7 Apr
2013
7 Apr
'13
11:13 p.m.
------ Original Message ------
From: "MG" <marcogb at xs4all.nl>
To: cctalk at classiccmp.org
Sent: 07/04/2013 21:11:40
Subject: Re: Tech is the biggest problem facing archiving ? The Register
They match with the survey we did before we went to VMWare. A VM to Real
ration of 10 to 1 is what folks typically achieve when they virtualize a
Windows environment. In general you don't need lots of CPU power, you
need fast disks and channels. That's why SSD disks, ZFS and multi-teir
SANs are one key area of an evolving market place...
IBM typically sell you a box with more CPUs in that you need, and charge
by CPU power so it makes sense to run those that are enabled pretty near
flat out. If you need a boost then they sell you a code to allow you to
enable more CPU speed. From:-
http://public.dhe.ibm.com/common/ssi/ecm/en/zsd03011usen/ZSD03011USEN.PDF
"IBM Capacity Upgrade on Demand (CUoD) provides a permanent increase in
processing capacity that can be initiated by the customer. IBM On/Off
Capacity on Demand (On/Off CoD) provides temporary capacity needed for
short-term spikes in capacity or for testing new applications. Capacity
Backup Upgrade (CBU) can help provide reserved emergency backup capacity
for multiple
processor configurations"
On 7-apr-2013 18:22, Guy Sotomayor wrote:
IBM sell and support VMWare on their Intel and AMD servers. Where I work
we have something like 40 to 50 IBM xSeries Intel servers running
VMware. The first line support on these on VMWare is provided by IBM.
IBM provide customized versions of VMware that includes support for IBM
Hardware. IBM provide an internal USB slot and their servers can be
ordered with this pre-loaded with a USB memory stick with the custom
VMWare pre-loaded.
There is further irony in any resistance to the
use of mainframes,
because everyone in IT is talking about virtualisation and utility
computing (see Introducing Utility Computing, Atos Origin, October
2006). But both concepts have been around in the mainframe world for
30 years or more. By providing virtualisation, VMware is doing for
Intel platforms what VM/370 did onmainframes in the 1970?s.
Mainframe is a utility service, and has almostalways been so. Many
advocates of utility services are actually ?reinventingthe mainframe?
in many aspects of what they seek to achieve.
So, why is IBM allowing this to happen? Why aren't they there to
give VMware and others hell, perhaps even supply a bit more economical
solution for the /little people/? Why does IBM assume that people
will have the telepathic ability to learn about IBM and its products?
For a supposedly successful platform, with no problems at all (which,
by the way, that earlier Inquirer article of late 2012 doesn't seem
to support), it sure seems relegated to obscurity and extreme niches
at best.
For a supposedly successful platform, why isn't IBM interested in
making it even more successful and getting more people to use and
perhaps switch to it? Why is IBM building "x" (and "i" and
"p" for
that matter), why not /just/ "z"?
Because of the "suits". By keeping zSeries as a niche product IBM can
charge premium prices and keep the profit margins high. When we
discarded our Mainframe, a small Multiprise box IBM showed no interest
in selling us an upgrade. They are quite happy to keep selling us
xSeries servers though. By selling xSeries and iSeries boxes
"relatively" cheaply they can sell zSeries as a high reliability, high
margin box. I personally think this is what allows zSeries to survive.
In my opinion the biggest mistake DEC made was to try and take the Alpha
chip down market. It spoilt the brand image.
Another
interesting statistic is average capacity utilization:
Wintel-based servers: 8-15%
Unix/RISC: 28-45%
Mainframes: 65-75%
Where did you get these figures from?
It's also
noted that mainframes (zSeries) can and do run at 100%
utilization for long periods quite happily. Try that with a non-
mainframe!
100% utilization, thus with no headroom whatsoever; that's a good
idea in general...? (Regardless of whether a specific platform
would subdue or become less stable, or whatever.)
- MG
Dave
G4UGM