Well, all is not lost, David. Thanks for the tip on PureSystems.
I just set up a meeting for tomorrow with our IBM zSeries rep. According to him, the PureFlex product of the PureSystems family, announced April 19 and April 11 respectively, is the next generation zBx and much more open systems oriented. He admitted that zBx was somewhat limited to IBM and recommended PureFlex instead. Evidently, the zBx is more IBM facing, whereas PureFlex is much more open systems facing and able to support VMware among other things. It also has better access to mainframe data and there are plans to increase its internal lan speed from 10G to 40G. My faith in IBM MF is beginning to be restored. IBM had said at their Summit that their approach is to move the processing to the data not the data to the processing. The data resides on the MF which is best suited for processing it. So it makes no sense to move the data to less efficient platforms for processing. Much better to move the processing closer to the data on the MF. This appears to be what PureFlex is designed to do. I will know more tomorrow after I meet with 2 IBM zSeries SMEs. On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 4:17 AM, David Crayford <dcrayf...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 10/05/2012 8:20 AM, George Henke wrote: > >> ty, David, for the interesting point of view, but it certainly does >> conflict with the comparison numbers IBM showed at the zEnterprise Summit. >> > > That's not really surprising considering the actors involved! For a lucid > perspective you may want to > read Mike Shorkends excellent share presentation http://mobile.share.org/* > *client_files/SHARE_in_Atlanta/**Session_10441_handout_2139_0.**pdf<http://mobile.share.org/client_files/SHARE_in_Atlanta/Session_10441_handout_2139_0.pdf> > . > > Interestingly, IBM have just published information wrt connecting z to the > new pureSystems hardware. Maybe the zBX wasn't received as well as > IBM hoped. Although probably not surprising when you consider the > political ramifications of managing distributed systems under a mainframe > umbrella. > > http://www-03.ibm.com/systems/**z/news/announcement/20120411_**annc.html<http://www-03.ibm.com/systems/z/news/announcement/20120411_annc.html> > > > > > >> IBM, Timothly/Alan, what say ye? >> >> > I look forward to hearing that too. > > On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 12:29 AM, David Crayford<dcrayf...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> On 5/05/2012 2:55 AM, George Henke wrote: >>> >>> tyvm, John, Mark, Edward. >>>> >>>> Mark, >>>> >>>> Do I need an Enterprise Class z114 box or will a Business Class one >>>> suffice? >>>> >>>> John, >>>> >>>> A compelling reason for server consolidation on zBx as IBM pointed out >>>> in >>>> their z Summit is that zMIPS GCPs are totally dedicated to regular >>>> workload >>>> processing, no I/O - that is done by the channels, CHPIDs. >>>> >>>> Whereas all other servers use the GCPs for both normal processing and >>>> I/O. >>>> So all MIPS are not equal. >>>> >>>> What IBM didn't mention in the Z Summit was that offloading I/O to >>> peripheral hardware hasn't been >>> exclusive to mainframes for a very long time. Let's take the platform >>> you >>> want to replace (SPARC) as an example. >>> >>> http://developers.sun.com/****solaris/developer/support/**<http://developers.sun.com/**solaris/developer/support/**> >>> driver/wps/pci/html/Sun_SPARC.****doc.html<http://developers.** >>> sun.com/solaris/developer/**support/driver/wps/pci/html/** >>> Sun_SPARC.doc.html<http://developers.sun.com/solaris/developer/support/driver/wps/pci/html/Sun_SPARC.doc.html> >>> > >>> >>> >>> The terminology may be different but it sure looks like all the I/O, >>> including interrupts, is offloaded to peripheral processors. >>> Even the much maligned (on this forum) Intel x86 has DMA and the new E5 >>> range even has integrated 10GBe and PCIe-3 on the board. >>> Mainframe didn't get PCIe-2 until last year, which it re-branded FICON >>> Express8S. >>> >>> Years ago when my wife was working for HDS and I had a lively discussion >>> at a Christmas lunch with some of her colleagues about the the mainframes >>> superior I/O. They scoffed at me like I had been living in a cave for the >>> last decade. I was respectfully informed that the high-end UNIX boxes >>> easily kept pace with the mainframes wrt I/O performance. Most >>> embarrassing was the fact that mainframes were still huffing and puffing >>> away on half-duplex ESCON when the competition was racing away on super >>> fast fibre channel. That was a very humbling experience for me. >>> >>> >>> Since most commerical workloads are I/O, not CPU, bound this amounts to >>> >>>> substantial CPU savings. >>>> >>>> Also, it is the IBM operating system architecture, FLIH, that enables >>>> this >>>> to happen and there is no other server in the world that is configured >>>> thus. >>>> >>>> Maybe I'm missing the point but what does a z/OS FLIH have to do with >>> porting workloads to zLinux? >>> >>> >>> On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 2:39 PM, McKown, John >>> >>>> <john.mck...@healthmarkets.com****>wrote: >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> >>>>> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List >>>>>> [mailto:IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of George Henke >>>>>> Sent: Friday, May 04, 2012 1:02 PM >>>>>> To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu >>>>>> Subject: It's feeding time in Jurassic Park . . . >>>>>> >>>>>> and the dinosaurs are very hungry. >>>>>> >>>>>> I need to migrate 50 Solaris servers to zLinux under z/VM on >>>>>> a z114 and >>>>>> about the same number of Windows servers to zBx. >>>>>> >>>>>> Congrats! >>>>> >>>>> Does anyone have experience with this, some ideas? >>>>> Experience, no. Ideas, sure! Why not?<grin> >>>>> >>>>> Need a migration path. >>>>> >>>>>> Some questions: >>>>>> >>>>>> Can z114 be upgraded to include zBx or must I upgrade to a >>>>>> z196 for that? >>>>>> >>>>>> I am not sure. >>>>> >>>>> Can zBx be SYSPLEXed between 2 CECs? >>>>> No. a zBx can be attached to at most 1 CEC. >>>>> >>>>> If not, how do I eliminate the SPF, how do I do failover for the blade >>>>> >>>>>> servers? >>>>>> >>>>>> SPF? Single point of failure? You need to have multiple z114s with >>>>> and >>>>> associated zBX. >>>>> I think you'd do failover just like you would with any other "racked >>>>> mounted" servers. >>>>> If the rack fails, all the servers fail. So you need the same >>>>> techniques >>>>> with a zBX "rack". >>>>> I'm not a PC person, but I think this involves TCP connections between >>>>> a >>>>> server and it's failover >>>>> twin. >>>>> >>>>> How do I convert Solaris to zLInux under z/VM? Solaris is >>>>> >>>>>> not supported by >>>>>> zBx. >>>>>> Must I recompile the applications running under Solaris to >>>>>> run them under >>>>>> zLinux? >>>>>> >>>>>> Yes, you must recompile. z/Linux runs on the z/Architecture >>>>> instruction >>>>> set. Solaris runs on >>>>> Intel or SPARC(?). You can't run Intel or SPARC instructions on a z. >>>>> However there are two exceptions >>>>> that I can think of which __may__ not need recompilation. The first is >>>>> Java code. The .jar and .class >>>>> files should run on any compatible JVM, regardless of the underlying >>>>> hardware architecture. Another >>>>> possibility is .NET applications. They __might__ run on a z/Linux using >>>>> Mono. Again, because they >>>>> don't run "native", but on an instruction emulator. Shell scripts may >>>>> need >>>>> some changing. Perl, Python, Ruby >>>>> and other intepreted language may need some changing, depending on the >>>>> levels of the intepreter >>>>> on z/Linux versus the one on Solaris. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>>> George Henke >>>>>> (C) 845 401 5614 >>>>>> >>>>>> I wish we were doing something like this. But we're z/OS only and IT >>>>> management would like to go MS-Windows only. >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> John McKown >>>>> Systems Engineer IV >>>>> IT >>>>> >>>>> Administrative Services Group >>>>> >>>>> HealthMarkets(r) >>>>> >>>>> 9151 Boulevard 26 * N. Richland Hills * TX 76010 >>>>> (817) 255-3225 phone * >>>>> john.mck...@healthmarkets.com * www.HealthMarkets.com >>>>> >>>>> Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message may contain confidential or >>>>> proprietary information. If you are not the intended recipient, please >>>>> contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the >>>>> original >>>>> message. HealthMarkets(r) is the brand name for products underwritten >>>>> and >>>>> issued by the insurance subsidiaries of HealthMarkets, Inc. -The >>>>> Chesapeake >>>>> Life Insurance Company(r), Mid-West National Life Insurance Company of >>>>> TennesseeSM and The MEGA Life and Health Insurance Company.SM >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ------------------------------****----------------------------**--** >>>>> >>>>> ---------- >>>>> For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, >>>>> send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> ------------------------------****----------------------------** >>> --**---------- >>> >>> For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, >>> send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN >>> >>> >> >> > ------------------------------**------------------------------**---------- > For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, > send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN > -- George Henke (C) 845 401 5614 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
