Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!lll-lcc!ames!cit-vax!amdahl!mat From: mat@amdahl.UUCP (Mike Taylor) Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc Subject: Re: Mainframes vs micros for database applications Message-ID: <4944@amdahl.UUCP> Date: Sat, 3-Jan-87 23:59:01 EST Article-I.D.: amdahl.4944 Posted: Sat Jan 3 23:59:01 1987 Date-Received: Sun, 4-Jan-87 04:36:08 EST References: <653@imsvax.UUCP> <196@unisoft.UUCP> <2839@gitpyr.gatech.EDU> <13905@glacier.STANFORD.EDU> Organization: Amdahl Corp, Sunnyvale CA Lines: 18 Keywords: databases, mainframes, Tandem, IBM In article <13905@glacier.STANFORD.EDU>, jbn@glacier.STANFORD.EDU (John B. Nagle) writes: > > One problem with mainframe databases is that IBM's main offering, > IMS, is single-thread. This is simply not true. Much of the rest of the article, which is a paean to Tandem's systems, is true. However, one should not overlook the compromises which Tandem makes in important areas such as "hot spot" and batch support. I am aware of IMS systems, BTW, in which 40+ large systems are coupled via ISC to support a single large application. Tandem makes a good product which has enjoyed deserved success in suitable applications. It is not, however, the answer to every problem. -- Mike Taylor ...!{ihnp4,hplabs,amd,sun}!amdahl!mat [ This may not reflect my opinion, let alone anyone else's. ]