I have been asked by my management to find workloads that we can move from
z/OS to Linux on zSeries. The idea is to take advantage of the lower prices
IBM charges for IFL engines as opposed to standard engines.
Has anyone done this? If so, what workloads and/or products are good
candidates for suc
What sort of workloads are being run on z/OS that can also run on Linux
for System z? Websphere, Domino, DB2, Oracle? All of these are
potentially good workloads for Linux on System z, but determining if
they would be a good fit based the workload is the challenge.
Alan Ackerman wrote:
I have
Oracle is a great one as Oracle will no longer be supporting the z/OS
platform.
MA
On Jan 29, 2008 8:00 PM, Rich Smrcina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What sort of workloads are being run on z/OS that can also run on Linux
> for System z? Websphere, Domino, DB2, Oracle? All of these are
> potent
>>> On Tue, Jan 29, 2008 at 7:45 PM, in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Alan Ackerman
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have been asked by my management to find workloads that we can move from
> z/OS to Linux on zSeries. The idea is to take advantage of the lower prices
> IBM charges for IFL engines as
>>> On Tue, Jan 29, 2008 at 8:50 PM, in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Mary Anne Matyaz
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Oracle is a great one as Oracle will no longer be supporting the z/OS
> platform.
Do you have a public reference you can cite for that? It would be good to be
able to point that o
On Wednesday, 01/30/2008 at 01:31 EST, Amir Glaser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> I would think that WebSphere for example is a great candidate.
> Installation of WebSphere on the zOS is very cumbersome, while on linux
it's
> very easy. The only draw back to this is if you have ZAAPs on your
machin
y, January 30, 2008 5:39 AM
To: LINUX-390@VM.MARIST.EDU
Subject: Re: Workload move from z/OS to z/Linux
>>> On Tue, Jan 29, 2008 at 7:45 PM, in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Alan Ackerman
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have been asked by my management to find workloads that w
From: Linux on 390 Port [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Alan Altmark
Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2008 8:50 AM
To: LINUX-390@VM.MARIST.EDU
Subject: Re: Workload move from z/OS to z/Linux
On Wednesday, 01/30/2008 at 01:31 EST, Amir Glaser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> I would think
On Jan 30, 2008 7:50 AM, Alan Altmark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> No, Linux doesn't dispatch work on zAAPs, and I don't expect it ever will.
> zIIPs and zAAPs are engines specifically created to help z/OS pricing.
> Linux runs on IFLs.
So the conclusion is that when a fair amount of the workloa
Oracle, with Oracle's announced shift in strategy away from z/OS, is VERY common
WAS for a lot of reasons
SAP is becoming more common in the US, already very common in Europe.
Domino is common. (I like the installation that converted 24 z/OS CP's to 21
IFLs.) Saved
a trainload of money, but i don
barton wrote:
SAP is becoming more common in the US, already very common in Europe.
SAP 640 was the last release to run on z/OS, so customers moving to a
higher level of SAP
will have to move away from z/OS, and z/Linux is the preferred target OS.
mark
> SAP 640 was the last release to run on z/OS, so customers moving to a
> higher level of SAP
> will have to move away from z/OS, and z/Linux is the preferred target OS.
I think you are referring to the 32-bit kernel that was discontinued (for all
platforms, so also for z/OS). A 64-bit for kernel
Pieter Harder wrote:
SAP 640 was the last release to run on z/OS, so customers moving to a
higher level of SAP
will have to move away from z/OS, and z/Linux is the preferred target OS.
I think you are referring to the 32-bit kernel that was discontinued (for all
platforms, so also for z/OS). A
The only definitive reference I have comes from within oracle's metalink,
which you have to be signed up for:
Oracle Database on z/OS Support Status
The final patch set for Oracle Database 10g Release 2 will be the last
release Oracle delivers for the z/OS platform. Customers can continue to run
t
Actually, zLinux doesn't use the ZAAP engines at all. And, there's really no
need, since there's no licensing advantage to using ZAAPs in Linux. If z/OS
already has ZAAP engines and you move the Java workload to Linux, consider
asking IBM if the ZAAPs can be converted into IFL engines, which will d
And things like data encryption (PGP, etc.) and data compression (GZIP,
BZIP, etc.) make good candidates as well, (and you can avoid the license
charges for PKZIUP on z/OS. :-)
You might also want to check out the new Co:Z Co-processing Toolkit as
well. It allows a z/OS batch job to remotely
la
> -Original Message-
> From: Linux on 390 Port On Behalf Of Amir Glaser
>
> Hi,
>
> I would think that WebSphere for example is a great candidate.
> Installation of WebSphere on the zOS is very cumbersome,
> while on linux it's very easy. The only draw back to this is
> if you have ZAA
PM
To: LINUX-390@VM.MARIST.EDU
Subject: Re: Workload move from z/OS to z/Linux
I would think it's a question of demand. I think that if IBM sees a significant
increase in zLinux use, they might support it in the future. Obviously (to me
at least), the pricing of the IFLs is commensurate with
> I would think it's a question of demand. I think that if IBM sees a
> significant increase in zLinux use, they might support it in the
future.
Unlikely. It's the same physical iron, just different microcode, and if
you can turn the iron into an IFL, that benefits everything accessing
the process
>I don't see how that would work. If IBM raises the price of an IFL higher
>then the price of a ZAAP, why would they then let you use a ZAAP for Linux?
1. IFL, zIIP, zAAP, & ICFs are all the same price. At least, they are in Canada.
2. zLINUX (any flavour) does not support any specialty engine e
nuary 30, 2008 9:47 AM
To: LINUX-390@VM.MARIST.EDU
Subject: Re: Workload move from z/OS to z/Linux
>I don't see how that would work. If IBM raises the price of an IFL higher
>then the price of a ZAAP, why would they then let you use a ZAAP for Linux?
1. IFL, zIIP, zAAP, & ICFs ar
t [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Alan Altmark
Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2008 12:50 AM
To: LINUX-390@VM.MARIST.EDU
Subject: Re: Workload move from z/OS to z/Linux
On Wednesday, 01/30/2008 at 01:31 EST, Amir Glaser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> I would think that Web
]
-
-Original Message-
From: Linux on 390 Port [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Wayne Driscoll
Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2008 1:41 PM
To: LINUX-390@VM.MARIST.EDU
Subject: Re: Workload move from z/OS to z/Linux
I realize that this isn't a place for submitting requirements, but
loan you a copy of z/VM
and Linux on zSeries for 30 days or so for little to no money at all.
-Original Message-
From: Linux on 390 Port [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Wayne
Driscoll
Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2008 10:41 AM
To: LINUX-390@VM.MARIST.EDU
Subject: Re: Workload move fro
>>> On Wed, Jan 30, 2008 at 1:41 PM, in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Wayne Driscoll
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I realize that this isn't a place for submitting requirements, but here
> is something that could be useful for some customers who have zAAPs (or
> maybe even zIIPs) is if IBM would al
]
-
-Original Message-
From: Linux on 390 Port [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Fargusson.Alan
Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2008 12:57 PM
To: LINUX-390@VM.MARIST.EDU
Subject: Re: Workload move from z/OS to z/Linux
Right
On Wednesday, 01/30/2008 at 01:45 EST, Wayne Driscoll
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I realize that this isn't a place for submitting requirements, but here
> is something that could be useful for some customers who have zAAPs (or
> maybe even zIIPs) is if IBM would allow a zAAP (zIIP) only LPAR and
Richards, Robert B. wrote:
You are not going to like the answer, Wayne.
IBM *will* do personality (zAAP to IFL, zAAP to zIIP, etc.) changes for
a price, but they will not allow zAAP/zIIP processors to execute VM or
Linux natively. Same reason IFLs cannot run z/OS.
Err.. That's a bit different
> >I don't see how that would work. If IBM raises the price of an IFL
> higher then the price of a ZAAP, why would they then let you use a
ZAAP
> for Linux?
If they did ever permit ZAAP usage for Linux, I'd expect them to offload
just Java processing, not general purpose cycles. That's the point
On Jan 30, 2008 8:11 PM, David Boyes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If they did ever permit ZAAP usage for Linux, I'd expect them to offload
> just Java processing, not general purpose cycles. That's the point of
> the special microcode that makes a ZAAP a ZAAP. In that case, you'd need
> either a C
> > If they did ever permit ZAAP usage for Linux, I'd expect them to
offload
> > just Java processing, not general purpose cycles. That's the point
of
> > the special microcode that makes a ZAAP a ZAAP. In that case, you'd
need
> > either a CP or an IFL, AND a ZAAP. Not a good cost/benefit model,
I
>However, if I could have share the zAAP with a new zAAP only LPAR, I could run
>Linux (either bare or under z/VM) on the currently underutilized zAAP.
All the specialty engines have different names for a good reason.
They do different things, with different micro-code.
So, you CANNOT share one b
>Right. If the price of an IFL did increase, and was then more expensive then
>a zAAP, why would IBM also change and let you use a zAAP in place of an IFL?
>They wouldn't.
I think this discussion is moot.
zLINUX only supports one kind of specialty engine -- the IFL.
So, the cost of the others,
> can't see what would prevent a mix of
IFL+n*zAAP+m*zIIP LPAR from running linux
How about: it's not supported -- there is no code in zLINUX to (a) recognise
zAAPs & zIIPs, and (b) run anything on it.
>(unless, again, there is too much stuff stripped from the zAAPs & zIIPs that
>would prevent
@VM.MARIST.EDU
Subject: Re: Workload move from z/OS to z/Linux
Wouldn't the code needed to support a zIIP or zAAP have to be added to
Linux and available to all?
I would think that this is a 'trade secret' for IBM and one they would
prefer to control/license as they are wit
>Wouldn't the code needed to support a zIIP or zAAP have to be added to Linux
>and available to all?
Yes, so IBM probably won't do it.
>I would think that this is a 'trade secret' for IBM and one they would prefer
>to control/license as they are with zIIP for z/OS workloads
I agree.
>(zAAP ap
> -Original Message-
> From: Linux on 390 Port [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Fargusson.Alan
> Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2008 3:36 PM
> To: LINUX-390@VM.MARIST.EDU
> Subject: Re: Workload move from z/OS to z/Linux
>
>
> I think the zIIP is more g
al Message-
From: Linux on 390 Port [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Ken Porowski
Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2008 3:31 PM
To: LINUX-390@VM.MARIST.EDU
Subject: Re: Workload move from z/OS to z/Linux
Wouldn't the code needed to support a zIIP or zAAP have to be added to
Linux and a
>>> On Wed, Jan 30, 2008 at 4:38 PM, in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Wayne Driscoll
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The reason I say this is that Linux
> doesn't care if it is running on an IFL or a CP does it?
No, it doesn't.
-snip-
> As for going to IBM, mentioning POC etc,
> that requires time,
What I was alluding to was that a zAAP will run anyone's Java code (or a
subset) but for work to run on a zIIP you have to know/code something
specific to gain access to it (or at least this was how it was explained
to me). The first implementer was DB2 and now I believe CA has some
stuff that can
Wouldn't the code needed to support a zIIP or zAAP have to be added to
Linux and available to all?
I would think that this is a 'trade secret' for IBM and one they would
prefer to control/license as they are with zIIP for z/OS workloads (zAAP
appears to be a little more generic).
Ken Porowski
---
>zIIPs can be used to dispatch any work which conforms to a particular type of
>"enclave SRB" processing. Not just database work. I don't know
if IBM has generally documented how to create such work.
I believe they have to ISV's under NDA (CDA).
I think CA has a product coming (CA-IDMS?) that wil
>What I was alluding to was that a zAAP will run anyone's Java code (or a
>subset)
Yes, but the dispatcher has to know how/when to direct a sub-task to the zAAP.
It doesn't happen just because you have JAVA and a zAAP.
>but for work to run on a zIIP you have to know/code something specific to g
On Wednesday, 01/30/2008 at 04:43 EST, Wayne Driscoll
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Possibly, but then again maybe not. The reason I say this is that Linux
> doesn't care if it is running on an IFL or a CP does it?
No, Linux does not care.
> The change
> would (most likely) have to be in hardware
-Original Message-
Ted MacNEIL
>What I was alluding to was that a zAAP will run anyone's Java code (or
>a subset)
>Yes, but the dispatcher has to know how/when to direct a sub-task to
the zAAP. It doesn't happen just because you have JAVA and a zAAP.
If I have a zAAP and are at appro
>I have JAVA code that 'could' run on a zAAP and I don't have to change my JAVA
code to make it zAAP eligible then isn't that the same as it 'happen just
because you have JAVA and a zAAP' ? I am assuming that I (sysprog
or applications) don't need to do anything to specify what work is zAAP
eli
: Re: [LINUX-390] Workload move from z/OS to z/Linux
>I have JAVA code that 'could' run on a zAAP and I don't have to change
>my JAVA
code to make it zAAP eligible then isn't that the same as it 'happen
just because you have JAVA and a zAAP' ? I am assuming th
Ted MacNEIL wrote:
can't see what would prevent a mix of
IFL+n*zAAP+m*zIIP LPAR from running linux
How about: it's not supported -- there is no code in zLINUX to (a) recognise zAAPs
& zIIPs, and (b) run anything on it.
How about : It's linux, and the support there is is what people coding
l
Ted MacNEIL wrote:
Wouldn't the code needed to support a zIIP or zAAP have to be added to Linux
and available to all?
Yes, so IBM probably won't do it.
I would think that this is a 'trade secret' for IBM and one they would prefer
to control/license as they are with zIIP for z/OS workloads
>But of course, at the present time, it just won't work.
Don't ever expect it to work.
We already have cheap IFLs.
Why would IBM invest time & money to exploit zIIPs and zAAPs on an already
cheap platform?
-
Too busy driving to stop for gas!
>So far I've not seen anything to suggest that IBM cannot, should not make the
>three interchangeable.
They have different priorities?
The IFL is already 'cheap'!
>Same hardware, different firmware I gather. Why not give the customer the
>choice of which microcode to IMPL?
$$!
If you truly see
Ted MacNEIL wrote:
Why would IBM invest time & money to exploit zIIPs and zAAPs on an already
cheap platform?
Why would it HAVE for IBM to do this work ?
And for all we know, it could be as simple as issuing the right SIGP or
SERVC !
--Ivan
-
Ted MacNEIL wrote:
But, in general, it's only easy if you know the API.
And, IBM is NOT publishing that.
One never knows !
But the whole point is moot anyway..
First, I'm pretty confident the HMC won't let you define an LPAR with a
mixture of IFLs and z[IIP][AAP]s (never tried it though)..
On Wednesday, 01/30/2008 at 07:44 EST, Ivan Warren <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Ted MacNEIL wrote:
> > But, in general, it's only easy if you know the API.
> > And, IBM is NOT publishing that.
>
> One never knows !
I don't have a copy in front of me, but I think you'll find that the
agreement that
Dave,
Thanks for mentioning Co:Z, which is now a free offering.
We built it with exactly this kind of thing in mind - we have 31 and
64 bit LSB rpm packages for Linux on z ready to go.
With Co:Z, you can also access MVS datasets as "pipes" on Linux.
So, for the case that you mentioned - PGP encry
Where's the VSE version?
:-)
Frank
On 1/31/2008 at 10:07 AM, in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Kirk Wolf
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Dave,
>
> Thanks for mentioning Co:Z, which is now a free offering.
> We built it with exactly this kind of thing in mind - we have 31 and
> 64 bit LSB rpm package
I was only playing, Kirk.
Not that I wouldn't want to see it.
Frank
lost in VSE-land
--
Frank Swarbrick
Senior Systems Analyst - Mainframe Applications Development
FirstBank Data Corporation - Lakewood, CO
(303) 235-1403
On 2/4/2008 at 2:15 PM, in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Kirk Wolf
<[EM
Frank,
Co:Z depends on "ssh" (included in Ported Tools for z/OS) and is
written in C++ with dependence on the LE and POSIX apis, so it is
probably a big job port to VSE.
Kirk Wolf
Dovetailed Technologies
On Feb 4, 2008 1:48 PM, Frank Swarbrick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Where's the VSE versio
58 matches
Mail list logo