yahoo currently runs freebsd + java flash microcrap etc.
What would happen if yahoo dumped this 1000s of i686 boxes with crap
software for a lisp powered mainframe?
From: Maciej Katafiasz
Subject: Re: what would happen if yahoo mved to a lisp based mainframe?
Date:
Message-ID: <fk412l$t80$2@news.net.uni-c.dk>
Den Sun, 16 Dec 2007 12:11:55 -0800 skrev gavino:
> yahoo currently runs freebsd + java flash microcrap etc.
>
> What would happen if yahoo dumped this 1000s of i686 boxes with crap
> software for a lisp powered mainframe?
Science hasn't reliably determined the answer for that question yet. But
it's quite possible that daemons would fly out of a non-empty set of
noses. That, or the end of Middle East conflicts, the readings are really
hazy on this one.
Cheers,
Maciej
On Sun, 16 Dec 2007 12:11:55 -0800, gavino wrote:
> yahoo currently runs freebsd + java flash microcrap etc.
>
> What would happen if yahoo dumped this 1000s of i686 boxes with crap
> software for a lisp powered mainframe?
"no"
http://lord.xopl.com/ulpage3a/8-ball2.html?What%20would%20happen%20if%
20yahoo%20dumped%20this%201000s%20of%20i686%20boxes%20with%20crap%0A%
20software%20for%20a%20lisp%20powered%20mainframe%3F
HTH,
J.
On Dec 16, 8:11 pm, gavino <·········@gmail.com> wrote:
> yahoo currently runs freebsd + java flash microcrap etc.
>
> What would happen if yahoo dumped this 1000s of i686 boxes with crap
> software for a lisp powered mainframe?
MI5 would kill them.
From: Kamen T
Subject: Re: what would happen if yahoo mved to a lisp based mainframe?
Date:
Message-ID: <ur6hl2uh7.fsf@cybuild.com>
On Mon, Dec 17 2007, Tim Bradshaw wrote:
> On Dec 16, 8:11 pm, gavino <·········@gmail.com> wrote:
>> yahoo currently runs freebsd + java flash microcrap etc.
>>
>> What would happen if yahoo dumped this 1000s of i686 boxes with crap
>> software for a lisp powered mainframe?
>
> MI5 would kill them.
... and MD5 would cover up the traces
--
Kamen
From: thorne
Subject: Re: what would happen if yahoo mved to a lisp based mainframe?
Date:
Message-ID: <861w9jv3uo.fsf@timbral.net>
gavino <·········@gmail.com> writes:
> yahoo currently runs freebsd + java flash microcrap etc.
>
> What would happen if yahoo dumped this 1000s of i686 boxes with crap
> software for a lisp powered mainframe?
IS there even a Common Lisp implementation that runs on any mainframe?
zOS, for example? Or even MVS? I think there was a lisp included on
the old CBT tapes from way back, but i'm not sure. Maybe someone would
like to write a CL for zOS in... COBOL.
Just kidding. I guess there is a lot of virtual Linux being run on zOS
these days. That could work, maybe.
--
Theron Ttlåx
On Dec 19, 2:02 am, thorne <······@timbral.net> wrote:
>
> Just kidding. I guess there is a lot of virtual Linux being run on zOS
> these days. That could work, maybe.
Yes, curiously the place I'm working now, which is fundamentally a
mainframe shop, though I have 0 to do with that other than as a user,
is considering using Linux on z-series boxes. So CLISP could run on
that, I guess.
But really, this whole question is ill-conceived (not surprisingly).
You don't use a mainframe (or any kind of big box) to run your web
front-ends because what you need is horizontal scaling, and you can't
get enough of that from a big box, and what you can get is savagely
expensive (I don't know what a 25k system board costs (8 cores and up
to 64GB memory) but I bet it's quite a lot). Instead you use a bunch
of small and relatively cheap systems which hold no state, and then
use the expensive box to hold your state. There's a reason systems
get designed like that :-)
--tim
On Dec 19, 3:35 am, Tim Bradshaw <··········@tfeb.org> wrote:
> On Dec 19, 2:02 am, thorne <······@timbral.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Just kidding. I guess there is a lot of virtual Linux being run on zOS
> > these days. That could work, maybe.
>
> Yes, curiously the place I'm working now, which is fundamentally a
> mainframe shop, though I have 0 to do with that other than as a user,
> is considering using Linux on z-series boxes. So CLISP could run on
> that, I guess.
>
> But really, this whole question is ill-conceived (not surprisingly).
> You don't use a mainframe (or any kind of big box) to run your web
> front-ends because what you need is horizontal scaling, and you can't
> get enough of that from a big box, and what you can get is savagely
> expensive (I don't know what a 25k system board costs (8 cores and up
> to 64GB memory) but I bet it's quite a lot). Instead you use a bunch
> of small and relatively cheap systems which hold no state, and then
> use the expensive box to hold your state. There's a reason systems
> get designed like that :-)
>
> --tim
this is called 3 tier architecture yes?
I just see in shops I admin 100s of boxes.....and 80% are idle whiel
rest are burning up......to me its amazign people don't use some kind
of openmosix single ssytem cluster stuff more widely. Everyone wants
high availability but the cluster software and software load balancign
often are sources fo complexity+failure themselves....and slow
development...and hurt debuging.....
From: Patrick May
Subject: Re: what would happen if yahoo mved to a lisp based mainframe?
Date:
Message-ID: <m2prx2plzb.fsf@spe.com>
gavino <·········@gmail.com> writes:
> On Dec 19, 3:35 am, Tim Bradshaw <··········@tfeb.org> wrote:
>> On Dec 19, 2:02 am, thorne <······@timbral.net> wrote:
>> But really, this whole question is ill-conceived (not
>> surprisingly). You don't use a mainframe (or any kind of big box)
>> to run your web front-ends because what you need is horizontal
>> scaling, and you can't get enough of that from a big box, and what
>> you can get is savagely expensive (I don't know what a 25k system
>> board costs (8 cores and up to 64GB memory) but I bet it's quite a
>> lot). Instead you use a bunch of small and relatively cheap
>> systems which hold no state, and then use the expensive box to hold
>> your state. There's a reason systems get designed like that :-)
>
> this is called 3 tier architecture yes?
Or, more generally, n-tier.
> I just see in shops I admin 100s of boxes.....and 80% are idle whiel
> rest are burning up......to me its amazign people don't use some
> kind of openmosix single ssytem cluster stuff more widely. Everyone
> wants high availability but the cluster software and software load
> balancign often are sources fo complexity+failure themselves....and
> slow development...and hurt debuging.....
In my day job I work for a company that has a product that
addresses all of those issues. I'd love to have a Common Lisp
implementation that could take advantage of multi-core CPUs and deal
with garbage collection in very large heaps on 64-bit machines
effectively. It would make my arguments for augmenting our Java APIs
more compelling.
Regards,
Patrick
------------------------------------------------------------------------
S P Engineering, Inc. | Large scale, mission-critical, distributed OO
| systems design and implementation.
···@spe.com | (C++, Java, Common Lisp, Jini, middleware, SOA)
On Dec 19, 6:15 pm, gavino <·········@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> this is called 3 tier architecture yes?
Or in general n-tier yes.
>
> I just see in shops I admin 100s of boxes.....and 80% are idle whiel
> rest are burning up......to me its amazign people don't use some kind
> of openmosix single ssytem cluster stuff more widely.
I think people will move to exactly this kind of solution. This is
part of what the whole virtualisation thing is groping towards. But
what I *don't* think will happen is very large SMP machines taking
over (though of course they do and will continue to thrive in their
niche) since they cost too much for the performance, as they're full
of features that matter to must-never-fail systems but don't matter to
it's-ok-if-a-few-systems-drop-out-occasionally systems.
From: Daniel Weinreb
Subject: Re: what would happen if yahoo mved to a lisp based mainframe?
Date:
Message-ID: <4muaj.28857$JW4.14320@trnddc05>
thorne wrote:
> gavino <·········@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> yahoo currently runs freebsd + java flash microcrap etc.
>>
>> What would happen if yahoo dumped this 1000s of i686 boxes with crap
>> software for a lisp powered mainframe?
>
> IS there even a Common Lisp implementation that runs on any mainframe?
> zOS, for example?
According to my survey (Version 3, which I just posted),
GCL (Gnu CL) runs on (Debian) Linux S390,
which I believe means a modern IBM mainframe. I guess
it depends whether you count Linux on mainframe hardware
as being a "mainframe"; given the way people say things
about "mainframes", it would be at least somewhat ambiguous.
Or even MVS? I think there was a lisp included on
> the old CBT tapes from way back, but i'm not sure. Maybe someone would
> like to write a CL for zOS in... COBOL.
>
> Just kidding. I guess there is a lot of virtual Linux being run on zOS
> these days. That could work, maybe.
>