|
|
| Author |
Message |
aaron
|
|
A Hypothetical Database
| 
Nov 16 05:33 UTC 1991 |
If you were to build a database, containing thousands of gigabytes of
information in various libraries, simultaneously accessible by thousands
of users around the country -- and capable of lightning-fast, highly
detailed, customized searches of all the documents, no matter how many
users were on-line -- how would you go about doing it? How much would
it cost?
|
| 14 responses total. |
jdg
|
|
response 1 of 14:
|
Nov 16 14:43 UTC 1991 |
In order to get reasonable speed, I'd use fiber connections world-wide.
Bandwith isn't a problem with copper, but delay from here to the pacific
basin is a problem with copper. I'd use satellite connections as a backup
to fiber, and the whole shebang would be IP routers.
Personally, I'd use a large mainframe capable of managing terrabytes of data
at high
speed, and run a mainframe Unix system with distributed database and X-term
capabilities. I'd select an Amdahl mainframe and their UTS operating
system, which is Unix System V plus about 2 million lines of code to support
large system activities. I'd connect 10 or 12 of their 6100 Storage Processors
to the system; each of them can easily manage 240 GB of data while doing
16 simultaneous data transfer operations. I'd probably add 128 MB of cache
to each one to begin with, then as the Db application required I'd bump them
up towards 512 MB or so. I'd also add, regardless, about 16MB of non-volatile
storage to each 6100 so that "Fast Write" operations could take place async.
The disks themselves would be the Amdahl 6390s. Data transfer is 4.2 MB/sec,
and 60 GB with 4-paths fits easily in a cabinet you can lean on. High speed,
high tech.
I'd use Informix or Oracle as the DB, perhaps Tuxedo for non-GUI or non-
distributed (dumb terminal) transactions. I'd probably want to reduce disk
cost by going to a hierarchical storage system. Perhaps an Amdahl 6110
High Performance Storage Subsystem for the really high-speed requirements,
say, about a GB, then, the 10 or 12 6100s as described above, then to
the Storage TeK Tape Library for the low use cheap mass storage. I'd need
to use UniTree software for managing the hierarchy automatically.
Cost? Now its time to get impersonal.
Well, what I'd do is draw up a plan like this in greater detail. If
you're buying workstations and including them, I'd stick them in here too.
Need a building to house the whole thing? Add it in. Whatever you need.
Do you need the application developed? Spec it out also. Wrap the whole
thing up in a written "book" called a Request For Information (RFI), have
30 or 40 copies printed; then send it to all the vendors and systems
integrators you can think of, who might want to get involved in your
project. Be sure to write a one or two page "executive" cover letter that
the salesmen can read, that asks them to be as innovative as possible,
to consider how they'd accomplish some of these things, and that you have
a budget under consideration of about $80,000,000 that you hope is enough.
In the RFI, I wouldn't mention specific products (hardware/software) like
I did up above. You'd piss of some vendors who would think that you'd
pre-selected another vendor. And, you might end up in court with a losing
vendor if you specified someone else's product in your eventual Request For
Proposal (RFP) that all the vendors hope you send out.
Your cover letter should state clearly that vendors chosen to compete for
the RFP will be made by examining the responses received from the RFI.
That means that those who don't respond to the RFI don't get a crack at
your 80 million bucks.
Those who don't give you a GREAT response also don't get a crack at it.
------
Since this is all hypothetical, anyway, what is the hypothetical application
you want to run here?
|
choke
|
|
response 2 of 14:
|
Nov 19 18:29 UTC 1991 |
For a start, you could lease compuserve's network connections.
Many networks do that today.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 3 of 14:
|
Nov 20 03:52 UTC 1991 |
I'd stay away from Oracle, from what I've seen of it (only the system
administration end of it admittedly..) but those sound like good suggestions.
{
|
aaron
|
|
response 4 of 14:
|
Nov 22 06:23 UTC 1991 |
re #1: Actually, I have used various mega-databases (such as Mead's
Lexis/Nexis/Medis, and West Publishing's Westlaw), and wondered what was
involved.
Only $80 million? A bargain.
|
jdg
|
|
response 5 of 14:
|
Nov 23 03:39 UTC 1991 |
Mead and West Publishing are both customers of ours; neither is using an
open systems solution at this time.
|
aaron
|
|
response 6 of 14:
|
Nov 24 05:55 UTC 1991 |
Open systems solution? (Forgive my lack of familiarity with the terms
of the trade.)
|
jdg
|
|
response 7 of 14:
|
Nov 24 14:30 UTC 1991 |
Open Systems = unix based. Many vendors, no hardware technology lock-in.
|
danr
|
|
response 8 of 14:
|
Nov 24 21:06 UTC 1991 |
Why wouldn't someone want to use an open systems solution? Isn't
the software (or performance) available?
|
jdg
|
|
response 9 of 14:
|
Nov 24 22:16 UTC 1991 |
There are many reasons, but you hit the nail on the head with the software.
Many subsystems aren't there yet; or not there for large system solutions.
The pressure *is* on for scalable solutions; to be able to have both
scalability and interoperability (eech, I hate that word) are strong incentives
to search for open systems solutions. Some products designed for small
workstations aren't scalable -- so I would say that not all the pieces are
in place yet; they're definitely on their way.
|
jdg
|
|
response 10 of 14:
|
Nov 24 22:58 UTC 1991 |
To continue, proprietary systems that have robust subsystems are desired
simply because of their longevity and stability; as well as a sole source
or nearly sole source means that standards may exist and be adhered to.
(In open systems, the joke goes, "standards are very popular...that's why
there are so many of them.")
|
jdg
|
|
response 11 of 14:
|
Nov 24 23:48 UTC 1991 |
This might help:
Open Systems Defined -
"Software environments consisting of products and technologies in accordance
with 'standards', established and de facto, that are vendor independent and
commonly available." - X/Open
"Systems which allow unimpeded access to the information required to do one's
job." - User Alliance for Open Systems, January, 1991.
Why Open Systems? -
Portability: The ability to use or migrate application software across
different hardware from multiple vendors.
Scalability: The ability to move an application onto systems with a variety
of performance characteristics.
Interoperability: A capability for applications in a variety of different parts
of a computing environment to share processes and data.
Additional definitions -
Monolithic Solution: Single platform, with multiple data bases, applications,
and users. Example: MVS running on System/370 hardware platform.
Distributed Computing: Single platforms plus network, with a single data base,
single application, and multiple users. Example, VMS running on multiple
VAXes.
Personal Computing: Single platform, single application, single user, with
optional shared disk and peripherals via server LAN. Example, MS-DOS.
Desktop Computing: Standard platform, multiple vendors, multiple databases,
portable applications. Example, desktop and server Unix environments.
--------
The monolithic solutions that have been typically offered by Information
Systems departments has not kept up with the needs of the enterprise. Many
organizations have had other solutions (distributed, desktop, personal, or
a mix) installed to meet those pressing needs. Unfortunately, these separate
solutions often add additional problems to managing information throughout
the enterprise.
The problems these departmental solutions cause include:
Data at risk
Personnel costs
Integration of processes
Loss of flexibility
Loss of competitiveness
Loss of opportunity.
The burden on executive management is cost control and protection of mission
critical data in these environments. Monolithic solutions in the "glass house"
often do not cohesively interoperate with these departmental "glass suburbs."
An open systems solution that provides interoperation, scalability, true
distribution and data control throughout the enterprise would solve the
problems caused by departmental "glass suburb" solutions that don't meet
enterprise wide data and application management criteria.
|
mdw
|
|
response 12 of 14:
|
Dec 11 14:39 UTC 1991 |
Actually, the interesting phrase here is "lightening fast searches".
That implies a pretty respectable database package, which among other
things, probably devotes a lot more space to indexing the documents,
than it provides for the documents themselves. That implies a lot of
custom coding, and might also negate using Oracle or Informix -- depends
on just how demanding the database requirements are, and how well those
products scale today. Most of the systems doing that to date have gone
with fully custom code, suggesting the off-the-shelf products weren't up
to it.
I assume am Amdahl 6390 is more or less equivalent to an IBM 3390 -- if
you really wanted to stick to 370 and compatible architectures, you'd
certainly want to avoid any dependencies on either Amdahl or IBM --
instead, you'd always ask both vendors (and any others if possible) to
bid, and you'd play each off the other to get the best possible price.
This sounds like a large enough order that both vendors ought to be
quite eager to cut special deals for you. (Besides, both employ
"american" salepeople -- just like stereos, and automobiles, nobody pays
list, if they can help it...)
But sticking with the dinosaur may not be the best bet. You can buy a
micro from IBM - the RS/6000, that makes for some real interesting
comparisons with their big mainframe, the ES/9000. The speed of light
being what it is, smaller = faster, and someday, all mainframes will be
single-chip micros. In shear CPU speed, the 6000 is real comparable to
a 9000 processor (which one is faster depends on what you do and on
which model.) In terms of I/O bandwidth, the 9000 should win. On the
other hand, disk is a lot cheaper on the 6000, and so is the CPU. So
what if the disk is smaller -- you can buy a lot more of them -- and if
you can partition up your task in some convenient manner, then you might
find it very attractive to have 20 or 30 RS/6000's each talking to a
slow SCSI disk, rather one ES/9000 talking to many fast disks. Hmm.
You can buy a rather nice RS/6000 for, what, $50K? Not sure how much a
gigabyte scsi drive is these days -- another few thousand, I'd guess.
So, for about 70 million, you could have about a thousand RS/6000's,
each with its own dedicated gigabyte of storage, making up a terabyte
total. 'Course, you'd have to worry about tapes, backups, software,
networks, & a lot of other stuff -- (for which you'd have to be a lot
more specific on the application, like # of users, write operations &
updates, & more...) to fix those other pesky numbers down. Still, I
think that ocean of a thousand RS/6000's gives you about a hundred times
the CPU power you could get with a mainframe solution, and a lot more
flexibility. The RS/6000 is merely one of many -- mips & Sun also offer
interesting risc chip systems. You still get to play vendors off
against each other, although it's not quite as trivial to switch.
Oh yes -- if I remember right, neither electricity nor light travel at
"the speed of light" in solid media. I think electricity in copper is
at 60% the speed of light in a vacuum -- I forget the exact figure.
Light slows down also -- it all depends on the index of refraction, but
that 60% figure doesn't sound far wrong. Fiber might be faster, but it
probably won't be a whole lot faster. The big advantage fiber has it it
takes up a lot less space. One skinny bundle, instead of many fat
bundles of copper. Microwaves ought to be faster than either, since air
is a lot closer to being a vacuum. A satellite repeater is going to be
a lot slower though, unless it's one of many in low earth orbit, and not
in geosynchronous orbit way far away.
|
klaus
|
|
response 13 of 14:
|
Dec 12 12:53 UTC 1991 |
Does lightning travel at the speed of light?
|
mcnally
|
|
response 14 of 14:
|
Dec 12 22:24 UTC 1991 |
No, not even close.. At least if you mean how fast the bolt
travels.. The current within the lightning bolt travels at a
significant fraction of the speed of light but the bolt itself
travels slowly enough so you can catch it moving with a movie
camera with a few gizmos set up to help..
|