> -----Original Message----- > From: The IBM z/VM Operating System > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Barton Robinson > Sent: 01 November 2008 23:34 > To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU > Subject: Re: Value added by z/VM versus VMWARE > > > One thing that really bothers me about VMWARE. When I ask > about performance to the people > that measure, they tell me the VMWARE contract specifically > states they are not allowed to > talk about it's performance. A vendor that won't let people > talk about performance must > be very afraid details will be made public and don't really > need to invest in improving > it's performance. Since we can not provide facts to confuse > management, it comes down to > religion or companies providing their own facts. > > A professor from I think Stutgaart presented last year at the > GSE/IBM meeting pretty > convincingly that VMWARE was about 20 years behind z/VM in > almost any "fair" technological > aspect you wish to evaluate. And I think he was wrong - I > don't see sharing of resources > in VMWARE even what z/VM had 20 years ago. VMWARE is much > more like LPAR, so any argument > you can use for z/VM vs LPAR works as well. > > I believe VMWARE is great for desktops where users may want > to run applications that only > run on different versions of windows or Linux. Now there is > a company in California that > is even virtualizing the desktops, give end users a small > appliance, keyboard and monitor, > and the software runs on a "virtualized PC", where all > software runs on the central > "virtualized PC" that then supports multiple users. They > save a lot of money by only > having one copy of MS Office to support multiple end users. > (Does this sound like 3270 > and mainframes to anyone else?) >
Firstly if you have multiple access software like Citrix where several users share the same copy of word, in general you need a license for each user. Its generally only one per concurrent user , but its still one per user. In fact the cost of licenses make Citrix some what expensive. You can buy a new IBM desktop PC, including a VISTA license (without monitor) for around a 1/3 more than a Citrix license. Given the cost of the citrix server the saving in capital is minimal. Of course you save in other costs, but when one of the Citrix boxes goes crank it hits many more users. Also Citrix does not cope well with demanding applications such AutoCad... In the VMWARE deployments we are looking at performance is is not a key factor. We have a large number of "small" servers that have a high waste factor. So typically these days each server will contain 2x72 gig drives (these are the smallest IBM will sell us) a 4 core CPU and 4 gigs of RAM. The server will be under used, but it will be kept serarate perhaps because the vendor product requires a specific version of JAVA, TOMCAT, Apache, MySQL or ORACLE, or for securty and audit. e.g. to limit access to a particular external supplier. Even if you can put four of these servers on a single VMWARE box then you have a significant reduction in waste, and VMWARE will allow you to migrate this workload without even letting the apps guys know what you are doing. Note zVM isn't currently an Option as we are firmly MS Windows, and as small VM/VSE site who has been neglected for years by IBM Mainframe folks turning this around would be hard. I guess if we invest seriusly in VMWARE it will by the IBM x Series supply chain that will be hit. > > > Alan Ackerman wrote: > > > Another question from the same architecture person. What is > the value > > add ed by z/VM over VMWARE for a Linux workload? (That's my > wording, > > not his.) > > > > As usual, I don't know anything about what VMWARE can or cannot do. > > I'm s ure it can run fewer guests than VM, but not how many. VM has > > shared DASD and DCSSes and NSSes , but most Linux > > people don't see the value of those things -- disks are > cheap and come wi > > th the PC, memory is > > cheap, etc. VM has automation capabilities, but Linux has > those too, and > > IBM sells all those Tivoli > > products to tie them together, report performance, provide > high availabil > > ity, etc. > > > > I think the advantage on the mainframe is economy of scale. > But how do > > yo u measure that? > > > > At present, you can save money on software and peripherals > enough to > > cost -justify the mainframe. Reduced people costs are hard > to quantify > > and scare the heck o ut of the midrange > > folks. > > > > But I wonder how long those software prices will last? Red > Hat charges > > $1 8,000 per IFL for 7x24 support. (I found that on a web > site, and I > > asked our Red Hat representat ive to make sure.) I > > couldn't find any prices on Novel SuSEs web site. We have > other software > > with higher prices per > > engine for the mainframe. > > > > He specifically mentioned the ability to pick up a Linux > guest running > > un der VMWARE and moving it to another box running VMWARE. > So far VM > > cannot do that. > > > > Ideas on what value z/VM adds would be appreciated! > > > > Alan Ackerman > > Alan (dot) Ackerman (at) Bank of America (dot) com > > > >
