Alan, your remarks are probably accurate from the perspective of server
consolidation. The "get off the mainframe" mantra goes well beyond
server consolidation. In my opinion, IBM has done a very poor job
combating the source of the "get off the mainframe" mindset that
permeates areas of the industry. Those CIO's, CTO's and CFO's to whom
you refer are getting their information from consultant and research
organizations such as Gartner and Hackett. Even in the Enterprise
Architecture community, there is no dialogue on the mainframe, although
the vast majority of participants in the EA commuity do have challenges
around their mainframe systems. The organizations that can support an
Enterprise Architecture effort are the ones that have mainframes.
I will share a coworkers experience at the last big Gartner conference
in Orlando where not only she but our CTO and CIO were present. The
last words out of the keynote speaker's mouth was "Oh, and get off those
mainframes!" Later in that same day, she attended another much smaller
attended session late in the afternoon where Gartner said, "Yeah, but
all the big banks and retailers are not getting off the mainframe."
Incidentally, our organization is the latter with 40 years of investment
in mainframe systems. However, the CTO and CIO never heard those remarks.
Those same Gartner folks have said that if you run 500 or less MIPS, it
is a no brainer decision, get off the mainframe. If you are running
1500 or more, not a snow balls chance in you know where of getting off
it. The folks in the middle, Gartner had no answer answer other than
figure it out for yourself. The "get off the mainframe" contingent uses
plenty of FUD around the skills shortage "problem" to their advantage.
For us, it isn't so much a shortage as not wanting to pay what two or
three decade veterans expect to be compensated for that experience.
It may just be my organization, but IBM used to be really great at
marketing to the upper echelons of organization's management. IBM
could be doing more in these influential communities to promote the
sustaining business value of organization's past investment in the
mainframe and selling it to organization's management. I say it could
be more, because, frankly, I've seen none.
This of course is probably not the right forum for this discourse, but
it is the only one I have to share these perspectives where IBM is
present. If there is one, I would sure like to know where it is.
Harold Grovesteen
Alan Altmark wrote:
On Thursday, 05/03/2007 at 12:03 AST, José L. Ramírez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Let's hope that IBM can "revive" the mainframe so that it can continue
to be
the best server in the data center...
All anyone (even IBM) can do is make the case that 50 virtual servers will
be more cost effective than 50 real servers, for all the reasons that have
been quoted here, especially if you already are invested in the mainframe.
IMO, if your CIO/CFO/CTO team aren't faced with a
power/temperature/space/expense problem, they have no incentive to look at
server consolidation and virtualization (on any platform). I.e. if they
aren't experiencing viscerally perceptible growth, they don't have a
problem to solve.
Of course, don't try to paint server and desktop technology with the same
brush. That's a good way to sink the whole effort.
Alan Altmark
z/VM Development
IBM Endicott
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For LINUX-390 subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: INFO LINUX-390 or visit
http://www.marist.edu/htbin/wlvindex?LINUX-390
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For LINUX-390 subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: INFO LINUX-390 or visit
http://www.marist.edu/htbin/wlvindex?LINUX-390
