If you don't have a mainframe admin staff already in place, it's hard to recommend Linux on 390, as the learning curve is steep.
If you do have such a staff, then linux on 390 is a beautiful thing. Any Virtual Machine is great but 390 is the mother of all VMs. If you don't need true mainframe horsepower (i/o bandwidth for example) then you might like Vmware GSX or ESX on a big intel box.. - jim On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 11:47:56 -0700 "Mark C. Ballew" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > This question might be targeted more toward James, but what do people > think about Linux on the Mainframe for deploying Linux? I'm looking > at using zSeries machines to run various databases under Linux, since > mainframes are often acclaimed for their i/o abilities. > > Assuming money is no problem, what would be the reasoning behind > going for a normal Linux server setup with fail over compared to > using an underlying operating system such as zOS? What about a Linux > server set up running UML or Xen versus zOS? > > Factors that I can think of off hand is that adding more Linux > servers is easier, and software compiled for i386/x86-64 would be far > more common, but for the software I plan to run, a zOS port would > certainly be available. Other things would be the physical labor > involved: that is something that will always be limited. There are > probably more people in the industry that know how to manage Linux > servers than Linux on zOS. zOS is also a "blackbox", so an admin > would have to rely on the vendor instead of training to fix a problem > in some cases. > > Any one else have thoughts? > > _______________________________________________ > RLUG mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.rlug.org/mailman/listinfo/rlug _______________________________________________ RLUG mailing list [email protected] http://lists.rlug.org/mailman/listinfo/rlug
