Choice Comments on LSE's .NET Implementation
- From: High Plains Thumper <highplainsthumper@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2009 19:27:16 -0700
Selective quotes per comment page as follows:
[quote]
"This is a design or
Submitted by Anonymous on October 14, 2009 - 1:51 P.M.
"This is a design or implementation issue. Poor software design would
result in failure on linux/windows oracle/MSSql or any other platform
you wish to choose"
Dude, with the best application design in the world would you BET YOUR
LIFE on Windows server never going down? Seriously, would any agree to
that? Mission Critical is that kind of thing. I don't use anything but
Windows for development platforms so I am not promoting Linux. But ANY
given day Windows can die running any application. Windows can lock up
just sitting idle for a couple of months. You Windows fans really need
to a bit more honest with yourselves at least. If you answered "yes" to
the question then you would have a life expectancy of about 3 months. It
was not too long ago the US Navy was towing destroyers back to dock
because their "mission critical" Modified NT servers would go down,
crippling their ships. Microsoft lobbyists had convinced Government and
Navy higher ups that Windows was a reliable platform to bet peoples
lives on. I believed they have since moved on to some form of UNIX.
Microsoft has done a lot of positive things but a mission critical
platform is not one of them.
The REAL fanboys around here seem to be the Microsoft ones.
[/quote]
http://blogs.computerworld.com/london_stock_exchange_to_abandon_failed_windows_platform?page=1
[quote]
point of article is entirely valid
Submitted by Jim on October 7, 2009 - 5:47 P.M.
Being in software for the last 14 years I entirely agree with the
article. The idea of running mission critical software especially with
the types of goals mentioned in the article on a Windows platform is
ludicrous to me. SQL Server 2000? I can't imagine not using Oracle as
the database for this purpose. As far as Windows versus Linux, almost
any unix based OS's is far superior to Windows for handling many
simultaneous processes and connections. Why? because unix was designed
originally as a multi-user system while Windows was designed as a single
user system. The system going down for a day sounds like a hardware and
redundancy problem, but that it never met its goals is hardly surprising.
Jim, you hit the nail on the
Submitted by PaulD on November 12, 2009 - 10:07 A.M.
Jim, you hit the nail on the head with regards to the two probably
issues that plagued the LSE's rollout. H/W overworked by a system trying
to meet goals that it couldn't, because the OS was never designed from
the ground up to meet those kinds of challenges. So the H/W probably
gave up the ghost for a day to protest. Maybe theory but plausible, and
I do not need to tell you how long I have been in DP (now IT - get it?),
but believe me I like it.
How else can you combat M$'s gimmicks, and orchestrated FUD as we are
seeing even in this very forum. Their works shall all come to light from
the very acts of their own creations. I hope I will be around to weep
for them when that time of their demise comes ... sniff! ssssniff!
What a good article!
Submitted by Anonymous on October 8, 2009 - 7:04 A.M.
Windows have problems achieving low latency. That is a fact. It is also
a fact that stock exchange systems must be fast as possible, or no one
is interested. An OS that doesnt allow low latency (sub milliseconds) is
fail. The author is correct.
Here are some facts for you...
Submitted by Joe Almeida on October 8, 2009 - 10:00 P.M.
Fact 1 - Windows 2003 does not have a real-time kernel.
The boys at Accenture decide to use an operating system that has no
real-time kernel. The only way you can guarantee that a computer will
respond is that it's OS has a real-time kernel.
Fact 2 - .NET has no real-time specification
the .NET platform has no real-time specs. Java on the other hand has the
RTSJ (Real Time Specification for Java). Along with the real-time
kernel, you need a computer language that meets real-time requirements.
Fact 3 - IBM and Oracle can only guarantee real-time performance on
Linux/Unix based systems.
If you look at IBM and Oracle sites, you would see that if you were
developing an app for securities trading, then IBM and Oracle would sell
you their databases using a real time enabled Unix or Linux, and the
language you would have to use is real-time tested. Take IBM for
example. They would sell you SuSe Linux Real-Time, with Websphere MQ Low
Latency, with solidDB, and the languages you could use are C, C++, and
Java (RTSJ).
This article is not FUD, it's just the tip of the iceberg of facts as to
why you shouldn't use an MS OS with .NET for High availability, low
latency, high transactive loads.
[/quote]
http://blogs.computerworld.com/london_stock_exchange_to_abandon_failed_windows_platform?page=2
[quote]
Last time I needed a really
Submitted by Anonymous on October 13, 2009 - 4:44 A.M.
Last time I needed a really tough problem solving, I called this guy. He
had a beard and wore sandals. And he solved the problem.
You know, having a beard is not a sin. It might even reflect a way of
being which concentrates on the content rather than the packaging.
Hardly surprising that this goes against the grain for people from both
the "M" company and the "A" company.
[/quote]
http://blogs.computerworld.com/london_stock_exchange_to_abandon_failed_windows_platform?page=3
[quote]
Windows is not for network applications
Submitted by Anonymous on October 7, 2009 - 10:34 A.M.
I do think OS is the bottle neck of the ultimate performance you can get
in an application. Windows socket implementation is way too slow
comparing to the Linux version. And a trading system will have to handle
a lot of network traffic.
Fanboys out in force
Submitted by Been there, done that on October 7, 2009 - 10:27 A.M.
Chant:
Praise Bill Gates!
Praise Steve Balmer!
Praise .Net!
Praise Microsoft!
Damn the programmers!
Amen!
..Net is the biggest prank that Microsoft has played on application
developers since the C++ and the Windows SDK.
[/quote]
http://blogs.computerworld.com/london_stock_exchange_to_abandon_failed_windows_platform?page=4
--
HPT
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Choice Comments on LSE's .NET Implementation
- From: High Plains Thumper
- Re: Choice Comments on LSE's .NET Implementation
- Prev by Date: Re: Scientists told to quit
- Next by Date: Re: Choice Comments on LSE's .NET Implementation
- Previous by thread: Global Climate Change REAL!!
- Next by thread: Re: Choice Comments on LSE's .NET Implementation
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
