How big is a mainframe?












1















If you read about the history of computing, you'll hear how the first computers were "huge". You will often come across assertions that in the early days of commercial computing, a single computer would be "so big that it filled an entire building".



Now, poking around Wikipedia, I can find plenty of photos of old computers the size of an entire server rack, or several server racks. But I can't seem to find any pictures of a computer filling an entire room, much less a whole multi-story building.



Are these claims of a computer "filling an entire building" actually accurate, or is that a wild exaggeration? I can well imagine if you just paid a few million USD for a computer, you probably put it in its own special room with locked doors. But do any of these systems really fill a whole building? Do any of them really "fill" a whole room? Most pictures seem to just show a mostly empty room with cabinets across one wall.










share|improve this question







New contributor




MathematicalOrchid is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
















  • 1





    This is peripherally (ha ha) related to your question, but I want to mention it because it's awesome: megaprocessor.com

    – Greg Hewgill
    9 hours ago






  • 1





    This reminds me of a quip by Fred Cisin on cctalk: “You can lose a screw in a microcomputer. You can lose a screwdriver in a minicomputer. You can lose a scope in a mainframe. (It is an exaggeration to say that a person could get lost in one. I think.)”

    – Stephen Kitt
    7 hours ago











  • A room crammed full of racks and computer equipment is pretty hard to photograph, because it's, well full.

    – tofro
    7 hours ago











  • There are examples on the internet of computers so big they required special rooms, doors, floors, power supplies to install, and were big enough to walk inside. And they "filled" a "room" for any reasonable definition of "fill" and "room". I'm surprised your search did not find these. Maybe try outside of the Wikipedia garden!

    – jdv
    7 hours ago


















1















If you read about the history of computing, you'll hear how the first computers were "huge". You will often come across assertions that in the early days of commercial computing, a single computer would be "so big that it filled an entire building".



Now, poking around Wikipedia, I can find plenty of photos of old computers the size of an entire server rack, or several server racks. But I can't seem to find any pictures of a computer filling an entire room, much less a whole multi-story building.



Are these claims of a computer "filling an entire building" actually accurate, or is that a wild exaggeration? I can well imagine if you just paid a few million USD for a computer, you probably put it in its own special room with locked doors. But do any of these systems really fill a whole building? Do any of them really "fill" a whole room? Most pictures seem to just show a mostly empty room with cabinets across one wall.










share|improve this question







New contributor




MathematicalOrchid is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
















  • 1





    This is peripherally (ha ha) related to your question, but I want to mention it because it's awesome: megaprocessor.com

    – Greg Hewgill
    9 hours ago






  • 1





    This reminds me of a quip by Fred Cisin on cctalk: “You can lose a screw in a microcomputer. You can lose a screwdriver in a minicomputer. You can lose a scope in a mainframe. (It is an exaggeration to say that a person could get lost in one. I think.)”

    – Stephen Kitt
    7 hours ago











  • A room crammed full of racks and computer equipment is pretty hard to photograph, because it's, well full.

    – tofro
    7 hours ago











  • There are examples on the internet of computers so big they required special rooms, doors, floors, power supplies to install, and were big enough to walk inside. And they "filled" a "room" for any reasonable definition of "fill" and "room". I'm surprised your search did not find these. Maybe try outside of the Wikipedia garden!

    – jdv
    7 hours ago
















1












1








1








If you read about the history of computing, you'll hear how the first computers were "huge". You will often come across assertions that in the early days of commercial computing, a single computer would be "so big that it filled an entire building".



Now, poking around Wikipedia, I can find plenty of photos of old computers the size of an entire server rack, or several server racks. But I can't seem to find any pictures of a computer filling an entire room, much less a whole multi-story building.



Are these claims of a computer "filling an entire building" actually accurate, or is that a wild exaggeration? I can well imagine if you just paid a few million USD for a computer, you probably put it in its own special room with locked doors. But do any of these systems really fill a whole building? Do any of them really "fill" a whole room? Most pictures seem to just show a mostly empty room with cabinets across one wall.










share|improve this question







New contributor




MathematicalOrchid is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.












If you read about the history of computing, you'll hear how the first computers were "huge". You will often come across assertions that in the early days of commercial computing, a single computer would be "so big that it filled an entire building".



Now, poking around Wikipedia, I can find plenty of photos of old computers the size of an entire server rack, or several server racks. But I can't seem to find any pictures of a computer filling an entire room, much less a whole multi-story building.



Are these claims of a computer "filling an entire building" actually accurate, or is that a wild exaggeration? I can well imagine if you just paid a few million USD for a computer, you probably put it in its own special room with locked doors. But do any of these systems really fill a whole building? Do any of them really "fill" a whole room? Most pictures seem to just show a mostly empty room with cabinets across one wall.







hardware mainframe






share|improve this question







New contributor




MathematicalOrchid is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.











share|improve this question







New contributor




MathematicalOrchid is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









share|improve this question




share|improve this question






New contributor




MathematicalOrchid is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









asked 9 hours ago









MathematicalOrchidMathematicalOrchid

1062




1062




New contributor




MathematicalOrchid is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.





New contributor





MathematicalOrchid is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.






MathematicalOrchid is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.








  • 1





    This is peripherally (ha ha) related to your question, but I want to mention it because it's awesome: megaprocessor.com

    – Greg Hewgill
    9 hours ago






  • 1





    This reminds me of a quip by Fred Cisin on cctalk: “You can lose a screw in a microcomputer. You can lose a screwdriver in a minicomputer. You can lose a scope in a mainframe. (It is an exaggeration to say that a person could get lost in one. I think.)”

    – Stephen Kitt
    7 hours ago











  • A room crammed full of racks and computer equipment is pretty hard to photograph, because it's, well full.

    – tofro
    7 hours ago











  • There are examples on the internet of computers so big they required special rooms, doors, floors, power supplies to install, and were big enough to walk inside. And they "filled" a "room" for any reasonable definition of "fill" and "room". I'm surprised your search did not find these. Maybe try outside of the Wikipedia garden!

    – jdv
    7 hours ago
















  • 1





    This is peripherally (ha ha) related to your question, but I want to mention it because it's awesome: megaprocessor.com

    – Greg Hewgill
    9 hours ago






  • 1





    This reminds me of a quip by Fred Cisin on cctalk: “You can lose a screw in a microcomputer. You can lose a screwdriver in a minicomputer. You can lose a scope in a mainframe. (It is an exaggeration to say that a person could get lost in one. I think.)”

    – Stephen Kitt
    7 hours ago











  • A room crammed full of racks and computer equipment is pretty hard to photograph, because it's, well full.

    – tofro
    7 hours ago











  • There are examples on the internet of computers so big they required special rooms, doors, floors, power supplies to install, and were big enough to walk inside. And they "filled" a "room" for any reasonable definition of "fill" and "room". I'm surprised your search did not find these. Maybe try outside of the Wikipedia garden!

    – jdv
    7 hours ago










1




1





This is peripherally (ha ha) related to your question, but I want to mention it because it's awesome: megaprocessor.com

– Greg Hewgill
9 hours ago





This is peripherally (ha ha) related to your question, but I want to mention it because it's awesome: megaprocessor.com

– Greg Hewgill
9 hours ago




1




1





This reminds me of a quip by Fred Cisin on cctalk: “You can lose a screw in a microcomputer. You can lose a screwdriver in a minicomputer. You can lose a scope in a mainframe. (It is an exaggeration to say that a person could get lost in one. I think.)”

– Stephen Kitt
7 hours ago





This reminds me of a quip by Fred Cisin on cctalk: “You can lose a screw in a microcomputer. You can lose a screwdriver in a minicomputer. You can lose a scope in a mainframe. (It is an exaggeration to say that a person could get lost in one. I think.)”

– Stephen Kitt
7 hours ago













A room crammed full of racks and computer equipment is pretty hard to photograph, because it's, well full.

– tofro
7 hours ago





A room crammed full of racks and computer equipment is pretty hard to photograph, because it's, well full.

– tofro
7 hours ago













There are examples on the internet of computers so big they required special rooms, doors, floors, power supplies to install, and were big enough to walk inside. And they "filled" a "room" for any reasonable definition of "fill" and "room". I'm surprised your search did not find these. Maybe try outside of the Wikipedia garden!

– jdv
7 hours ago







There are examples on the internet of computers so big they required special rooms, doors, floors, power supplies to install, and were big enough to walk inside. And they "filled" a "room" for any reasonable definition of "fill" and "room". I'm surprised your search did not find these. Maybe try outside of the Wikipedia garden!

– jdv
7 hours ago












5 Answers
5






active

oldest

votes


















4














In the 1980's a certain bank with its headquarters in Edinburgh has a problem with (IBM) disc storage that had to be kept online for live customer account information for branch and ATM machine operation that it ran out of city buildings to put the disc drives in.



Yes: Not just a building, but buildings. Luckily, just after that time radical developments were made in disc storage densities and the need for more real estate diminished, but computer floor space was a big issue at the time.



Here, also, is a picture of the machine room at Manchester Computer Science, containing on single machine, the MU5. This is just the processor, the peripherals and disc storage are in another adjacent room:



MU5Source: http://www.cs.manchester.ac.uk/about-us/history/mu5/



It was rather large, but the lower floor computer room that contained an ICL 1906A was even bigger; and then there was the CDC 7600 and the Cyber 106 too.



An earlier machine was Atlas. Here is a picture of the large room containing only the processor of the London University Atlas; several other large halls contained the peripherals and storage:



AtlasSource: http://www.chilton-computing.org.uk/acl/technology/atlas/p010.htm



They were all very big power hungry beasts that took some real estate.



There are plenty of examples on the internet in the computer history archives.






share|improve this answer


























  • Chilton Atlas: upstairs - the I/O equipment and downstairs - the serious stuff

    – another-dave
    6 hours ago





















2














The main computer hall of the company I worked for in the 1970s and 1980s was about half the size of a soccer pitch - about 200 feet by 150 feet. That contained three IBM S/370 mainframes at one end, and the rest of the room was packed full of disk drives, stacked up to 6 or 7 feet high with narrow walkways between, with the outside walls lined with tape drives.



The power supplies and cooling systems filled the whole of the ground level, and the computer hall was the next floor up, built on a false floor to accommodate the wiring and plumbing for the water cooling.



To be fair, that was only half the complete building - one floor of the other half was an open plan area filled with punched card operators, and the other floor was occupied by programming teams.



The magnetic tape library occupied about half the machine hall area, on the third floor - basically, wall-to-wall racks of 12-inch tape reels, and a staff of tape librarians to make sure things didn't get lost!



At a later time there was also a Cray supercomputer in the main hall - though unless you knew where it was, it was almost hidden from view by all the rest of the kit.






share|improve this answer

































    2















    But I can't seem to find any pictures of a computer filling an entire room, much less a whole multi-story building.




    Well, for example look at this picture of a 4341 setup. This is a small entry-level mainframe of ~1980. I'd call that for sure a room full. The CPU itself is BTW the three half-height racks in the middle row.




    Are these claims of a computer "filling an entire building" actually accurate, or is that a wild exaggeration?




    As usual it depends on the size of building you look at. A fully configured mainframe of the 70s or 80s, with adequate peripherals, can easy fill 1000 m² (~11.000 sqft). Then again, companies using those kind of commercial computers usually had more than one machine.



    Let's take a nice example of a mid to upper size bank system like I had a job with in 1981. They had a building the size of a Tesco Superstore (or one of these large DIY stores) to house 6 computers with all I/O and offices for machine operators and IT management. No user or any other department was located there. About 2/3 of that building was the machine room. 5 of them where used for daily business, while the 6th was a developer system. One of these five had the single job of operating a high speed optical reader, an awesome device ... anyway.



    You see, they could get pretty big. A CPU (That's the mainframe term for the computer itself, processor, memory, memory interface, I/O controller and I/O interface - so without any peripheral device, not even a boot disk) did occupy four to six 21" full size racks, depending on the memory installed. In so far, these 1980s machines were already small, as the previous generation could have up to 10 racks just for the CPU. Later, around 1990, everything fitted in just 1-2 racks.






    share|improve this answer

































      1














      Consider ENIAC. From wikipedia:




      It weighed more than 30 short tons (27 t), was roughly 2.4 m × 0.9 m ×
      30 m (8 ft × 3 ft × 98 ft) in size, occupied 167 m2 (1,800 sq ft) and
      consumed 150 kW of electricity.




      That's roughly building-sized.






      share|improve this answer
























      • It's nearly 100 feet long, but it's only 8 foot heigh and 3 foot deep. Sounds like it occupies one wall of a long hall. (Unless you're saying it would be 100 feet long if you lined all the cabinets up together or something?)

        – MathematicalOrchid
        8 hours ago











      • @MathematicalOrchid does it matter terribly? It probably could have been arranged differently, and it occupied enough floor space to fill a medium-sized house.

        – hobbs
        6 hours ago











      • The "occupied 1800 sq ft" was the selling point. :-) There's a difference between a building-sized computer cabinet and a computer that requires it's own building. You need space for cables and HVAC, plus front-panel access for multiple operators -- you couldn't just ssh in from a nearby workstation -- so working areas count against your square footage. You might be able to cram all the pieces into a couple of storage containers, but it wouldn't be usable in that space.

        – fadden
        18 mins ago



















      1














      One of the largest computers ever built was the SAGE system, built to gather information about surprise attack on the US. It filled a building. One might argue that SAGE more than just one computer. But if you accept it as just one computer, it meets your criterion. Wikipedia Article






      share|improve this answer























        Your Answer








        StackExchange.ready(function() {
        var channelOptions = {
        tags: "".split(" "),
        id: "648"
        };
        initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

        StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
        // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
        if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
        StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
        createEditor();
        });
        }
        else {
        createEditor();
        }
        });

        function createEditor() {
        StackExchange.prepareEditor({
        heartbeatType: 'answer',
        autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
        convertImagesToLinks: false,
        noModals: true,
        showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
        reputationToPostImages: null,
        bindNavPrevention: true,
        postfix: "",
        imageUploader: {
        brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
        contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
        allowUrls: true
        },
        noCode: true, onDemand: true,
        discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
        ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
        });


        }
        });






        MathematicalOrchid is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.










        draft saved

        draft discarded


















        StackExchange.ready(
        function () {
        StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fretrocomputing.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f8946%2fhow-big-is-a-mainframe%23new-answer', 'question_page');
        }
        );

        Post as a guest















        Required, but never shown

























        5 Answers
        5






        active

        oldest

        votes








        5 Answers
        5






        active

        oldest

        votes









        active

        oldest

        votes






        active

        oldest

        votes









        4














        In the 1980's a certain bank with its headquarters in Edinburgh has a problem with (IBM) disc storage that had to be kept online for live customer account information for branch and ATM machine operation that it ran out of city buildings to put the disc drives in.



        Yes: Not just a building, but buildings. Luckily, just after that time radical developments were made in disc storage densities and the need for more real estate diminished, but computer floor space was a big issue at the time.



        Here, also, is a picture of the machine room at Manchester Computer Science, containing on single machine, the MU5. This is just the processor, the peripherals and disc storage are in another adjacent room:



        MU5Source: http://www.cs.manchester.ac.uk/about-us/history/mu5/



        It was rather large, but the lower floor computer room that contained an ICL 1906A was even bigger; and then there was the CDC 7600 and the Cyber 106 too.



        An earlier machine was Atlas. Here is a picture of the large room containing only the processor of the London University Atlas; several other large halls contained the peripherals and storage:



        AtlasSource: http://www.chilton-computing.org.uk/acl/technology/atlas/p010.htm



        They were all very big power hungry beasts that took some real estate.



        There are plenty of examples on the internet in the computer history archives.






        share|improve this answer


























        • Chilton Atlas: upstairs - the I/O equipment and downstairs - the serious stuff

          – another-dave
          6 hours ago


















        4














        In the 1980's a certain bank with its headquarters in Edinburgh has a problem with (IBM) disc storage that had to be kept online for live customer account information for branch and ATM machine operation that it ran out of city buildings to put the disc drives in.



        Yes: Not just a building, but buildings. Luckily, just after that time radical developments were made in disc storage densities and the need for more real estate diminished, but computer floor space was a big issue at the time.



        Here, also, is a picture of the machine room at Manchester Computer Science, containing on single machine, the MU5. This is just the processor, the peripherals and disc storage are in another adjacent room:



        MU5Source: http://www.cs.manchester.ac.uk/about-us/history/mu5/



        It was rather large, but the lower floor computer room that contained an ICL 1906A was even bigger; and then there was the CDC 7600 and the Cyber 106 too.



        An earlier machine was Atlas. Here is a picture of the large room containing only the processor of the London University Atlas; several other large halls contained the peripherals and storage:



        AtlasSource: http://www.chilton-computing.org.uk/acl/technology/atlas/p010.htm



        They were all very big power hungry beasts that took some real estate.



        There are plenty of examples on the internet in the computer history archives.






        share|improve this answer


























        • Chilton Atlas: upstairs - the I/O equipment and downstairs - the serious stuff

          – another-dave
          6 hours ago
















        4












        4








        4







        In the 1980's a certain bank with its headquarters in Edinburgh has a problem with (IBM) disc storage that had to be kept online for live customer account information for branch and ATM machine operation that it ran out of city buildings to put the disc drives in.



        Yes: Not just a building, but buildings. Luckily, just after that time radical developments were made in disc storage densities and the need for more real estate diminished, but computer floor space was a big issue at the time.



        Here, also, is a picture of the machine room at Manchester Computer Science, containing on single machine, the MU5. This is just the processor, the peripherals and disc storage are in another adjacent room:



        MU5Source: http://www.cs.manchester.ac.uk/about-us/history/mu5/



        It was rather large, but the lower floor computer room that contained an ICL 1906A was even bigger; and then there was the CDC 7600 and the Cyber 106 too.



        An earlier machine was Atlas. Here is a picture of the large room containing only the processor of the London University Atlas; several other large halls contained the peripherals and storage:



        AtlasSource: http://www.chilton-computing.org.uk/acl/technology/atlas/p010.htm



        They were all very big power hungry beasts that took some real estate.



        There are plenty of examples on the internet in the computer history archives.






        share|improve this answer















        In the 1980's a certain bank with its headquarters in Edinburgh has a problem with (IBM) disc storage that had to be kept online for live customer account information for branch and ATM machine operation that it ran out of city buildings to put the disc drives in.



        Yes: Not just a building, but buildings. Luckily, just after that time radical developments were made in disc storage densities and the need for more real estate diminished, but computer floor space was a big issue at the time.



        Here, also, is a picture of the machine room at Manchester Computer Science, containing on single machine, the MU5. This is just the processor, the peripherals and disc storage are in another adjacent room:



        MU5Source: http://www.cs.manchester.ac.uk/about-us/history/mu5/



        It was rather large, but the lower floor computer room that contained an ICL 1906A was even bigger; and then there was the CDC 7600 and the Cyber 106 too.



        An earlier machine was Atlas. Here is a picture of the large room containing only the processor of the London University Atlas; several other large halls contained the peripherals and storage:



        AtlasSource: http://www.chilton-computing.org.uk/acl/technology/atlas/p010.htm



        They were all very big power hungry beasts that took some real estate.



        There are plenty of examples on the internet in the computer history archives.







        share|improve this answer














        share|improve this answer



        share|improve this answer








        edited 7 hours ago

























        answered 7 hours ago









        Brian Tompsett - 汤莱恩Brian Tompsett - 汤莱恩

        835217




        835217













        • Chilton Atlas: upstairs - the I/O equipment and downstairs - the serious stuff

          – another-dave
          6 hours ago





















        • Chilton Atlas: upstairs - the I/O equipment and downstairs - the serious stuff

          – another-dave
          6 hours ago



















        Chilton Atlas: upstairs - the I/O equipment and downstairs - the serious stuff

        – another-dave
        6 hours ago







        Chilton Atlas: upstairs - the I/O equipment and downstairs - the serious stuff

        – another-dave
        6 hours ago













        2














        The main computer hall of the company I worked for in the 1970s and 1980s was about half the size of a soccer pitch - about 200 feet by 150 feet. That contained three IBM S/370 mainframes at one end, and the rest of the room was packed full of disk drives, stacked up to 6 or 7 feet high with narrow walkways between, with the outside walls lined with tape drives.



        The power supplies and cooling systems filled the whole of the ground level, and the computer hall was the next floor up, built on a false floor to accommodate the wiring and plumbing for the water cooling.



        To be fair, that was only half the complete building - one floor of the other half was an open plan area filled with punched card operators, and the other floor was occupied by programming teams.



        The magnetic tape library occupied about half the machine hall area, on the third floor - basically, wall-to-wall racks of 12-inch tape reels, and a staff of tape librarians to make sure things didn't get lost!



        At a later time there was also a Cray supercomputer in the main hall - though unless you knew where it was, it was almost hidden from view by all the rest of the kit.






        share|improve this answer






























          2














          The main computer hall of the company I worked for in the 1970s and 1980s was about half the size of a soccer pitch - about 200 feet by 150 feet. That contained three IBM S/370 mainframes at one end, and the rest of the room was packed full of disk drives, stacked up to 6 or 7 feet high with narrow walkways between, with the outside walls lined with tape drives.



          The power supplies and cooling systems filled the whole of the ground level, and the computer hall was the next floor up, built on a false floor to accommodate the wiring and plumbing for the water cooling.



          To be fair, that was only half the complete building - one floor of the other half was an open plan area filled with punched card operators, and the other floor was occupied by programming teams.



          The magnetic tape library occupied about half the machine hall area, on the third floor - basically, wall-to-wall racks of 12-inch tape reels, and a staff of tape librarians to make sure things didn't get lost!



          At a later time there was also a Cray supercomputer in the main hall - though unless you knew where it was, it was almost hidden from view by all the rest of the kit.






          share|improve this answer




























            2












            2








            2







            The main computer hall of the company I worked for in the 1970s and 1980s was about half the size of a soccer pitch - about 200 feet by 150 feet. That contained three IBM S/370 mainframes at one end, and the rest of the room was packed full of disk drives, stacked up to 6 or 7 feet high with narrow walkways between, with the outside walls lined with tape drives.



            The power supplies and cooling systems filled the whole of the ground level, and the computer hall was the next floor up, built on a false floor to accommodate the wiring and plumbing for the water cooling.



            To be fair, that was only half the complete building - one floor of the other half was an open plan area filled with punched card operators, and the other floor was occupied by programming teams.



            The magnetic tape library occupied about half the machine hall area, on the third floor - basically, wall-to-wall racks of 12-inch tape reels, and a staff of tape librarians to make sure things didn't get lost!



            At a later time there was also a Cray supercomputer in the main hall - though unless you knew where it was, it was almost hidden from view by all the rest of the kit.






            share|improve this answer















            The main computer hall of the company I worked for in the 1970s and 1980s was about half the size of a soccer pitch - about 200 feet by 150 feet. That contained three IBM S/370 mainframes at one end, and the rest of the room was packed full of disk drives, stacked up to 6 or 7 feet high with narrow walkways between, with the outside walls lined with tape drives.



            The power supplies and cooling systems filled the whole of the ground level, and the computer hall was the next floor up, built on a false floor to accommodate the wiring and plumbing for the water cooling.



            To be fair, that was only half the complete building - one floor of the other half was an open plan area filled with punched card operators, and the other floor was occupied by programming teams.



            The magnetic tape library occupied about half the machine hall area, on the third floor - basically, wall-to-wall racks of 12-inch tape reels, and a staff of tape librarians to make sure things didn't get lost!



            At a later time there was also a Cray supercomputer in the main hall - though unless you knew where it was, it was almost hidden from view by all the rest of the kit.







            share|improve this answer














            share|improve this answer



            share|improve this answer








            edited 7 hours ago

























            answered 7 hours ago









            alephzeroalephzero

            1,7281613




            1,7281613























                2















                But I can't seem to find any pictures of a computer filling an entire room, much less a whole multi-story building.




                Well, for example look at this picture of a 4341 setup. This is a small entry-level mainframe of ~1980. I'd call that for sure a room full. The CPU itself is BTW the three half-height racks in the middle row.




                Are these claims of a computer "filling an entire building" actually accurate, or is that a wild exaggeration?




                As usual it depends on the size of building you look at. A fully configured mainframe of the 70s or 80s, with adequate peripherals, can easy fill 1000 m² (~11.000 sqft). Then again, companies using those kind of commercial computers usually had more than one machine.



                Let's take a nice example of a mid to upper size bank system like I had a job with in 1981. They had a building the size of a Tesco Superstore (or one of these large DIY stores) to house 6 computers with all I/O and offices for machine operators and IT management. No user or any other department was located there. About 2/3 of that building was the machine room. 5 of them where used for daily business, while the 6th was a developer system. One of these five had the single job of operating a high speed optical reader, an awesome device ... anyway.



                You see, they could get pretty big. A CPU (That's the mainframe term for the computer itself, processor, memory, memory interface, I/O controller and I/O interface - so without any peripheral device, not even a boot disk) did occupy four to six 21" full size racks, depending on the memory installed. In so far, these 1980s machines were already small, as the previous generation could have up to 10 racks just for the CPU. Later, around 1990, everything fitted in just 1-2 racks.






                share|improve this answer






























                  2















                  But I can't seem to find any pictures of a computer filling an entire room, much less a whole multi-story building.




                  Well, for example look at this picture of a 4341 setup. This is a small entry-level mainframe of ~1980. I'd call that for sure a room full. The CPU itself is BTW the three half-height racks in the middle row.




                  Are these claims of a computer "filling an entire building" actually accurate, or is that a wild exaggeration?




                  As usual it depends on the size of building you look at. A fully configured mainframe of the 70s or 80s, with adequate peripherals, can easy fill 1000 m² (~11.000 sqft). Then again, companies using those kind of commercial computers usually had more than one machine.



                  Let's take a nice example of a mid to upper size bank system like I had a job with in 1981. They had a building the size of a Tesco Superstore (or one of these large DIY stores) to house 6 computers with all I/O and offices for machine operators and IT management. No user or any other department was located there. About 2/3 of that building was the machine room. 5 of them where used for daily business, while the 6th was a developer system. One of these five had the single job of operating a high speed optical reader, an awesome device ... anyway.



                  You see, they could get pretty big. A CPU (That's the mainframe term for the computer itself, processor, memory, memory interface, I/O controller and I/O interface - so without any peripheral device, not even a boot disk) did occupy four to six 21" full size racks, depending on the memory installed. In so far, these 1980s machines were already small, as the previous generation could have up to 10 racks just for the CPU. Later, around 1990, everything fitted in just 1-2 racks.






                  share|improve this answer




























                    2












                    2








                    2








                    But I can't seem to find any pictures of a computer filling an entire room, much less a whole multi-story building.




                    Well, for example look at this picture of a 4341 setup. This is a small entry-level mainframe of ~1980. I'd call that for sure a room full. The CPU itself is BTW the three half-height racks in the middle row.




                    Are these claims of a computer "filling an entire building" actually accurate, or is that a wild exaggeration?




                    As usual it depends on the size of building you look at. A fully configured mainframe of the 70s or 80s, with adequate peripherals, can easy fill 1000 m² (~11.000 sqft). Then again, companies using those kind of commercial computers usually had more than one machine.



                    Let's take a nice example of a mid to upper size bank system like I had a job with in 1981. They had a building the size of a Tesco Superstore (or one of these large DIY stores) to house 6 computers with all I/O and offices for machine operators and IT management. No user or any other department was located there. About 2/3 of that building was the machine room. 5 of them where used for daily business, while the 6th was a developer system. One of these five had the single job of operating a high speed optical reader, an awesome device ... anyway.



                    You see, they could get pretty big. A CPU (That's the mainframe term for the computer itself, processor, memory, memory interface, I/O controller and I/O interface - so without any peripheral device, not even a boot disk) did occupy four to six 21" full size racks, depending on the memory installed. In so far, these 1980s machines were already small, as the previous generation could have up to 10 racks just for the CPU. Later, around 1990, everything fitted in just 1-2 racks.






                    share|improve this answer
















                    But I can't seem to find any pictures of a computer filling an entire room, much less a whole multi-story building.




                    Well, for example look at this picture of a 4341 setup. This is a small entry-level mainframe of ~1980. I'd call that for sure a room full. The CPU itself is BTW the three half-height racks in the middle row.




                    Are these claims of a computer "filling an entire building" actually accurate, or is that a wild exaggeration?




                    As usual it depends on the size of building you look at. A fully configured mainframe of the 70s or 80s, with adequate peripherals, can easy fill 1000 m² (~11.000 sqft). Then again, companies using those kind of commercial computers usually had more than one machine.



                    Let's take a nice example of a mid to upper size bank system like I had a job with in 1981. They had a building the size of a Tesco Superstore (or one of these large DIY stores) to house 6 computers with all I/O and offices for machine operators and IT management. No user or any other department was located there. About 2/3 of that building was the machine room. 5 of them where used for daily business, while the 6th was a developer system. One of these five had the single job of operating a high speed optical reader, an awesome device ... anyway.



                    You see, they could get pretty big. A CPU (That's the mainframe term for the computer itself, processor, memory, memory interface, I/O controller and I/O interface - so without any peripheral device, not even a boot disk) did occupy four to six 21" full size racks, depending on the memory installed. In so far, these 1980s machines were already small, as the previous generation could have up to 10 racks just for the CPU. Later, around 1990, everything fitted in just 1-2 racks.







                    share|improve this answer














                    share|improve this answer



                    share|improve this answer








                    edited 7 hours ago

























                    answered 8 hours ago









                    RaffzahnRaffzahn

                    48.6k6110195




                    48.6k6110195























                        1














                        Consider ENIAC. From wikipedia:




                        It weighed more than 30 short tons (27 t), was roughly 2.4 m × 0.9 m ×
                        30 m (8 ft × 3 ft × 98 ft) in size, occupied 167 m2 (1,800 sq ft) and
                        consumed 150 kW of electricity.




                        That's roughly building-sized.






                        share|improve this answer
























                        • It's nearly 100 feet long, but it's only 8 foot heigh and 3 foot deep. Sounds like it occupies one wall of a long hall. (Unless you're saying it would be 100 feet long if you lined all the cabinets up together or something?)

                          – MathematicalOrchid
                          8 hours ago











                        • @MathematicalOrchid does it matter terribly? It probably could have been arranged differently, and it occupied enough floor space to fill a medium-sized house.

                          – hobbs
                          6 hours ago











                        • The "occupied 1800 sq ft" was the selling point. :-) There's a difference between a building-sized computer cabinet and a computer that requires it's own building. You need space for cables and HVAC, plus front-panel access for multiple operators -- you couldn't just ssh in from a nearby workstation -- so working areas count against your square footage. You might be able to cram all the pieces into a couple of storage containers, but it wouldn't be usable in that space.

                          – fadden
                          18 mins ago
















                        1














                        Consider ENIAC. From wikipedia:




                        It weighed more than 30 short tons (27 t), was roughly 2.4 m × 0.9 m ×
                        30 m (8 ft × 3 ft × 98 ft) in size, occupied 167 m2 (1,800 sq ft) and
                        consumed 150 kW of electricity.




                        That's roughly building-sized.






                        share|improve this answer
























                        • It's nearly 100 feet long, but it's only 8 foot heigh and 3 foot deep. Sounds like it occupies one wall of a long hall. (Unless you're saying it would be 100 feet long if you lined all the cabinets up together or something?)

                          – MathematicalOrchid
                          8 hours ago











                        • @MathematicalOrchid does it matter terribly? It probably could have been arranged differently, and it occupied enough floor space to fill a medium-sized house.

                          – hobbs
                          6 hours ago











                        • The "occupied 1800 sq ft" was the selling point. :-) There's a difference between a building-sized computer cabinet and a computer that requires it's own building. You need space for cables and HVAC, plus front-panel access for multiple operators -- you couldn't just ssh in from a nearby workstation -- so working areas count against your square footage. You might be able to cram all the pieces into a couple of storage containers, but it wouldn't be usable in that space.

                          – fadden
                          18 mins ago














                        1












                        1








                        1







                        Consider ENIAC. From wikipedia:




                        It weighed more than 30 short tons (27 t), was roughly 2.4 m × 0.9 m ×
                        30 m (8 ft × 3 ft × 98 ft) in size, occupied 167 m2 (1,800 sq ft) and
                        consumed 150 kW of electricity.




                        That's roughly building-sized.






                        share|improve this answer













                        Consider ENIAC. From wikipedia:




                        It weighed more than 30 short tons (27 t), was roughly 2.4 m × 0.9 m ×
                        30 m (8 ft × 3 ft × 98 ft) in size, occupied 167 m2 (1,800 sq ft) and
                        consumed 150 kW of electricity.




                        That's roughly building-sized.







                        share|improve this answer












                        share|improve this answer



                        share|improve this answer










                        answered 8 hours ago









                        faddenfadden

                        3,04211147




                        3,04211147













                        • It's nearly 100 feet long, but it's only 8 foot heigh and 3 foot deep. Sounds like it occupies one wall of a long hall. (Unless you're saying it would be 100 feet long if you lined all the cabinets up together or something?)

                          – MathematicalOrchid
                          8 hours ago











                        • @MathematicalOrchid does it matter terribly? It probably could have been arranged differently, and it occupied enough floor space to fill a medium-sized house.

                          – hobbs
                          6 hours ago











                        • The "occupied 1800 sq ft" was the selling point. :-) There's a difference between a building-sized computer cabinet and a computer that requires it's own building. You need space for cables and HVAC, plus front-panel access for multiple operators -- you couldn't just ssh in from a nearby workstation -- so working areas count against your square footage. You might be able to cram all the pieces into a couple of storage containers, but it wouldn't be usable in that space.

                          – fadden
                          18 mins ago



















                        • It's nearly 100 feet long, but it's only 8 foot heigh and 3 foot deep. Sounds like it occupies one wall of a long hall. (Unless you're saying it would be 100 feet long if you lined all the cabinets up together or something?)

                          – MathematicalOrchid
                          8 hours ago











                        • @MathematicalOrchid does it matter terribly? It probably could have been arranged differently, and it occupied enough floor space to fill a medium-sized house.

                          – hobbs
                          6 hours ago











                        • The "occupied 1800 sq ft" was the selling point. :-) There's a difference between a building-sized computer cabinet and a computer that requires it's own building. You need space for cables and HVAC, plus front-panel access for multiple operators -- you couldn't just ssh in from a nearby workstation -- so working areas count against your square footage. You might be able to cram all the pieces into a couple of storage containers, but it wouldn't be usable in that space.

                          – fadden
                          18 mins ago

















                        It's nearly 100 feet long, but it's only 8 foot heigh and 3 foot deep. Sounds like it occupies one wall of a long hall. (Unless you're saying it would be 100 feet long if you lined all the cabinets up together or something?)

                        – MathematicalOrchid
                        8 hours ago





                        It's nearly 100 feet long, but it's only 8 foot heigh and 3 foot deep. Sounds like it occupies one wall of a long hall. (Unless you're saying it would be 100 feet long if you lined all the cabinets up together or something?)

                        – MathematicalOrchid
                        8 hours ago













                        @MathematicalOrchid does it matter terribly? It probably could have been arranged differently, and it occupied enough floor space to fill a medium-sized house.

                        – hobbs
                        6 hours ago





                        @MathematicalOrchid does it matter terribly? It probably could have been arranged differently, and it occupied enough floor space to fill a medium-sized house.

                        – hobbs
                        6 hours ago













                        The "occupied 1800 sq ft" was the selling point. :-) There's a difference between a building-sized computer cabinet and a computer that requires it's own building. You need space for cables and HVAC, plus front-panel access for multiple operators -- you couldn't just ssh in from a nearby workstation -- so working areas count against your square footage. You might be able to cram all the pieces into a couple of storage containers, but it wouldn't be usable in that space.

                        – fadden
                        18 mins ago





                        The "occupied 1800 sq ft" was the selling point. :-) There's a difference between a building-sized computer cabinet and a computer that requires it's own building. You need space for cables and HVAC, plus front-panel access for multiple operators -- you couldn't just ssh in from a nearby workstation -- so working areas count against your square footage. You might be able to cram all the pieces into a couple of storage containers, but it wouldn't be usable in that space.

                        – fadden
                        18 mins ago











                        1














                        One of the largest computers ever built was the SAGE system, built to gather information about surprise attack on the US. It filled a building. One might argue that SAGE more than just one computer. But if you accept it as just one computer, it meets your criterion. Wikipedia Article






                        share|improve this answer




























                          1














                          One of the largest computers ever built was the SAGE system, built to gather information about surprise attack on the US. It filled a building. One might argue that SAGE more than just one computer. But if you accept it as just one computer, it meets your criterion. Wikipedia Article






                          share|improve this answer


























                            1












                            1








                            1







                            One of the largest computers ever built was the SAGE system, built to gather information about surprise attack on the US. It filled a building. One might argue that SAGE more than just one computer. But if you accept it as just one computer, it meets your criterion. Wikipedia Article






                            share|improve this answer













                            One of the largest computers ever built was the SAGE system, built to gather information about surprise attack on the US. It filled a building. One might argue that SAGE more than just one computer. But if you accept it as just one computer, it meets your criterion. Wikipedia Article







                            share|improve this answer












                            share|improve this answer



                            share|improve this answer










                            answered 7 hours ago









                            Walter MittyWalter Mitty

                            51328




                            51328






















                                MathematicalOrchid is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.










                                draft saved

                                draft discarded


















                                MathematicalOrchid is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.













                                MathematicalOrchid is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.












                                MathematicalOrchid is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
















                                Thanks for contributing an answer to Retrocomputing Stack Exchange!


                                • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                                But avoid



                                • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                                • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                                To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                                draft saved


                                draft discarded














                                StackExchange.ready(
                                function () {
                                StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fretrocomputing.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f8946%2fhow-big-is-a-mainframe%23new-answer', 'question_page');
                                }
                                );

                                Post as a guest















                                Required, but never shown





















































                                Required, but never shown














                                Required, but never shown












                                Required, but never shown







                                Required, but never shown

































                                Required, but never shown














                                Required, but never shown












                                Required, but never shown







                                Required, but never shown







                                Popular posts from this blog

                                Liste der Baudenkmale in Friedland (Mecklenburg)

                                Single-Malt-Whisky

                                Czorneboh