> The expense management is comparing is one z9 versus one little server. > Once they start multiplying the number of little servers they need to run > the same workload they spend more.
This is pretty much an old chestnut. It is implied that one z9 necessarily does the work of many servers and is therefore more cost effective than the sum over the aforementioned "little servers". In some cases that may well be true. However, there are also some hulking Godzilla (non-mainframe) servers out there that can comfortably outrun the biggest baddest z9. For example, IBM will happily sell you a monster pSeries box that comes in the same form factor and footprint as the z9. HP and SUN have their own respective atom smashers too. So the more relevant TCO comparison is a z9 versus another equivalent box. I am not suggesting the z9 would necessarily win (or lose) that comparison, but at least it's a real horse race! CC ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
