Live data from Hacker News

Ask HN: Why hasn't the cloud killed the mainframe?

news.ycombinator.com

21–30 of 88 posts

Re: Ask HN: Why hasn't the cloud killed the mainframe?

#21
post #3

First of all, I find I kinda funny that you call banking, retail and insurance "legacy industries". I would rather be without Netflix and Google, than banking and food ... but each to their own.. While some is inertia (mostly doing to rewriting truly large applications are hard and expensive), there is also the the point that most of those industries cannot easily handle "eventually consistent" data.. Not all transac…

I have no expertise in this area, but two counter arguments pop'ed in my head:

1: I wonder how many transactions the largest e.g Postgres clusters (or other classic RDBMS) handles per day. 500M+/day doesn't seem that incredibly high?

2: Google Spanner, which I would classify as cloudy, promises ACID guarantees at a global distributed scale. Couldn't that be used?

I've listened to a Swedish developer podcast where they interviewed an old school mainframe developer in the banking sector. He brought up similar points about the scale and correctness of database transactions, and it didn't feel convincing to me.

What does Paypal, Klarna, or even maybe Amazon give up by not using mainframes? Does any company founded in the last 10-15-20 years use mainframes? If not, does that mean that "modern" companies can't compete in these high-demand industries like retail or insurance?

I think it's much more in the inertia-point, the cost of rewriting these enormous applications is simply too large.

Re: Ask HN: Why hasn't the cloud killed the mainframe?

#23

You statement and question are different things. Its also worth pointing out that a mainframe can mean different things. Here I will use the definition of a large central machine (or cluster) designed for HPC. > Why hasnt cloud killed the mainframe A mainframe is typically a very powerful machine/cluster. You may be able to get those in the cloud (although I doubt you can get a single machine with >32TB RAM, for exam…

> but why pay a premium to rent instead of buy?

I think that most customers lease their mainframe. IIRC IBM will often ship more hardware than the customer requires, with additional CPU/memory etc. being activated if a licence is purchased.

Re: Ask HN: Why hasn't the cloud killed the mainframe?

#24
post #4

A mainframe is your own on-premises AWS. (IBM should send me money for this tagline). Seriously though, there are businesses where sending the data to a third party is absolutely impossible. You can spend a lot of money building your own private cloud... or, you can buy a mainframe, which will be cheaper, and if your industry is mainframe-friendly, there will be a lot of support and accumulated experience.

Even for on-premise I think a better solution these days it to build your own cluster rather than depend on IBM or the few vendors that supply mainframe.

IMO the theory, technology, stack, libraries, ... for distributed computing has evolved a lot over the last decades that if you really had to have on-premise it is easier to create your own on-premise EC2 than rely on IBM to supply you with mainframes.

Re: Ask HN: Why hasn't the cloud killed the mainframe?

#26
Mainframes are more efficient at some tasks. Most tasks aren't particularly suited for mainframes, but the ones that are become a lot more expensive if you try to put stuff into the cloud.

You're also often dealing with very sensitive information. Zenbleed style attacks are an unacceptable risk, so you'll need separate hardware from the rest of the cloud anyway. Maybe you can find a data center that's reliable and secure enough to put all of that sensitive data, but there's a good chance you'll be wiring up your basement with fiber optics if you're dealing with finance.

The cloud, as in "other people's computers", is horrifically expensive. If you're going to set up mass throughput systems, you'd better start your own data center. This is expensive as well, but it's not impossible.

If you want scalability to reduce power consumption and deal with burst workloads, you'll have to separate out your processing systems from your storage systems. Your average data center probably runs a lot of iSCSI or similar remote disk tech, possibly based on some kind of software wrapper at the cost of latency and performance but with the benefit of quickly swapping drives and expanding capacity.

Then you'll have to architect your software, of course; if you're doing batch work, you'll probably want to distribute programs in batches and run similar programs on similar chips, making optimal use of data locality and CPU cache. Maybe do the whole Hadoop thing depending on your workload.

You'll also want to figure out maintenance. You can hire a team of your own techs dealing with replacements or upgrades, but in many cases hiring external talent for a limited amount of time per month is probably cheaper and saves you the effort of keeping your workers trained.

When a machine fails and the SKU you've selected has gone out of production you'll need to figure out a replacement. This doesn't have to be a problem, but servers are fickle things and you'll probably want to use something that works with the other server vendors' tools, so you're stuck buying hardware from a limited number of suppliers in a limited number of configurations.

For management, you'll want to pretend all the computers are part of the same system. Whether you pick Kubernetes or OpenStack, you want central control to save you the headache of a million dashboards.

When you're done, you've built yourself a mainframe, except you've spent your own money on R&D and need to spend money to upgrade your hardware rather than buying licenses for the rented machines your mainframe vendor already shipped to you, waiting to be licensed. Have you saved money compared to buying overpriced mainframe hardware? Tough to say, mainframe hardware is often better at its job than normal servers. You'll save money on developers, as you no longer need to keep the old COBOL around, but when that happens you've probably paid more than you've saved when the decade long project to rewrite the backend to another language is finally done.

Mainframes are just computers good at batch jobs. They're not better or worse than regular computers, they're just different.

Re: Ask HN: Why hasn't the cloud killed the mainframe?

#27
post #3

First of all, I find I kinda funny that you call banking, retail and insurance "legacy industries". I would rather be without Netflix and Google, than banking and food ... but each to their own.. While some is inertia (mostly doing to rewriting truly large applications are hard and expensive), there is also the the point that most of those industries cannot easily handle "eventually consistent" data.. Not all transac…

Google Cloud Bigtable and DynamoDB both appear to have ACID -- I don't see why mainframes would be better for this than cloud.

Bitcoin is slow because of the many servers not in spite of it. Because of the design of the network, all servers need to receive every transaction and servers need to be able to be pretty small, which limits the transaction rate.

Re: Ask HN: Why hasn't the cloud killed the mainframe?

#28
post #19

You statement and question are different things. Its also worth pointing out that a mainframe can mean different things. Here I will use the definition of a large central machine (or cluster) designed for HPC. > Why hasnt cloud killed the mainframe A mainframe is typically a very powerful machine/cluster. You may be able to get those in the cloud (although I doubt you can get a single machine with >32TB RAM, for exam…

No, the questions are related. I am asking does the mainframe really deliver better cost/performance than the cloud (some of the mainframe prices are quite huge without even accounting for maintenance and recruitment costs)? Is this the reason why it is still a significant market?

Consider also investment needed for the move. And the horror stories of that sort of moves have surfaced. Cloud might be cheaper, but moving to it is uncertainty where as current systems simply work.

And cloud is not only option, you could also instead of mainframe, build your own data centres and get most what cloud offers. CAPEX vs. OPEX is a thing, but it is not like these are startups that need to scale. Or the scaling limits are pretty well known.

Re: Ask HN: Why hasn't the cloud killed the mainframe?

#29
post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well this is Hacker's news, you label something legacy like code, its never a nice thing or showing some respect to product/creators, rather contrary. TBH its also the first time hearing about this term, its simply not common, not even here and much less in general population. And I have to strongly agree with OP, I couldn't care less about fate of FAANGs of these days, but I do care about those 'legacy' businesses t…

Your comment doesn't make sense, why in Hacker News should I show more respect to Walmart and JP Morgan rather than google or apple by calling the former legacy industry and the later big tech, and why are you so worked up about it? Relying on the existence of one vendor with highly unportable and unmaintainable code carries its own risk and my post is asking whether it justifies the cost.

It also gives you the opportunity to use their mainframes advantages to the very max. Not the "common feature set" but the very "best features" you can get out of your tech choice.

I do the same, I have run PosgreSQL for more than 2 decades now and I don't care about portability to any other database, all of which I consider inferior (and yes, I do follow most of their releases).

Re: Ask HN: Why hasn't the cloud killed the mainframe?

#30
post #23

You statement and question are different things. Its also worth pointing out that a mainframe can mean different things. Here I will use the definition of a large central machine (or cluster) designed for HPC. > Why hasnt cloud killed the mainframe A mainframe is typically a very powerful machine/cluster. You may be able to get those in the cloud (although I doubt you can get a single machine with >32TB RAM, for exam…

> but why pay a premium to rent instead of buy? I think that most customers lease their mainframe. IIRC IBM will often ship more hardware than the customer requires, with additional CPU/memory etc. being activated if a licence is purchased.

For sure, thats true of a lot of equipment :) I was more making the point that the cloud provider isnt a charity and will be charging a premium on top of that base cost. Ive updated to better reflect this.
Post reply on HN