I work for a CO that still uses a mainframe.. the people that work with it tell me that a server would crash if it had to take what this mainframe takes... I think it is junk. lol
2006-08-11 05:33:48 · 3 answers · asked by Inuchan 3 in Computers & Internet ➔ Other - Computers
The line is getting thinner and blurrier between what a mainframe can do and what a server can do. Truth be told...large scale list processing, such as credit card, insurance and utility billing systems, still run much more efficiently on mainframes. And it will be a long time before all this is moved over to networked servers as the funding to rewrite these systems is simply not there. Only when the job can be done significantly better will there be a drive to change what already works very well.
Why reinvent the wheel?
2006-08-11 05:42:35 · answer #1 · answered by Black Fedora 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Our company uses mainframe as well. The Developers use a different Windows environment to do their work, but the mainframes use a DOS type environment to do database work. They can run queries, load tables, modify tables, do spufies, etc. We also use the mainframe to check in our hours, we access datadocs and a lot of useful information that can only be stored in the mainframe.
I think most companies who have had previous programs with cobol and perl still use the mainframe for most of their batch jobs. Batch jobs are needed to backup data and run daily spufies to update our database.
2006-08-11 05:42:29 · answer #2 · answered by Sean I.T ? 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
lots. main frames are still a viable way of doing heavy processing, and a good solution to many security issues as well. toss in the SAN aspects and mainframes are still completely viable.
2006-08-11 05:39:45 · answer #3 · answered by digital genius 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋