Less than an hour before reading this thread I had IPLed two x86 operating
systems under z/VM 5.3. One is a tiny OS used as a checkpoint after major
changes to the x86 virtualization layer. It's just a way to make sure the
puzzle is still assembled more or less correctly. The other OS is DSL. The
IPL time for DSL up to the line-mode prompt is now 5 seconds with zero
tuning in any of the z86VM components. Using VNC the GUI for each OS is
live-scroll capable over a VPN connection to the IBM development site in
Dallas.
The current x86 virtualization marketplace may not be as predictable (even
for bean counters) as one might imagine. Those same bean counters will be
the first ones to ask "Why not 1 box instead of 50?" just like they asked
"Why not 50 boxes instead of 500?". Wouldn't that be preferable to an ACM
award?
--. .- .-. -.--
Gary Dennis
Mantissa Corporation
0 ... living between the zeros... 0
On 3/31/10 10:32 AM, "Dave Wade" <g4...@dpwade.eclipse.co.uk> wrote:
> In my humble opinion the main reason VMWare (an to a lesser extent HyperV)
> is popular at present is because it allows bean counters to demonstrate huge
> instant savings. Where I work we have around 200 Windows servers, many were
> bought around 5 years ago so will need replacing soone. In general we have a
> separate server not for performance reasons but more for separation of
> control and software options. Based on a limited trial I would say we could
> consolidate 75% of these servers at a rate of at least 10 to 1 using VMWare,
> and still have enough headroom to loose a physial server with no
> performance impact. So that's take the 150 lowest loaded servers and replace
> them with 15 servers running VMWare. To a bean counter that's a 90%
> reduction in power consumption, a 90% reduction in floor space, and a 90%
> reduction in hardware support costs.I am sure some think that should also be
> a 90% reduction in support staff, but of course that's not true. Whilst
> VMWare is fun to manage, it needs managing and also capacity planning. In
> practice the reduction is some what less than 90%. . To use the vernacular,
> a VMWare server will be a "fully loaded server" with multiple CPU's, lots of
> RAM, multiple SAN and Network interfaces for load balancing and resilience.
> In order to fit these in it will be a 2U server and some of our existing are
> 1U, on the other hand others are 4U... BUT there will be a big saving.
>
> Now compare that with zVM. With that you were frugal from day1 so there
> aren't any savings. So the bean counters can't show cost reductions, so they
> don't like it....
>
> .... utterly blinkered....
>
> Dave.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Barton Robinson" <bar...@vm1.velocity-software.com>
> To: <IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU>
> Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2010 3:53 PM
> Subject: Re: ACM award - they deserve it....
>
>
>> If you go to conferences such as CMG (Computer Management Group), that
>> has been a mainframe organization (meaning MVS or z/OS) since it
>> started, our VM has never been represented, but VMWare now has many
>> sessions. It's depressing to see 80 people in entry level performance
>> session for VMWare and no z/VM sessions on the agenda of a mainframe
>> conference.
>> Early this year I was hearing ads for VMWare on the local radio station.
>> I can only assume that VM is being outmarketed worldwide (or at least
>> that VMWare is being marketed worldwide and VM is not marketed publicly
>> at all).
>> It doesn't matter if our mousetrap is better if nobody is out there
>> trying to get mindshare (marketing). Preaching/grumbling to the choir
>> doesn't change anything.
>>
>> So when was the last time that any of you tried to get a case study
>> published showing how great your accomplishments are using z/VM? There
>> are very few published stories (sorry games on "z" don't impress bean
>> counters or executives, it's rather demeaning), we need REAL business
>> case studies showing the value of "z/VM" to real companies. If we get
>> enough and executives do a google search on VM, maybe they will find
>> something useful?
>>
>>
>>
>> Bill Munson wrote:
>>> Jim,
>>>
>>> You are right, that makes me mad also.
>>>
>>> IBM really blew it when they did not trade mark "VM"
>>>
>>> munson
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Jim Elliott <jelli...@gdlvm7.vnet.ibm.com>
>>> Sent by: The IBM z/VM Operating System <IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU>
>>> 03/30/2010 09:34 PM
>>> Please respond to
>>> The IBM z/VM Operating System <IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU>
>>>
>>>
>>> To
>>> IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
>>> cc
>>>
>>> Subject
>>> Re: ACM award
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Today the Association for Computing Machinery (of which I have
>>>> been a member since 1970) made the following award:
>>>
>>>> "VMware Workstation 1.0, the Software System Award, for
>>>> bringing virtualization technology to modern computing
>>>> environments, spurring a shift to virtual-machine
>>>> architectures, and allowing users to efficiently run multiple
>>>> operating systems on their desktops."
>>>
>>>> Aside from the "run multiple OSes on the desktop" part,
>>>> shouldn't we be insulted?
>>>
>>> Chip:
>>>
>>> Yes, we should be insulted. I remember being very upset the first
>>> time I heard a VMware employee talk about how they had invented
>>> the idea of server virtualization! Even on x86, VM386 was out
>>> years before VMware (even if it failed in the market). I am still
>>> upset every time I hear someone talk about "VM" when they mean
>>> VMware. My reaction is, I work on the real VM!
>>>
>>> Jim
>>> (aka "Sir Jim the Evangelist")
>>>
>>>
>>> *************************** IMPORTANT
>>> NOTE*****************************-- The opinions expressed in this
>>> message and/or any attachments are those of the author and not
>>> necessarily those of Brown Brothers Harriman & Co., its
>>> subsidiaries and affiliates ("BBH"). There is no guarantee that
>>> this message is either private or confidential, and it may have
>>> been altered by unauthorized sources without your or our knowledge.
>>> Nothing in the message is capable or intended to create any legally
>>> binding obligations on either party and it is not intended to
>>> provide legal advice. BBH accepts no responsibility for loss or
>>> damage from its use, including damage from virus.
>>>
> ****************************************************************************
> ****
>>>
>>>
>
