Re: IBM PR: System z Announcement Webcast on October 21, 2008

[Chris Mason]

Radoslaw

This reminds me of a comment made to me by a Russian who took me to see 
his ministry's[1] "computer" stand[2] at an exhibition in Sokolniki Park and 
then 
to see another ministry's stand. Disparagingly he translated one of the cards 
for me which, in a manner comparable to boasting how many hectares of grain 
had been harvested, proclaimed proudly how many kilometres of copper wire 
were present in the machine. I believe he mentioned that the people 
responsible were from the Urals. This was back in 1975.

Chris Mason

[1] The Ministry of Instrumentation Technology of something similar and 
the "computer" was obliged to be a "control complex" since the other ministry, 
Radio, had the "computer" mission.

[2] This stand showed a machine which was a copy of an East German design 
which was a copy of a Siemens design which was a copy of an RCA design 
which was a copy of the IBM 360! A DOS linkage edit printout was coming off 
the "1403" and I was able to tell them they had forgotten the INCLUDE 
statements for the I/O modules - a common DOS mistake!

On Mon, 20 Oct 2008 08:31:32 +0200, R.S. 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>Edward Jaffe wrote:
>> ...
>> Frank DiGilio's Mainframe Mythbusting presentation cites the Wall Street
>> Journal as saying distributed server farms can generate up to 3800 watts
>> per square foot! A z9 EC generates only 312 watts per square foot. (Less
>> than 10%.)
>
>I heard an opinion from some PC bigot that this is the proof that Intel
>platform offers "denser computing power". More watts mean more CPUs,
>channels, etc. 
>
> ...
>--
>Radoslaw Skorupka
>Lodz, Poland

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

Re: IBM PR: System z Announcement Webcast on October 21, 2008

[Chase, John]

> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of Rick Fochtman
> 
> -
> A phenomenon known as the $300,000,000 PC.
> 
> >>
> >> Frank DiGilio's Mainframe Mythbusting presentation cites the Wall
> >> Street Journal as saying distributed server farms can generate up
to
> >> 3800 watts per square foot! A z9 EC generates only 312 watts per
> >> square foot. (Less than 10%.)
> >
> I heard an opinion from some PC bigot that this is the proof that
Intel
> platform offers "denser computing power". More watts mean more CPUs,
> channels, etc. 
> --
> Another example of "Airline Magazine Technology". Where in the name of
> all that's holy do they find those idiots to write that garbage??

The Internet.  Possibly Al Gore's progeny (he _did_ invent the Internet,
after all).  :-)

-jc-

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

Re: IBM PR: System z Announcement Webcast on October 21, 2008

[Rick Fochtman]

-
A phenomenon known as the $300,000,000 PC.



Frank DiGilio's Mainframe Mythbusting presentation cites the Wall 
Street Journal as saying distributed server farms can generate up to 
3800 watts per square foot! A z9 EC generates only 312 watts per 
square foot. (Less than 10%.)


I heard an opinion from some PC bigot that this is the proof that Intel 
platform offers "denser computing power". More watts mean more CPUs, 
channels, etc. 

--
Another example of "Airline Magazine Technology". Where in the name of 
all that's holy do they find those idiots to write that garbage??


--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

Re: IBM PR: System z Announcement Webcast on October 21, 2008

[R.S.]

Edward Jaffe wrote:

Ken Porowski wrote:

I thought the z10 4.4GHz chips were the answer to the CPU intensive
issue (but probably not all).
  


The z10 is is not designed for CPU-intensive work. That is what pSeries 
(a RISC processor) is for. Rather, it was designed to dispel the myth 
that mainframes are slow.


Too many CIOs -- those that believe what they read in Airline magazines 
-- thought that raw GHz was a valid way to compare the performance of 
System z to other platforms; real throughput did not matter.


IBM got tired of trying to explain the realities over and over. 


I used to explaining it for years, so now I have "answer #1" : Why do 
you compare computer (mainframe) to processor? Does it make any sense? 
What about SAP *processor* and those in channel card?
It's like comparing Dodge Viper to freight train. Maybe Viper is master 
in terms of GHz, but throughput of the train is still out of range. And 
now the train got new engine from TGV 
Answer #2: Yes, maybe your "Intel Core 2 Duo Quad + Hyper" is faster 
when you compute Gamma function or some integral. However my machine 
does very simple computations as J.Smith $100 -> J.Smith $102 (add 2%). 
And every record need to be read and written, and there are millions of 
them.



--
Radoslaw Skorupka
Lodz, Poland


--
BRE Bank SA
ul. Senatorska 18
00-950 Warszawa
www.brebank.pl

Sd Rejonowy dla m. st. Warszawy 
XII Wydzia Gospodarczy Krajowego Rejestru Sdowego, 
nr rejestru przedsibiorców KRS 025237

NIP: 526-021-50-88
Wedug stanu na dzie 01.01.2008 r. kapita zakadowy BRE Banku SA  wynosi 
118.642.672 zote i zosta w caoci wpacony.

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

Re: IBM PR: System z Announcement Webcast on October 21, 2008

[Edward Jaffe]

Ken Porowski wrote:

I thought the z10 4.4GHz chips were the answer to the CPU intensive
issue (but probably not all).
  


The z10 is is not designed for CPU-intensive work. That is what pSeries 
(a RISC processor) is for. Rather, it was designed to dispel the myth 
that mainframes are slow.


Too many CIOs -- those that believe what they read in Airline magazines 
-- thought that raw GHz was a valid way to compare the performance of 
System z to other platforms; real throughput did not matter.


IBM got tired of trying to explain the realities over and over. So, they 
chose to standardize on a new chip with a cycle speed 160% faster than 
the previous generation of mainframes. Does it run 160% faster? No. 
According to MSU ratings, it's the normal, expected 40% faster. But, 
those misinformed CIOs are now satisfied.


It's analogous to why IBM implemented 64-bit addressing instead of the 
expected 63-bit. Both systems will address more data than all of the 
DASD in the world. But, the competitors would have convinced these 
idiots that 64-bit was superior to 63-bit. (Just a bit better.  ;-) )


--
Edward E Jaffe
Phoenix Software International, Inc
5200 W Century Blvd, Suite 800
Los Angeles, CA 90045
310-338-0400 x318
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.phoenixsoftware.com/

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

Re: IBM PR: System z Announcement Webcast on October 21, 2008

[R.S.]

Edward Jaffe wrote:

Ken Porowski wrote:

I did hear of one company that HAD to move to IFL/z/VM simply because
they could no longer increase power to the datacenter (Power company
restriction).  Only other alternative was to move.
  


A phenomenon known as the $300,000,000 PC.

Frank DiGilio's Mainframe Mythbusting presentation cites the Wall Street 
Journal as saying distributed server farms can generate up to 3800 watts 
per square foot! A z9 EC generates only 312 watts per square foot. (Less 
than 10%.)


I heard an opinion from some PC bigot that this is the proof that Intel 
platform offers "denser computing power". More watts mean more CPUs, 
channels, etc. 



I do not support the opinion above.


Seriously speaking, nowadays is experience denser packaging of servers, 
disks, etc. and some devices (like CPUs) need more power - all of that 
causes more watts/m2 (or sq. ft) More power also means more cooling (and 
again more power). This is an issue for "infrastructure personnel", 
because usuallay old server rooms are not prepared for such change and 
changing it without outages for production systems is really hard work.

--
Radoslaw Skorupka
Lodz, Poland


--
BRE Bank SA
ul. Senatorska 18
00-950 Warszawa
www.brebank.pl

Sd Rejonowy dla m. st. Warszawy 
XII Wydzia Gospodarczy Krajowego Rejestru Sdowego, 
nr rejestru przedsibiorców KRS 025237

NIP: 526-021-50-88
Wedug stanu na dzie 01.01.2008 r. kapita zakadowy BRE Banku SA  wynosi 
118.642.672 zote i zosta w caoci wpacony.

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

Re: IBM PR: System z Announcement Webcast on October 21, 2008

[Edward Jaffe]

Ken Porowski wrote:

I did hear of one company that HAD to move to IFL/z/VM simply because
they could no longer increase power to the datacenter (Power company
restriction).  Only other alternative was to move.
  


A phenomenon known as the $300,000,000 PC.

Frank DiGilio's Mainframe Mythbusting presentation cites the Wall Street 
Journal as saying distributed server farms can generate up to 3800 watts 
per square foot! A z9 EC generates only 312 watts per square foot. (Less 
than 10%.)


--
Edward E Jaffe
Phoenix Software International, Inc
5200 W Century Blvd, Suite 800
Los Angeles, CA 90045
310-338-0400 x318
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.phoenixsoftware.com/

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

Re: IBM PR: System z Announcement Webcast on October 21, 2008

[Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.)]

In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on 10/17/2008
   at 10:28 AM, "R.S." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:

>I consider your sentence above as simply offensive.

PKB. When you write offensive posts about others, it;s hypocritical to
take offense when someone has the temerity to criticize you.
 
-- 
 Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
 ISO position; see  
We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress.
(S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003)

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

Re: IBM PR: System z Announcement Webcast on October 21, 2008

[Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.)]

In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on
10/16/2008
   at 01:40 PM, Jon Brock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:

>Maybe by the last few, but certainly not by his whole body of posts.

Animosity to IBM is certainly consistent with a lot of his posts, if not
the whole body of them. I'm not shy about criticizing IBM, but I try to do
so only when the facts warrant it. He seems to not care about accuracy.
 
-- 
 Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
 ISO position; see  
We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress.
(S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003)

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

Re: IBM PR: System z Announcement Webcast on October 21, 2008

[Timothy Sipples]

Howard Brazee writes:
>Doesn't most everybody do that?   Guaranteed license
>price forever and ever are rare indeed. Try buying
>lifetime tickets to your favorite sports venue.

You would think people would understand that software within an "all you
can eat" contract is not actually free, but you would be amazed at how many
people behave as if it were -- and then get into big trouble later on.
Let's just say that way too many IT people, while possibly smart about
technology, are really lousy economists and accountants. (That's a big
reason for IT outsourcing, as I've said before.) Many software vendors
count on this, quite honestly.

But, again, I don't want to criticize the concept per se. Enterprise-wide
licenses (or "site licenses") are often appropriate, as long as you
understand them, behave accordingly, and actually get some benefit from
them.

Also, don't get too tripped up on the word "enterprise." I've discussed
previously IBM Enterprise License Agreements (ELAs) and the basic principle
behind those (forecasting licensing needs ahead with a commitment to some
level). That's a much different principle than "use as much as you want
(internal use/employees only/some other condition) until the next renewal,"
which we're talking about here. "Site license" or (better) "multi-site
license" is perhaps more precise.

- - - - -
Timothy Sipples
IBM Consulting Enterprise Software Architect
Based in Tokyo, Serving IBM Japan / Asia-Pacific
E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

Re: IBM PR: System z Announcement Webcast on October 21, 2008

[Howard Brazee]

On 16 Oct 2008 17:40:00 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Timothy
Sipples) wrote:

>And so you do that. Within the contract period, the marginal
>price for deploying additional licenses is zero.
>
>Did you catch what I wrote, "within the contract period"? That gives you a
>clue what happens next: contract renewal.

Doesn't most everybody do that?   Guaranteed license price forever and
ever are rare indeed.   Try buying lifetime tickets to your favorite
sports venue.

Personally, I find it a pain when I am trying to decide between Cable
TV and its alternatives - they all offer deals for new customers
encouraging switching, but not sticking around.

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

Re: IBM PR: System z Announcement Webcast on October 21, 2008

[R.S.]

Ken Porowski wrote:

Look at licensing costs for Oracle (and other products licensed per
CPU).  Last I heard was around $40K per CPU.  If I can replace 4-5 Intel
servers with a single IFL software costs alone generate savings.

The larger question is can IFL/z/VM compete with Intel/Vmware (or
equivalent) when ALL costs are considered.  


Good argument for those who use Oracle ...and for now. License terms and 
conditions can change with time. Personally I wonder why Oracle price 
per CPU is the same for various CPU types. However it can justify choice 
of z/Linux.

As an mainframe guy I'm glad of that. 

--
Radoslaw Skorupka
Lodz, Poland


--
BRE Bank SA
ul. Senatorska 18
00-950 Warszawa
www.brebank.pl

Sd Rejonowy dla m. st. Warszawy 
XII Wydzia Gospodarczy Krajowego Rejestru Sdowego, 
nr rejestru przedsibiorców KRS 025237

NIP: 526-021-50-88
Wedug stanu na dzie 01.01.2008 r. kapita zakadowy BRE Banku SA  wynosi 
118.642.672 zote i zosta w caoci wpacony.

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

Re: IBM PR: System z Announcement Webcast on October 21, 2008

[R.S.]

Rich Smrcina wrote:

John McKown wrote:


Thanks for the correction. But, from your comments, I would take it 
that the

System z is simply not worth using, except for z/OS (maybe z/VSE) legacy
work. If this is true, then I see no reason why any company would get a z
for new work. And, if a company could move its workload from, say, 
CICS to

WAS, it would be less expensive to run that work on Intel.


It makes you think that his purpose in life is to trash System z, at 
least by the tone of his posts.  This should not be the purpose of this 
list.


The purpose of this list is to discuss about mainframes. It's not 
required to present the only correct opinions.

I feel free to present my own view, despite of your opinion about me.
I consider your sentence above as simply offensive.

Last but not least: I justified my opinion with some arguments (the 
numbers). Maybe you want to assess the numbers? Did I make a mistake 
somewhere? Something to cheap or maybe to expensive?


BTW: I'm also considered as mainframe bigot and I don't like the opinion 
as well. I'm trying to be objective and assess things without any bias.

--
Radoslaw Skorupka
Lodz, Poland


--
BRE Bank SA
ul. Senatorska 18
00-950 Warszawa
www.brebank.pl

Sd Rejonowy dla m. st. Warszawy 
XII Wydzia Gospodarczy Krajowego Rejestru Sdowego, 
nr rejestru przedsibiorców KRS 025237

NIP: 526-021-50-88
Wedug stanu na dzie 01.01.2008 r. kapita zakadowy BRE Banku SA  wynosi 
118.642.672 zote i zosta w caoci wpacony.

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

Re: IBM PR: System z Announcement Webcast on October 21, 2008

[Timothy Sipples]

Ken Porowski writes:
>Look at licensing costs for Oracle (and other products
>licensed per CPU).  Last I heard was around $40K per CPU.
>If I can replace 4-5 Intel servers with a single IFL
>software costs alone generate savings.

Oracle increased its prices recently -- this past June, I think. Oracle
Database (Enterprise) is now $47,500 for the license. Annual maintenance is
extra.

John McKown writes:
>That is interesting. But I am wondering about so-called
>Oracle Site Licenses. From what I have been told, we have
>such a thing. Supposedly, this allows us to have basically
>unlimited numbers of Oracle systems running on any number
>of "cores" on any platform. That's how we got Oracle on
>z/OS. It was "free" with out current license. But I've
>been misinformed before.

That's probably an Oracle Enterprise License. It's a very common sort of
deal from many software vendors, so I'm not trying to criticize Oracle
here. But you should understand how such agreements work. In essence, the
vendor says, "Run whatever you want for the next couple years for flat
price X." And so you do that. Within the contract period, the marginal
price for deploying additional licenses is zero.

Did you catch what I wrote, "within the contract period"? That gives you a
clue what happens next: contract renewal. At contract renewal, the vendor
tallies up (formally or by proxy) what you have deployed and renegotiates.
And your renewal price is based on, you guessed it, the actual number of
licenses you've previously deployed plus the vendor's estimate of your
likely growth over the next contract period. And that's now your new price.

So are additional license deployments "free"? Only if you cease all use of
those extra licenses before the contract renewal date, and only if you
ignore every other cost (hardware, network, labor) And everybody
working for your employer understands how this works, right John? :-)

Now, there may be a couple advantages to this sort of contract, provided
you enter such an arrangement soberly and with proper education for your
staff. One advantage is that you don't have much administrative (i.e.
counting) burden within the contract period. (Although, as you can see, for
financial planning and contract renewal negotiation preparation you really
should still count. But you don't *have* to count until just before
renewal.) Another possible advantage is that, again within the contract
period, your budgeting is stable and predictable. Your mileage will vary in
how valuable these advantages are, if at all.

Note that, if you do have chargebacks, you should still apply chargebacks
even if you have these agreements precisely because of contract renewal.
And if you do that, you still have to count.

Anyway, the central point here is that enterprise licenses, also sometimes
known as "all you can eat" licenses, still mean you should try to achieve
greater efficiencies through more virtualization and through other
techniques. Such contracts simply postpone the day of reckoning if you
aren't efficient. So if your enterprise-licensed company behaves like a
teenager holding his/her first credit card, watch out! :-)

And remember that software licensing is but one cost ingredient. In many
consolidation cases it's not even the most significant one.

Hope that background helps.

- - - - -
Timothy Sipples
IBM Consulting Enterprise Software Architect
Based in Tokyo, Serving IBM Japan / Asia-Pacific
E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

Re: IBM PR: System z Announcement Webcast on October 21, 2008

[John McKown]

On Thu, 16 Oct 2008 17:36:47 +, Ted MacNEIL <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>>But I am wondering about so-called Oracle Site
>Licenses. From what I have been told, we have such a thing. Supposedly,
this allows us to have basically unlimited numbers of Oracle systems running on
>any number of "cores" on any platform. That's how we got Oracle on z/OS.
>
>I have never seen a site license for ORACLE.
>I don't think they're available in Canada.
>
>But, you've got power and cooling of one zFOOTPRINT vs all the other INTEL
boxen.

True. But that does not impress anybody in management around here. They are
still in the "z/OS and System z is simply too expensive!" mindset. And, the
2009 budget has been DECREASED. I know the pain this is causing on z/OS. I
don't know the pain on the "other side". We have actually reversed a "tape
to DASD" migration. We were going to keep the "active" dataset on DASD. Now,
we have been told "no new DASD for you!" and must actually be more
penny-pinching than in the past. We are setting DFHSM to migrate "unused"
datasets at the 15 day level again. I'm expecting the return of the Sx37
abends we were getting years ago.

--
John

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

Re: IBM PR: System z Announcement Webcast on October 21, 2008

[Jon Brock]

Maybe by the last few, but certainly not by his whole body of posts.
Radoslaw is a good contributor, and a mainframe guy from way back.  He
is in the position now, though, of trying to maximize price/performance
from a larger standpoint, and that means making decisions based on the
data at hand.  He is just calling them as he sees them.

I like my z box, but it is becoming increasingly difficult to
cost-justify it these days, especially given our company size and
applications.

Jon





It makes you think that his purpose in life is to trash System z, at
least by the tone 
of his posts. 


--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

Re: IBM PR: System z Announcement Webcast on October 21, 2008

[Ted MacNEIL]

>But I am wondering about so-called Oracle Site
Licenses. From what I have been told, we have such a thing. Supposedly, this 
allows us to have basically unlimited numbers of Oracle systems running on
any number of "cores" on any platform. That's how we got Oracle on z/OS.

I have never seen a site license for ORACLE.
I don't think they're available in Canada.

But, you've got power and cooling of one zFOOTPRINT vs all the other INTEL 
boxen.

-
Too busy driving to stop for gas!

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

Re: IBM PR: System z Announcement Webcast on October 21, 2008

[John McKown]

On Thu, 16 Oct 2008 12:29:52 -0500, Savor, Tom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>Just curiouswhy Oracle over DB2 ??  Is Oracle better ??
>Never used Oracle before, only DB2.

That is a long, sad story that I am forbidden to relate.

--
John

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

Re: IBM PR: System z Announcement Webcast on October 21, 2008

[Savor, Tom]

Just curiouswhy Oracle over DB2 ??  Is Oracle better ??
Never used Oracle before, only DB2.

>That is interesting. But I am wondering about so-called Oracle Site
>Licenses. From what I have been told, we have such a thing. Supposedly,
this
>allows us to have basically unlimited numbers of Oracle systems running
on
>any number of "cores" on any platform. That's how we got Oracle on
z/OS. It
>was "free" with out current license. But I've been misinformed before.

>--
>John

 Thanks,
 
 
Tom Savor
Fidelity National Information Services
11720 Amber Park Drive
Suite 500
Alpharetta, GA  30004
 
Phone: 678-867-8431
cell:  404-660-6898
E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

_

The information contained in this message is proprietary and/or confidential. 
If you are not the 
intended recipient, please: (i) delete the message and all copies; (ii) do not 
disclose, 
distribute or use the message in any manner; and (iii) notify the sender 
immediately. In addition, 
please be aware that any message addressed to our domain is subject to 
archiving and review by 
persons other than the intended recipient. Thank you.
_

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

Re: IBM PR: System z Announcement Webcast on October 21, 2008

[John McKown]

On Thu, 16 Oct 2008 17:18:29 +, Ted MacNEIL <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>>The larger question is can IFL/z/VM compete with Intel/Vmware (or
equivalent) when ALL costs are considered.
>
>According to the Province of Quebec, yes.
>
>They converted a couple of years ago.
>Went from over 100 ORACLE licenses to three (one per IFL).

That is interesting. But I am wondering about so-called Oracle Site
Licenses. From what I have been told, we have such a thing. Supposedly, this
allows us to have basically unlimited numbers of Oracle systems running on
any number of "cores" on any platform. That's how we got Oracle on z/OS. It
was "free" with out current license. But I've been misinformed before.

--
John

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

Re: IBM PR: System z Announcement Webcast on October 21, 2008

[Ted MacNEIL]

>The larger question is can IFL/z/VM compete with Intel/Vmware (or equivalent) 
>when ALL costs are considered.  

According to the Province of Quebec, yes.

They converted a couple of years ago.
Went from over 100 ORACLE licenses to three (one per IFL).

-
Too busy driving to stop for gas!

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

Re: IBM PR: System z Announcement Webcast on October 21, 2008

[Natarajan Mohan]

The talk in z series expo is; it would be a z10 BC

Natarajan

NOTICE OF CONFIDENTIALITY 

The information contained in this communication, including but not limited to 
any accompanying document(s) and/or attachment(s), is privileged and 
confidential and is intended solely for the above-named individual(s). If you 
are not the intended recipient, please be advised that any distribution, 
copying, disclosure, and/or use of the information contained herein is strictly 
prohibited. If you received this communication in error, please destroy all 
copies of the communication, whether in electronic or hard copy format, and 
immediately contact the Security Office at EDFUND at (916) 526-7539 or [EMAIL 
PROTECTED] Thank you.

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

Re: IBM PR: System z Announcement Webcast on October 21, 2008

[Scott Ford]

Guys ,

I work on Flex-ES - z/OS 1.9 and its great of course we don't do
100,000 transactions a day on CICS or DB2, we develop software using
TCPIP. I can't complain at all. It fits our purpose, which is the key



Scott Ford
Senior Systems Engineer

 
[p] 678.266.3399 x304[m] 609-346-0399  identityforge.com



This message is for the designated recipient only and may contain
privileged, proprietary, or otherwise private information. If you have
received it in error, please notify the sender immediately or let us know at

[EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED], and then delete the
original.  Any other use of the email by you is prohibited.

-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Of Tom Marchant
Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2008 11:50 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: IBM PR: System z Announcement Webcast on October 21, 2008

On Thu, 16 Oct 2008 10:09:49 -0500, John McKown wrote:

> I've had some people indicate that the "enterprise"
>level Intel servers can approach the z's I/O rate. But I am unsure.

I think they are dreaming.  Sure, they can support Fibre Channel, but how
many of them?  Certainly not hundreds.  The memory on a PC can't handle that
kind of data rate.

-- 
Tom Marchant

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

Re: IBM PR: System z Announcement Webcast on October 21, 2008

[Tom Marchant]

On Thu, 16 Oct 2008 10:09:49 -0500, John McKown wrote:

> I've had some people indicate that the "enterprise"
>level Intel servers can approach the z's I/O rate. But I am unsure.

I think they are dreaming.  Sure, they can support Fibre Channel, but how
many of them?  Certainly not hundreds.  The memory on a PC can't handle that
kind of data rate.

-- 
Tom Marchant

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

Re: IBM PR: System z Announcement Webcast on October 21, 2008

[Rich Smrcina]

Ken Porowski wrote:

I thought the z10 4.4GHz chips were the answer to the CPU intensive
issue (but probably not all). 


Ken


It's significantly better than it was previously.  More CPU intensive workloads can run 
on the z10 EC than could have run on the z9 EC.


You still need to make sure that the applications that you pick are a good fit, but the 
window is somewhat larger.  Performance measurement and management is absolutely 
required in this environment.

--

Rich Smrcina
VM Assist, Inc.
Phone: 414-491-6001
Ans Service:  360-715-2467
rich.smrcina at vmassist.com
http://www.linkedin.com/in/richsmrcina

Catch the WAVV!  http://www.wavv.org
WAVV 2009 - Orlando, FL - May 15-19, 2009

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

Re: IBM PR: System z Announcement Webcast on October 21, 2008

[Ken Porowski]

I thought the z10 4.4GHz chips were the answer to the CPU intensive
issue (but probably not all). 

Ken
-Original Message-
John McKown



I still think that z/Linux under z/VM will outperform non-CPU, high I/O
intensive, workloads better than Linux/Intel. I've had some people
indicate that the "enterprise"
level Intel servers can approach the z's I/O rate. But I am unsure.



John

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send
email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search
the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

Re: IBM PR: System z Announcement Webcast on October 21, 2008

[Ken Porowski]

I'm sure there are.  I do not have any IFL's (yet).

I was just trying to point out that hardware/environmental cost
comparisons do not present the whole picture.
There have been several presentations at SHARE and EXPO from companies
realizing significant savings implementing Linux on z.  

The big thing that seems to be missing is a comparison of virtualized
Intel vs. IFL/z/VM.
I did hear of one company that HAD to move to IFL/z/VM simply because
they could no longer increase power to the datacenter (Power company
restriction).  Only other alternative was to move. 

-Original Message-
Rich Smrcina

Ken Porowski wrote:
> Look at licensing costs for Oracle (and other products licensed per 
> CPU).  Last I heard was around $40K per CPU.  If I can replace 4-5 
> Intel servers with a single IFL software costs alone generate savings.
> 
> The larger question is can IFL/z/VM compete with Intel/Vmware (or
> equivalent) when ALL costs are considered.  
> 
> Ken Porowski
> AVP Systems Software
> CIT Group
> E: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Are you only looking at Oracle servers?  Are there other servers in your
environment that might be a good fit for Linux on System z?

--
Rich Smrcina
VM Assist, Inc.
Phone: 414-491-6001
Ans Service:  360-715-2467
rich.smrcina at vmassist.com
http://www.linkedin.com/in/richsmrcina

Catch the WAVV!  http://www.wavv.org
WAVV 2009 - Orlando, FL - May 15-19, 2009

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

Re: IBM PR: System z Announcement Webcast on October 21, 2008

[John McKown]

On Thu, 16 Oct 2008 09:55:25 -0500, Rich Smrcina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>John McKown wrote:
>>
>> Thanks for the correction. But, from your comments, I would take it that the
>> System z is simply not worth using, except for z/OS (maybe z/VSE) legacy
>> work. If this is true, then I see no reason why any company would get a z
>> for new work. And, if a company could move its workload from, say, CICS to
>> WAS, it would be less expensive to run that work on Intel.
>
>It makes you think that his purpose in life is to trash System z, at least
by the tone
>of his posts.  This should not be the purpose of this list.
>
>--
>
>Rich Smrcina

I never really got that impression from him. I think he is just relating his
experiences with the current "problems" in the z arena. I still think that
z/Linux under z/VM will outperform non-CPU, high I/O intensive, workloads
better than Linux/Intel. I've had some people indicate that the "enterprise"
level Intel servers can approach the z's I/O rate. But I am unsure.

One thing that I do know is that the z hardware is more reliable and
recoverable. However, that said, many companies may regard the current Intel
as "good enough". And today "good enough" is superior to "best" to most
managers. As an example. We were looking at moving our z/OS workload to an
Intel server farm (starting with 4 systems as I vaguely recall). I asked
about what happened if one of the 8 CPUs in a server "died". The response
was that Windows would recover (not crash), but that the current work
running on that CPU would die and need to be restarted. I compared that to
when a CP on our z890 "died". Another CP took over the in-flight work with
absolutely NO impact to anything. In fact, if EREP and the HMC had not told
us that a CP had died, we never would have known. The same when one of our
OSAs "died". The other OSA transparently took over. Shocked the  out
of the "open" people that we didn't lose any connectivity or even any IP
sessions.

But companies generally just don't seem to want to pay for that level of
reliability.

--
John

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

Re: IBM PR: System z Announcement Webcast on October 21, 2008

[Rich Smrcina]

Ken Porowski wrote:

Look at licensing costs for Oracle (and other products licensed per
CPU).  Last I heard was around $40K per CPU.  If I can replace 4-5 Intel
servers with a single IFL software costs alone generate savings.

The larger question is can IFL/z/VM compete with Intel/Vmware (or
equivalent) when ALL costs are considered.  


Ken Porowski
AVP Systems Software
CIT Group
E: [EMAIL PROTECTED]


Are you only looking at Oracle servers?  Are there other servers in your environment 
that might be a good fit for Linux on System z?


--
Rich Smrcina
VM Assist, Inc.
Phone: 414-491-6001
Ans Service:  360-715-2467
rich.smrcina at vmassist.com
http://www.linkedin.com/in/richsmrcina

Catch the WAVV!  http://www.wavv.org
WAVV 2009 - Orlando, FL - May 15-19, 2009

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

Re: IBM PR: System z Announcement Webcast on October 21, 2008

[Ken Porowski]

Look at licensing costs for Oracle (and other products licensed per
CPU).  Last I heard was around $40K per CPU.  If I can replace 4-5 Intel
servers with a single IFL software costs alone generate savings.

The larger question is can IFL/z/VM compete with Intel/Vmware (or
equivalent) when ALL costs are considered.  

Ken Porowski
AVP Systems Software
CIT Group
E: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



-Original Message-
John McKown

On Thu, 16 Oct 2008 15:57:32 +0200, R.S.
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>John McKown wrote:
>[...]
>> Of course, this still does not address the horrendous cost of 
>> software for the z, especially z/OS.
>Yes :-(
>
>> Comparing a z penguin farm (Linux) to an Intel penguin farm, the z 
>> would almost always win.  [...]
>No. BTDT. It depends on requirements for HW quality. Intel penguin farm

>could mean high-end xSeries or blades, or simply bunch of regular PCs 
>(see Google). I really don't care about memory overallocation in PC, 
>because 1GB costs less than $100 (compared to $8k in z), I don't care 
>about CP overallocation, because Intel/AMD CP is $300 (compared to 
>$125k for IFL in z). Disks could be the same or I can choose much 
>cheaper disks for PC.
>Floor space, HVAC, energy bills - still no significant savings here.
>Ecology - well I like green, but I won't plug out my fridge, my boss 
>won't pay many thousands $$$ for being greener a little bit.
>...and VM is not free.
>Last but not least: each of PCs in a flock can run Linux or Microsoft 
>Windows as well.
>
>--
>Radoslaw Skorupka
>Lodz, Poland

Thanks for the correction. But, from your comments, I would take it that
the System z is simply not worth using, except for z/OS (maybe z/VSE)
legacy work. If this is true, then I see no reason why any company would
get a z for new work. And, if a company could move its workload from,
say, CICS to WAS, it would be less expensive to run that work on Intel.

Not a nice picture. But, with any luck, I'll die of a massive coronary
before I lose my current job (and the economy is getting bad enough that
that is becoming more of a probability).

--
John

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

Re: IBM PR: System z Announcement Webcast on October 21, 2008

[Rich Smrcina]

John McKown wrote:


Thanks for the correction. But, from your comments, I would take it that the
System z is simply not worth using, except for z/OS (maybe z/VSE) legacy
work. If this is true, then I see no reason why any company would get a z
for new work. And, if a company could move its workload from, say, CICS to
WAS, it would be less expensive to run that work on Intel.


It makes you think that his purpose in life is to trash System z, at least by the tone 
of his posts.  This should not be the purpose of this list.


--

Rich Smrcina
VM Assist, Inc.
Phone: 414-491-6001
Ans Service:  360-715-2467
rich.smrcina at vmassist.com
http://www.linkedin.com/in/richsmrcina

Catch the WAVV!  http://www.wavv.org
WAVV 2009 - Orlando, FL - May 15-19, 2009

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

Re: IBM PR: System z Announcement Webcast on October 21, 2008

[John McKown]

On Thu, 16 Oct 2008 15:57:32 +0200, R.S. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>John McKown wrote:
>[...]
>> Of course, this still does not address the horrendous cost of software for
>> the z, especially z/OS.
>Yes :-(
>
>> Comparing a z penguin farm (Linux) to an Intel penguin farm, the z would
>> almost always win.  [...]
>No. BTDT. It depends on requirements for HW quality. Intel penguin farm
>could mean high-end xSeries or blades, or simply bunch of regular PCs
>(see Google). I really don't care about memory overallocation in PC,
>because 1GB costs less than $100 (compared to $8k in z), I don't care
>about CP overallocation, because Intel/AMD CP is $300 (compared to $125k
>for IFL in z). Disks could be the same or I can choose much cheaper
>disks for PC.
>Floor space, HVAC, energy bills - still no significant savings here.
>Ecology - well I like green, but I won't plug out my fridge, my boss
>won't pay many thousands $$$ for being greener a little bit.
>...and VM is not free.
>Last but not least: each of PCs in a flock can run Linux or Microsoft
>Windows as well.
>
>--
>Radoslaw Skorupka
>Lodz, Poland

Thanks for the correction. But, from your comments, I would take it that the
System z is simply not worth using, except for z/OS (maybe z/VSE) legacy
work. If this is true, then I see no reason why any company would get a z
for new work. And, if a company could move its workload from, say, CICS to
WAS, it would be less expensive to run that work on Intel.

Not a nice picture. But, with any luck, I'll die of a massive coronary
before I lose my current job (and the economy is getting bad enough that
that is becoming more of a probability).

--
John

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

Re: IBM PR: System z Announcement Webcast on October 21, 2008

[R.S.]

John McKown wrote:
[...]

Of course, this still does not address the horrendous cost of software for
the z, especially z/OS.

Yes :-(


Comparing a z penguin farm (Linux) to an Intel penguin farm, the z would
almost always win.  [...]
No. BTDT. It depends on requirements for HW quality. Intel penguin farm 
could mean high-end xSeries or blades, or simply bunch of regular PCs 
(see Google). I really don't care about memory overallocation in PC, 
because 1GB costs less than $100 (compared to $8k in z), I don't care 
about CP overallocation, because Intel/AMD CP is $300 (compared to $125k 
for IFL in z). Disks could be the same or I can choose much cheaper 
disks for PC.
Floor space, HVAC, energy bills - still no significant savings here. 
Ecology - well I like green, but I won't plug out my fridge, my boss 
won't pay many thousands $$$ for being greener a little bit.

...and VM is not free.
Last but not least: each of PCs in a flock can run Linux or Microsoft 
Windows as well.


--
Radoslaw Skorupka
Lodz, Poland


--
BRE Bank SA
ul. Senatorska 18
00-950 Warszawa
www.brebank.pl

Sd Rejonowy dla m. st. Warszawy 
XII Wydzia Gospodarczy Krajowego Rejestru Sdowego, 
nr rejestru przedsibiorców KRS 025237

NIP: 526-021-50-88
Wedug stanu na dzie 01.01.2008 r. kapita zakadowy BRE Banku SA  wynosi 
118.642.672 zote i zosta w caoci wpacony.

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

Re: IBM PR: System z Announcement Webcast on October 21, 2008

[John McKown]

Looks nice. Right now, from my perspective, the "war" is between the z and
Intel based servers. A less expensive z server might be nice. One problem
I've noticed is the lower cost of entry for Intel. Granted, once we are
comparing equally sized environments, the z come in well. But, too often,
the comparison is "one z" versus "one Intel" server. The z loses in this case.

Of course, this still does not address the horrendous cost of software for
the z, especially z/OS.

Comparing a z penguin farm (Linux) to an Intel penguin farm, the z would
almost always win. The only case where I can think of Intel beating z would
be in a compute intensive application. Also, z/VM still makes VMWare look
sick and immature.

--
John

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

IBM PR: System z Announcement Webcast on October 21, 2008

[Timothy Sipples]

IBM has a significant System z-related announcement to make on October 21,
2008. Here's the meat of the information (and Webcast link):

New IBM System z Technology: Smart, Cool & Affordable

Webcast on Tuesday, October 21, 2008
at 11:00 a.m. New York time

Register at: http://www.on24.com/clients/ibm/117767

There is new System z technology on the horizon that could change the way
your organization thinks about mainframes. Technology that delivers the
granular scalability, flexibility, and resiliency you need -- at the lower
capacity entry point you want. Its advanced technology fights old myths and
perceptions – it’s not just for banks and insurance companies

- - - - -
Timothy Sipples
IBM Consulting Enterprise Software Architect
Based in Tokyo, Serving IBM Japan / Asia-Pacific
E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]