Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 22:02:41 -0600
Reply-To: Alan Churchill <savian001@GMAIL.COM>
Sender: "SAS(r) Discussion" <SAS-L@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
From: Alan Churchill <savian001@GMAIL.COM>
Subject: Re: SAS Product Selection
In-Reply-To: <1185421448.696123.323990@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
" I have to say that in 1981, making those decisions, I felt like I was
providing enough freedom for 10 years. That is, a move from 64k to 640k felt
like something that would last a great deal of time. Well, it didn't - it
took about only 6 years before people started to see that as a real
problem."
- Bill Gates
You're right David...but things will change. What we consider large
databases today will be samples soon. Clusters of machines is the future for
loads of reasons.
Alan
Alan Churchill
Savian "Bridging SAS and Microsoft Technologies"
www.savian.net
-----Original Message-----
From: SAS(r) Discussion [mailto:SAS-L@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU] On Behalf Of David
Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2007 9:44 PM
To: SAS-L@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
Subject: Re: SAS Product Selection
On Jul 24, 1:13 pm, savian...@GMAIL.COM (Alan Churchill) wrote:
> Actually David, I think the move isn't so much mainframe to midrange but
> mainframe to massive clusters of PCs. This is a similar architecture that
is
> taking place at the largest computing environments out there (Google,
> Amazon, Microsoft, eBay, etc.).
You can't run SAS on Google's architecture. Who needs massive
clusters of PC's anyway? You can run a Xen hypervisor with Windows or
Linux (or both at once) on a single cheap Dell/HP (etc) server these
days, and that's going to be more than enough power for most SAS
shops. You do lose some redundancy (AFAIK you can't hot-swap CPUs or
memory), but most outfits don't need that kind of reliability.
| 
