Shmuel wrote: >I was thinking of zCX as hosting containers >The process for deploying virtual machines in z/VM is different >although it also eliminates manual setup that used to be necessary.
>i was trying to illustrated that the automation of deployment was not >limited to the cloud. Ah! Gotcha. Sure, containers is containers is containers. But given the expense of IBM zSystems MIPS, it's hard to envision overprovisioning for possible usage spikes the way x86 clusters do. Yes, there's CoD, which is sort of the forerunner to this elastic capacity, but not nearly as automated. To be clear: I'm unconvinced that cloud elasticity is a particularly useful capacity in most serious business use cases. Black Friday (heck, the whole holiday season) maybe, but that's moderately predictable, and CoD or just plain ol' capacity planning can deal with that. Similarly, I'm unconvinced that zCX is meaningful other than as a "See, we can do stuff like this too". I don't see folks embracing it significantly [yet--still relatively early days, obviously). What I've seen is people going "Neat!" but then.what? I do think that the management-by-magazine folks are all aTwitter (or is that aX now?) about cloud capabilities because they think they will eliminate the need for capacity management and thus save them money. My bet is maybe on the first, no on the second. But I have nothing to support that other than my gut based on experience. (And I had Thai food for lunch, so gut may be even less reliable than usual!) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
