Login or register (free and only takes a few minutes) to participate in this question.
You will also have access to many other tools and opportunities designed for those who have language-related jobs
(or are passionate about them). Participation is free and the site has a strict confidentiality policy.
|English to English translations [PRO]|
|English term or phrase: counter-intuitive|
|(the problem word is at the end)|
Slide 27 begins a discussion of a very key and strategic solution area for zSeries, sometimes referred to as Infrastructure Simplification -- the next wave beyond Server Consolidation.
This involves taking what has become a complex infrastructure of physically dispersed servers, different server functions, network functionality, Web functionality, application serving, and database transaction serving, and trying to leverage technologies in the marketplace today to make the infrastructure more simple and more manageable.
In doing this, companies are leveraging scale up and scale out technologies to simplify and integrate their on demand operating environments.
The glue that makes all of this happen is really a set of technologies like Linux , Java and Grid combined with two somewhat ***counter-intuitive server platforms***, namely mainframes and blades.
unexpected server platforms???
|English translation:representing two contradictory approaches to server architecture|
This refers to the different approach that I´ve referred to with some of your other questions. I spent several years working with IBM mainframes, and then several years as a system architect working in Unix environments, where we developed an approach which is radically different from the IBM mainframe approach.
This was essentially a contradictory approach: instead of one large machine, we used separate machines for each of many (carefully defined) purposes - the object-oriented approach, applied at all levels, including the hardware level. This was associated with Unix, networks, client-server architecture, and its further development is associated with Linux, Java, Grid and the "blade" concept. This kind of thinking is difficult if not impossible, to reconcile with the mainframe architecture traditionally preferred by IBM.
Thus putting the two together is difficult to imagine: it is "counter-intuitive". IBM is nevertheless doing this, because the other approach has been very successful and they have to go along with it. What the sentence is saying is that you might think it´s not possible to use both the blade approach and the mainframe approach to server architecture in the same infrastructure, but they are doing it. (This is because they have to, otherwise their mainframes get left out in the cold in many companies.)
Selected response from:
Local time: 05:12
4 KudoZ points were awarded for this answer