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.  ]