and networking tasks, the IBM
mainframe (also probably Unisys and any others still in business) is
better than using networked Unix, Linux or Windows computers. For
other tasks the reverse is probably true.[color=darkred]
|