Re: IBM LinuxONE Rockhopper

[Timothy Sipples]

Edward Gould wrote:
>The other sort of non public side are the Zos products that
>are languishing and are not really supported any more (i.e.
>TSOE...

Perhaps you missed the other TSO/E-related thread in this forum (that I
cannot comment on directly)? Something about the number 8. (Or was it 7? I
forget.)

>and all of its products session manager

Well, there's a reason IBM Session Manager for z/OS is "languishing"! IBM
withdrew the product from marketing on January 2, 2017, exactly as IBM
announced last year. Session Manager's standard End of Service date is
December 31, 2018. Its replacement product, IBM CL/SuperSession, is
certainly NOT languishing. IBM introduced CL/SuperSession Version 2.1 only
14 months ago. Version 2.1 has several new features including passphrase
support, greater Parallel Sysplex affinities, new load balancing and
session reconnection capabilities, and lots more customization options
including a simple scripting language, as examples.

I posted most of this information just days ago, in this very forum, as it
happens. And related information on IBM NetView Access Services (NVAS).

Continuing, IBM released Data Set Commander Version 8.1 (formerly ISPF
Productivity Tool, formerly Isogon's SPIFFY) just over 3 three years ago.
Version 8.1 added support for z/OS 2.1+ PDSE member generations among other
new features. You can read more about that particular PDSE feature here:

http://www.ibm.com/support/docview.wss?uid=tss1wp102465=1

ISPF Productivity Tool Version 7.1 is still supported with no End of
Service date, but I recommend upgrading to the new Data Set Commander for
z/OS.

To pick yet another example, just last month (January, 2017), IBM
introduced the first version of the IBM z/OS Provisioning Toolkit,
available at no additional charge to all z/OS Version 2 licensees. More
information is available here:

https://developer.ibm.com/mainframe/products/zospt/

The z/OS Provisioning Toolkit relies on the z/OS Management Facility, but
it also provides a simple command line interface. Yes, that's right, a new
command line interface, for z/OS, born in January, 2017.

In short, even though some people might not think the classic
terminal-oriented interfaces are "fashionable," IBM keeps improving them.
Clearly other user interfaces (Web, mobile, etc.) are very important and
getting even more important. I recommend adopting those interfaces or at
least providing them to your peers. Notable examples -- all no additional
charge! -- include the z/OS Management Facility (now a base element in z/OS
2.2), the IBM Knowledge Center for z/OS (also a base element in z/OS 2.2),
Explorer for z/OS (and its various additions for CICS, MQ, etc.), and IBM
zEvent. However, IBM *is* improving the classic interfaces, and I've just
provided many examples. There are many others.

Before criticizing any vendor, I'd wait at least half a beat and figure out
what the truth is as best you can. Then, if there's still something you
think is amiss, start with a question ("Is my understanding correct?"),
then pursue a solution with the vendor. I'm highly confident that
complaints don't get very far with any vendor if they're not well grounded
in current reality. My advice would be to focus on where the genuine
problems and opportunities are, and prioritize.


Timothy Sipples
IT Architect Executive, Industry Solutions, IBM z Systems, AP/GCG/MEA
E-Mail: sipp...@sg.ibm.com

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: IBM LinuxONE Rockhopper

[Edward Gould]

Timothy:

IBM can’t seem to get their act together on internet issues (just look at all 
the issues brought up here and don’t forget the hundreds of thousands of the 
non mainframe public who are frustrated. 
HINT the internet is not anywhere as complicated as the MF.
The other sort of non public side are the Zos products that are languishing and 
are not really supported any more (i.e. TSOE and all of its products session 
manager, tso dataset utilities, etc etc etc).
There are parts of IBM that are seeming  to raise to the surface where other 
parts are sinking into oblivion.
The latest sermon from the IBM mount says that workers can no longer 
telecommute where 5 or 6 years ago it was all the rage within IBM and its 
worked, IBM doesn’t know its ass from the hole in the ground.
Add to this the astounding discontinuance of Sales support and SE's (or what 
ever they are called now) its a real wonder IBM is actually selling MF now 
days. IBM is its own worse enemy on so many levels it sickening.
The most sickening part of this is that IBM is becoming another MS.

Ed

ps: I sold off my IBM stock holdings and bought Apple. And its done wonders for 
my retirement.

> On Feb 12, 2017, at 11:58 PM, Timothy Sipples  wrote:
> 
> Charles, IBM has been building System/360 machines and their direct, lineal
> descendants for well over half a century. In IBM's latest earnings report
> (and with impressive priors) its IBM z System/LinuxONE revenues and profits
> are up again, and capacity shipments are up even more, again. That's even
> without counting the related (and extremely real) revenues and profits in
> software and services.
> 
> Wouldn't you be *thrilled* to have a business like that? The answer is
> patently obvious (pun partially intended).
> 
> I also don't worry about whether Apple is working hard on the next iPhone,
> or whether software will always require hardware. However, if you're
> searching for a platform to worry about, I nominate this one:
> 
> http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/01/20/oracle-lays-off-450-employees/
> 
> Really the only thing that needs to be said, again, is "Thank you." I don't
> speak for IBM, but if I did, I'd say pretty much the same thing. We're
> delighted that the systems IBM's engineers work so hard to make ever better
> are so widely, so vigorously appreciated in the market, by all of you.
> 
> Onward and upward.
> 
> 
> Timothy Sipples
> IT Architect Executive, Industry Solutions, IBM z Systems, AP/GCG/MEA
> E-Mail: sipp...@sg.ibm.com
> 
> --
> For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
> send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: IBM LinuxONE Rockhopper

[Timothy Sipples]

Responding to Mike Beer, I have no doubt that improvement is possible and
important. Goodness knows I'm constantly searching for improvement
opportunities, personally and professionally, and recommend that everybody
do the same. That said, I learned a long time ago that one doesn't get very
far in such requests (or demands) when one's arguments or representations
simply aren't true upon even cursory inspection.

OK, so I'll respond directly to some of the revised points you've raised,
as always bearing in mind that I am expressing my personal views only, even
when I don't provide that reminder.

IBM publishes *both* IBM LinuxONE and Linux on IBM z System customer
references, including videos, press releases, etc. In my view, IBM is
absolutely correct in telling you, and everyone else, when a customer (who
wishes to speak publicly, which is wonderful!) adopted a LinuxONE server
and when a customer adopted a z System server that runs Linux. If Apple
posts stories about their customers adopting iPad minis and other stories
about their customers adopting iPad Pros, that's all to the good. You're
getting more information, not less. You know that Apple has customers
adopting both iPad minis and iPad Pros. You can aggregate that information
however you wish. Likewise, you know that IBM has customers adopting both
LinuxONE servers and z System servers running Linux. (And z System servers
running z/OS, etc., etc.)

If you want to argue that IBM ought to include a direct link to Linux on z
customer success stories from the LinuxONE landing page, and vice versa,
that seems reasonable to me. I'd say it's not imperative, but it'd be
reasonable. However, beyond that, I don't agree. I prefer that IBM (and
Apple) share at least a reasonable level of detail when their customers
permit it. If you still think IBM should provide less server information,
you can ask.

With respect to what a particular IBM employee said on a certain day, I
don't know what the question was. However, with the possible exception of
certain religious leaders within their communities of followers, I cannot
think of anybody who is infallible. As I pointed out, IBM publishes exactly
what certifications a prospective LinuxONE remarketer requires to become a
LinuxONE remarketer. I provided the link, and it isn't hard to find using
your favorite Internet search engine. If somebody said something else, then
please feel free to point that person to the correct, official information.

With respect to availability of products, services, and other offerings in
particular countries, for better or worse IBM must comply with laws and
regulations. That means a few countries are going to be left out even when
IBM (or any other company) would highly prefer a 100% global offering.
That's just how it goes here on Planet Earth. The LinuxONE Community Cloud
is available *practically* everywhere, fortunately. (Within only the first
90 days of launch, developers signed up from 72 different countries.) If
you'd like me to look into why some specific country that hasn't been named
yet (?) is (or might be) excluded, please let me know. Better yet, just go
to the Support page, choose the appropriate contact for the situation, and
ask:

https://developer.ibm.com/linuxone/support/


Timothy Sipples
IT Architect Executive, Industry Solutions, IBM z Systems, AP/GCG/MEA
E-Mail: sipp...@sg.ibm.com

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: IBM LinuxONE Rockhopper

[Mike Beer]

Timothy,
thank you for your detailed answer.
As a former IBMer I still love mainframes. I started working on a 
370/158 some years ago..
Having been in marketing for quite some time (e.g. S/390)  I know how 
difficult it is to do global marketing.
I think everyone here in this group wants the IBM mainframe be / stay 
successful.

People here in this group are asking valid questions, I think.

However look at it from the outside:
- some of the references you mentioned talk about Linux on z, which is 
fine - but NOT about LinuxONE
  (why not have a linuxone page where you can find all relevant 
information - including references?

   http://www-03.ibm.com/systems/linuxone/ could be a good starting point)
- for the LinuxONE community page: when you try to register (i.e. fill 
in the form completely) you may get told that the program is not 
available in your country: 
https://linuxone20.cloud.marist.edu/cloud/#/register
- when an IBMer tells a prospective business partner that ALL z 
certifications are necessary to become LinuxONE partner
- when you have sales leads for LinuxONE, but no one is interested, 
because people are measured on Watson and Bluemix


There seems to be some room for improvement...

Mike

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: IBM LinuxONE Rockhopper

[Timothy Sipples]

Charles, IBM has been building System/360 machines and their direct, lineal
descendants for well over half a century. In IBM's latest earnings report
(and with impressive priors) its IBM z System/LinuxONE revenues and profits
are up again, and capacity shipments are up even more, again. That's even
without counting the related (and extremely real) revenues and profits in
software and services.

Wouldn't you be *thrilled* to have a business like that? The answer is
patently obvious (pun partially intended).

I also don't worry about whether Apple is working hard on the next iPhone,
or whether software will always require hardware. However, if you're
searching for a platform to worry about, I nominate this one:

http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/01/20/oracle-lays-off-450-employees/

Really the only thing that needs to be said, again, is "Thank you." I don't
speak for IBM, but if I did, I'd say pretty much the same thing. We're
delighted that the systems IBM's engineers work so hard to make ever better
are so widely, so vigorously appreciated in the market, by all of you.

Onward and upward.


Timothy Sipples
IT Architect Executive, Industry Solutions, IBM z Systems, AP/GCG/MEA
E-Mail: sipp...@sg.ibm.com

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: IBM LinuxONE Rockhopper

[Charles Mills]

Tim and all, please don't get me wrong. I'm not an IBM-basher or an IBM
doomsayer. I'm glad IBM is doing well and wish them nothing but the best.
The mainframe has been very, very good to me.

I'm not a stock analyst and I'm not a chip engineering cost expert. My point
was this: it must be incredibly expensive engineering the Z chips, and the
MVS market is something of a -- what's a word you would not object to?
narrow? -- market. IBM does not invite me to their strategic planning
meetings but my guess was that the LinuxONE was an attempt to turn the
mainframe hardware into more of a mass-market machine -- Linux being the
most popular OS in the world -- or as I said below "sell a warehouse full of
them" and amortize current and future z hardware development over a much
greater number of sales. Which would be good news for the relatively --
what's the right word, Tim? specialized? -- MVS market.

I'm not sure that anything anyone has posted answers the question "has IBM
been successful with that initiative?" I was wondering not as a doomsayer,
but wishing for the best, and curious about the reality. One swallow does
not make a spring, and 8 new customers do not a mass market make. I was
curious especially about "culture," whether anyone with more of a presence
on slash-dot and the like had a feeling whether the LinuxONE was being
perceived by that community as one helluva cool Linux server, or as just
some weird IBM box. 

To success!

Charles

-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On
Behalf Of Timothy Sipples
Sent: Sunday, February 12, 2017 4:51 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: IBM LinuxONE Rockhopper

Charles Mills wrote:
>Anyone have any idea how successful it has been? The answer matters 
>to the MVS community because if IBM can sell a warehouse full of them 
>it will support further mainframe hardware development, which must 
>currently seem to IBM to be a small niche market.

Where do you get your "must" from? IBM often reports IBM z System/LinuxONE
hardware revenues in its quarterly earnings reports. Even with a "tough
compare," in the latest quarter (4Q2016 as I write this) mainframe hardware
revenues were up, capacity deliveries up more, and margins up, too. Of
course that's not counting other, related revenue and profit. IBM's CFO also
reported 8 new customers in the quarter, 29 in 2016, and 80 since
introduction of the IBM z13.

https://www.ibm.com/investor/events/earnings/4q16.html

So, successful, very. Thank you!

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: IBM LinuxONE Rockhopper

[Tony Harminc]

On 12 February 2017 at 19:50, Timothy Sipples  wrote:

> IBM's CFO also reported 8 new customers in the quarter, 29 in 2016, and 80
> since
> introduction of the IBM z13.
>

Is that "net new" or just plain "new"?

Tony H.

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: IBM LinuxONE Rockhopper

[Timothy Sipples]

Mike Beer wrote:
>Unfortunately LinuxOne is as difficult to configure and to sell for a
>business partner as traditional mainframes. Last year IBM also
>required the same skill set from a business partner (e.g. z/OS
>certfication) for a machine that is "only linux".

IBM publishes its list of requirements to become a LinuxONE remarketer
here:

https://www.ibm.com/partnerworld/wps/servlet/ContentHandler/stg_com_sys_become-linuxone-remarketer

I don't see z/OS certification on that list, do you?

>Interestingly you do not find * * * ANY * * * customer reference on an
>IBM page.

Oh really?

http://www.ibm.com/systems/z/os/linux/success/

If that's not enough, take a look at the main LinuxONE landing page:

http://www.ibm.com/systems/linuxone/

What do you see * * * * AT THE TOP CENTER OF THE PAGE * * * * ? [I'll raise
you 2 more asterisks. :-)] A link to a video highlighting a customer story
("Millions of passengers, billions of tickets")! Here's the direct link to
that video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQkJj5S18vE

There's also a link on the main LinuxONE page ("Qingdao hospital treat
patients proactively with speed and security") to this IBM press release
about Bodhi Healthcare Group and Qingdao Municipal Hospital Group:

http://www.ibm.com/press/us/en/pressrelease/50374.wss

Also, from the main LinuxONE landing page, click on the "LinuxONE News"
link, and you end up here:

http://www.ibm.com/systems/linuxone/news/index.html

...where there's a link to the story "APLUS adopts LinuxONE for reliable,
secure credit card transactions." Here's the direct link to that story:

http://www.enterpriselinuxinsights.com/aplus-adopts-ibm-linuxone-secure-credit-card-transactions/

Enterpriselinuxinsights.com is a Web site "Powered by LinuxONE" (logo, top
right), i.e. the Web site itself is hosted on a LinuxONE server!

Also, on the LinuxONE News page there's a link to this story about ICU IT
Services:

http://ecc.ibm.com/case-study/us-en/ECCF-LUC12345USEN

...OK, I'll stop there, but hopefully you get the idea. Mike, I hate to
ask, but did you even bother checking before posting?


Timothy Sipples
IT Architect Executive, Industry Solutions, IBM z Systems, AP/GCG/MEA
E-Mail: sipp...@sg.ibm.com

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: IBM LinuxONE Rockhopper

[Timothy Sipples]

Charles Mills wrote:
>Anyone have any idea how successful it has been? The answer matters
>to the MVS community because if IBM can sell a warehouse full of them it
>will support further mainframe hardware development, which must
>currently seem to IBM to be a small niche market.

Where do you get your "must" from? IBM often reports IBM z System/LinuxONE
hardware revenues in its quarterly earnings reports. Even with a "tough
compare," in the latest quarter (4Q2016 as I write this) mainframe hardware
revenues were up, capacity deliveries up more, and margins up, too. Of
course that's not counting other, related revenue and profit. IBM's CFO
also reported 8 new customers in the quarter, 29 in 2016, and 80 since
introduction of the IBM z13.

https://www.ibm.com/investor/events/earnings/4q16.html

So, successful, very. Thank you!


Timothy Sipples
IT Architect Executive, Industry Solutions, IBM z Systems, AP/GCG/MEA
E-Mail: sipp...@sg.ibm.com

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: IBM LinuxONE Rockhopper

[Mike Beer]

z/VM still consists of CP + CMS:

Use the control program (CP) command language when:
- You are a z/VM system operator and you want to control the resources 
of the real machine

   located in your computer room.
- You are a virtual machine user and you want to control your virtual 
machine’s configuration and environment.


Use a virtual machine command language when:
- You are communicating with the operating system you loaded into your 
virtual machine.




http://www.vm.ibm.com/pubs/hcse4b01.pdf

Mike

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: IBM LinuxONE Rockhopper

[Mike Myers]

Edward:

I can say something about that, as I was a member of the team that 
developed the prototype and was scheduled to become the leader of one of 
the two development teams charged with the planned "CMS on MVS" product. 
While we were getting staffed up, IBM canceled the project. The planned 
team leader for the other development team, who was also a member of the 
prototype team, was the late Karl Finkemeyer, who had created a PR/SM 
prototype he called "The Thin Layer" while working at the Heidelberg 
Scientific Center.


We had successfully IPLed and run CMS in a TSO address space using SIE. 
The CMS nucleus was unmodified. Our prototype was proof of the 
feasibility of the product. There was no VM in our prototype, though we 
had to implement some underlying functionality. My part in the prototype 
was the implementation of the CMS file system, which I did using Control 
Interval access in a VSAM data set. I believe that the idea was later 
used as a basis for PDS/E and HFS, although by the time both of these 
came along, I had left IBM and gone into consulting


Mike Myers
Mentor Services Corporation

 On 02/10/2017 08:53 PM, Edward Finnell wrote:

Back in the days. There was CMS for MVS in the early 80's. One of the
developers was a regular at SHARE and I guess resigned due to the decision to
shelve it for 'Marketing Considerations'. Went on the shelf right next to the
  Clist Compiler-CLIC.
  
  
In a message dated 2/10/2017 6:58:25 P.M. Central Standard Time,

charl...@mcn.org writes:

Would  not the proper phrase be "run independently of CP"? CMS is a
component
of  z/VM; it can't be independent of z/VM, it *is*  z/VM.


--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN



--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: IBM LinuxONE Rockhopper

[Mike Beer]

The IBM Q4 results do not mention LinuxONE at all.
If it would be reported as z revenue, it should be there, but:
Systems gross margin was up year to year due to
-*both improvement in z margins, and**
**-**the relative strength in that higher margin business.**
*That does not look like LinuxONE.
Interestingly you do not find * * * ANY * * * customer reference on an 
IBM page.


So it is either bad marketing or no customers...


https://www.ibm.com/investor/att/pdf/IBM-4Q16-Earnings-Prepared-Remarks.pdf

Systems Segment
Our Systems revenue reflects growth in z Systems, offset by declines in 
Power and storage as we continue to address shifting markets. Systems 
gross margin was up year to year due to both improvement in z margins, 
and the relative strength in that higher margin business. In z Systems, 
we delivered 4 percent revenue growth, double-digit growth in MIPs, and 
we expanded our margins. These results reflect our continued success in 
driving innovation in our core systems. The mainframe is optimized for 
mobile and security, and is constantly being redesigned to drive new 
workloads, including instant payments and the emerging blockchain. Eight 
quarters into the cycle, we added 8 new clients in the quarter, 29 for 
the year and 80 since inception. New client adoption at this stage in 
our cycle further validates our clients’ perceived value and their 
ongoing commitment to the IBM platform. Clients are investing heavily to 
meet the demands for future growth. I mentioned earlier the strength we 
had in China. We closed significant z Systems deals in the quarter, 
including two large Chinese banks migrating their mainframe install base 
to our latest z13 technology. And in Europe we are helping our clients 
manage new requirements in the rapidly evolving area of financial 
services modernization. We had four wins in the quarter on instant 
payments. Given the critical nature of the European financial services 
backbone, TARGET2-Securities, or T2S, has been deployed on IBM z Systems 
to provide the necessary reliability, scalability and IT security. 
Overall, the mainframe continues to deliver a high value, secure and 
scalable platform that is critical in managing our clients’ complex 
environments.



system z - success stories do not mention LinuxONE:
http://www-03.ibm.com/systems/z/success/

***
* BUT *
***

I found * * * ONE * * * customer reference in JAPAN:
https://www.finextra.com/pressarticle/67491/japans-aplus-selects-ibm-linuxone-for-credit-card-processing

and another one from China:
https://mainframedebate.com/2016/04/14/linuxone-china-and-trains-a-winning-combination/

IBM should display them on their website... if they want to sell real 
systems (instead of unclear visions)


And SUSE has some references (e.g. Air India):

   https://www.suse.com/success/
   (maybe Mark Post can comment on them)


Red Hat does not seem to have LinuxONE references.
The same seems to be true for Canonical/Ubuntu.


Mike


--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: IBM LinuxONE Rockhopper

[Charles Mills]

> Nothing will run without the PR/SM hypervisor.

Good point.

Charles

-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf 
Of Paul Gilmartin
Sent: Friday, February 10, 2017 6:38 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: IBM LinuxONE Rockhopper

On Fri, 10 Feb 2017 16:58:10 -0800, Charles Mills  wrote:

>[... CMS ...] It is more of a
>single-user terminal session than an OS. And yes, it no longer can be 
>IPLed on the hardware, so a purist might say that disqualifies it as an 
>operating system right there. What kind of operating system requires an 
>operating system in order to run?
> 
Nowadays (or is it next year's model?), on the z, practically every one.
Nothing will run without the PR/SM hypervisor.

In the twilight of Sun Microsystems, Sine Nomine ported OpenSolaris to z.  It 
required z/VM for various assists.

Decades ago, I ATTACHed a real printer to a CMS guest.  Didn't work.
CMS printer driver issues CP commands to what it assumes is a virtual printer.  
Grrr.  Don't know about Pipelines.

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: IBM LinuxONE Rockhopper

[Charles Mills]

Interesting. Thanks.

I am still curious how well it is selling, how well it has been accepted by the 
Linux server market. 

Charles

-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf 
Of Mike Beer
Sent: Saturday, February 11, 2017 2:29 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: IBM LinuxONE Rockhopper

Just found a marketing background story on LinuxONE

http://www.centerline.net/client-stories/building-a-custom-product-and-brand-to-connect-with-a-new-audience/

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: IBM LinuxONE Rockhopper

[Mike Beer]

Just found a marketing background story on LinuxONE

http://www.centerline.net/client-stories/building-a-custom-product-and-brand-to-connect-with-a-new-audience/

Mike

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: IBM LinuxONE Rockhopper

[Mike Beer]

Don't know about the rockhopper, but we cabled up an emperor a few months ago.  
  Looks just the same as the z13s sitting beside it.
To my knowledge they are the same. It was a great marketing idea to 
rebrand it.

(Why they chose the name of company with bad reputation remains unclear:
http://www.fool.com/portfolios/rulemaker/2000/rulemaker000106.htm )

Unfortunately LinuxOne is as difficult to configure and to sell for a 
business partner as traditional mainframes.
Last year IBM also required the same skill set from a business partner 
(e.g. z/OS certfication) for a machine that is "only linux".


Mike

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: IBM LinuxONE Rockhopper

[Anne & Lynn Wheeler]

000433f07816-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu (Paul Gilmartin) writes:
> Nowadays (or is it next year's model?), on the z, practically every one.
> Nothing will run without the PR/SM hypervisor.
>
> In the twilight of Sun Microsystems, Sine Nomine ported OpenSolaris
> to z.  It required z/VM for various assists.

re:
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2017b.html#30 Virtualization's Past Helps Explain 
Its Current Importance
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2017b.html#36 IBM LinuxONE Rockhopper

I was involved in doing a lot of the work on ECPS (vm microcode assist)
for 138/148 ... and then used in 4300. This is old post with the
analysis choosing what to put into ECPS. We were told that 148 had
6kbytes of space for microcode ... and was to choose the top 6kbytes of
vm370 kernel code for moving into microcode.  138/148 executed an
avg. of 10 native, microcode instructions for every 370 instructions.
Kernel code moved into microcode got 10:1 speedup. 6kbyte of vm370
kernel code accounted for 79.55% of kernel CPU use:
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/94.html#21

Later I got approval to give presentation on ECPS development at (user
group) BAYBUNCH (held monthly at SLAC). Afterwards the Amdahl attendees
cornered me to explain what they were doing on something called
HYPERVISOR (basically a subset of vm370 function incorporated totally
into the machine).

One of the things Amdahl people mentioned was that hi-end processor
horizontal microcode was difficult and frequently had long lead time.
Ever since 3033, IBM had done been minor microcode features ... that if
weren't present, operating systems wouldn't run. To help keep abreast of
the IBM's constant flurry of minor microcode features ... they had come
up with macrocode ... that was effectively close to 370 machine language
...  and much simpler (& faster) to code than horizontal microcode but
otherwise function like microcode. The hypervisor was being implemented
in this macrocode ... which significantly reduced the development
effort.

To remain competitive, the 3090 had to come up with their equivalent
... evenutally called PR/SM (and LPAR)  but was a significantly
bigger development effort (having to be done directly in horizontal
microcode). This old email talks some about improvement for SIE (part of
PR/SM) for trout (aka 3090) compared to 3081 (before they were faced
with having to extend to PR/SM to match Amdahl's hypervisor)
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2006j.html#email810630
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2003j.html#email831118

announce 12Feb1985 ... 
https://www-03.ibm.com/ibm/history/exhibits/mainframe/mainframe_PP3090.html

trivia1: Endicott tried to get 370 138/148 announced as every machine
ordered shipped with vm370 pre-installed (effectively akin to later
PR/SM LPAR), but were overruled by POK/corporate

trivia2: above mentions needing two 3370 FBA (even for MVS/XA customers
which never supported FBA), for the two 3092 service processors, a pair
of 4361s running a modified version of vm370 release 6 (and all service
panels done in CMS IOS3270).

-- 
virtualization experience starting Jan1968, online at home since Mar1970

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: IBM LinuxONE Rockhopper

[Anne & Lynn Wheeler]

charl...@mcn.org (Charles Mills) writes:
> independently of z/VM, but that is no longer true.
>
> I'm quite familiar architecturally with CMS. Yes, it is in one sense
> an operating system. If I drew a picture of z/VM with a bunch of
> guests, CMS would be a peer to VSE, z/OS and Linux, all of which are
> no-doubt-about-it operating systems. So yes, it must be an OS. It's a
> funny beast of an OS: a single-user operating system for a mainframe!
> OTOH, the way people use it it is more like a single TSO session than
> an operating system. It is more of a single-user terminal session than
> an OS. And yes, it no longer can be IPLed on the hardware, so a purist
> might say that disqualifies it as an operating system right
> there. What kind of operating system requires an operating system in
> order to run?
>
> Would not the proper phrase be "run independently of CP"? CMS is a
> component of z/VM; it can't be independent of z/VM, it *is* z/VM.

original CMS was "cambridge monitor system" running stand-alone on
360/40. The same 360/40 had virtual memory hardware modifications to
support developement of virtual machine cp/40 in parallel. When standard
360/67 with virtual memory became available, cp/40 morphs into cp/67
... with CMS still running both stand-alone and in virtual machine
... cp40/cms development discussed here
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/cp40seas1982.txt
also mentioned in
http://www.ibmsystemsmag.com/mainframe/administrator/Virtualization/importance-today/
and my recent posting in this mailing list
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2017b.html#30 Virtualization's Past Helps Explain 
Its Current Importance

In the morph from CP67/CMS to VM370/CMS, they dropped and simplified a
lot of CP67, change CMS name to conversational monitor system, and put
test in CMS to cripple it from running on bare hardware.

In the early 80s, CMS under MVS had really bad performance ... not
because of CMS ... but MVS structural issues ...  vm370/cms could
provide .1sec interactive cms response when MVS/CMS was 1sec or worse
with similar workload on same hardware. Some people thought that CMS
might fix the really bad TSO interactive characteristics ... but it
wasn't so much TSO versus CMS ... but underlying MVS structural issues.

In the wake of failure of FS project in the mid-70s (never announced or
shipped, FS would completely replace 360/370 and completely different
and during FS, 370 projects were being shutdown, the lack of 370
products during the FS period is credited with clone makers gaining
market foothold). In the wake of FS failure, there was mad rush to get
370 products back in the pipelines. 303x and 3081 were kicked off in
paralle ... and head of POK managed to convince corporate to kill
vm370/cms product and transfer all the vm370/cms to POK for MVS/XA work
... or otherwise MVS/XA wouldn't be able to meet ship schedule (well
into the 1980s).

Endicott eventually managed to resurrect VM370/CMS product mission
... but had to reconstitute development group from scratch. Aside,
Tymshare had started offering there CMS-based online computer
conferencing to SHARE for free as VMSHARE in Aug1976. In the VMSHARE
archives there are customer comments about code quality during this
period as Endicott rebuilds a vm370/cms development group
http://vm.marist.edu/~vmshare

At the time of the VM370/CMS shutdown there was development of greatly
expanded CMS support for MVS system services, read/write MVS (shared)
disks, etc ... which all disappears with the shutdown  which was
just fine with POK. After Endicott resurrects VM370, they were much more
interest in CMS having DOS/VS capatibility (than MVS compatibiity; aka
DOS/VS system services).

With 4300s, Endicott manage to start making market position where large
corporations were ordering multiple hundred 4300s at a time for placing
out in departmental areas (sort of leading edge of coming distributed
computing tsunami). This became such a large market, Endicott managed to
get corporate to declare vm370/cms as the strategic interactive
offering.

At the time, the only disks for placing out in non-datacenter
environment were FBA, which MVS didn't support. The requirement was also
for support where it was several tens of systems per support person
... rather than MVS requiring several people per system.

There was also late 70s, where customers were looking at 4341 cluster
having higher throughput than 3033, more storage, more I/O, much lower
environmentals, smaller footprint, and much lower cost. At one point POK
felt so threatened that head of POK managed to get the allocation of
critical 4341 manufacturing component cut in half.

I participated in 4341 benchmarking for LLNL that was looking at getting
70 for a compute farm ... sort of the precursor to the current cluster
supercomputers

Some of the VM370/CMS people that went to POK, did do a virtual machine
implementation to support MVS/XA development ... which was never
intended to be released ... which contributed to 

Re: IBM LinuxONE Rockhopper

[Paul Gilmartin]

On Fri, 10 Feb 2017 16:58:10 -0800, Charles Mills  wrote:

>[... CMS ...] It is more of a
>single-user terminal session than an OS. And yes, it no longer can be IPLed
>on the hardware, so a purist might say that disqualifies it as an operating
>system right there. What kind of operating system requires an operating
>system in order to run?
> 
Nowadays (or is it next year's model?), on the z, practically every one.
Nothing will run without the PR/SM hypervisor.

In the twilight of Sun Microsystems, Sine Nomine ported OpenSolaris
to z.  It required z/VM for various assists.

Decades ago, I ATTACHed a real printer to a CMS guest.  Didn't work.
CMS printer driver issues CP commands to what it assumes is a
virtual printer.  Grrr.  Don't know about Pipelines.

>Would not the proper phrase be "run independently of CP"? CMS is a component
>of z/VM; it can't be independent of z/VM, it *is* z/VM.

-- gil

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: IBM LinuxONE Rockhopper

[Edward Finnell]

Back in the days. There was CMS for MVS in the early 80's. One of the  
developers was a regular at SHARE and I guess resigned due to the decision to  
shelve it for 'Marketing Considerations'. Went on the shelf right next to the 
 Clist Compiler-CLIC.
 
 
In a message dated 2/10/2017 6:58:25 P.M. Central Standard Time,  
charl...@mcn.org writes:

Would  not the proper phrase be "run independently of CP"? CMS is a 
component
of  z/VM; it can't be independent of z/VM, it *is*  z/VM.


--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: IBM LinuxONE Rockhopper

[Charles Mills]

> CMS is indeed an operating system.  Early on it used to be able to run
independently of z/VM, but that is no longer true.

I'm quite familiar architecturally with CMS. Yes, it is in one sense an
operating system. If I drew a picture of z/VM with a bunch of guests, CMS
would be a peer to VSE, z/OS and Linux, all of which are no-doubt-about-it
operating systems. So yes, it must be an OS. It's a funny beast of an OS: a
single-user operating system for a mainframe! OTOH, the way people use it it
is more like a single TSO session than an operating system. It is more of a
single-user terminal session than an OS. And yes, it no longer can be IPLed
on the hardware, so a purist might say that disqualifies it as an operating
system right there. What kind of operating system requires an operating
system in order to run?

Would not the proper phrase be "run independently of CP"? CMS is a component
of z/VM; it can't be independent of z/VM, it *is* z/VM.

Charles

-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On
Behalf Of Mark Post
Sent: Friday, February 10, 2017 1:26 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: IBM LinuxONE Rockhopper

>>> On 2/10/2017 at 03:58 PM, Charles Mills <charl...@mcn.org> wrote: 
> Everything I know about Linux administration could be engraved on the 
> back of a postage stamp but I would think that if one were a pure 
> Linux sort of person then one would almost certainly use kvm for 
> Rockhopper virtualization,

That is going to depend on just how hard you want to push your hardware.
z/VM can support a whole lot more virtual machines than KVM can on any given
mainframe box.  I and various other people have repeatedly tried to get IBM
to stop publicizing how many virtual machines can run on a fully loaded z13
with no indication of what hypervisor needed to be used for that.  z/VM
would have a hard time hitting that oft quoted 8,000 number.  KVM as it
stands today wouldn't even come close.  (Note that I expect KVM to continue
to improve in this area, but I'm talking about "today.")

The people who are responsible for both z/VM and KVM on z are trying to do
the right thing by positioning KVM as the "entry level" hypervisor for
mainframe customers that don't have access to z/VM skills but do have Linux
expertise.  I don't know how many people are listening to them.  Certainly
IBM marketing isn't.

> rather than learning another two OS's (counting CMS as an OS, which it 
> is in a sense). If one were coming from Linux on z/VM, one would 
> probably not want to give up all of the CMS niftiness.

CMS is indeed an operating system.  Early on it used to be able to run
independently of z/VM, but that is no longer true.

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: IBM LinuxONE Rockhopper

[Hylton Tom P]

Don't know about the rockhopper, but we cabled up an emperor a few months ago.  
  Looks just the same as the z13s sitting beside it. 

It isn't 8 core, it's 141. 
Yes, it's IFL only and uncapped. 

I think kvm was an option, but we've used zVM from the beginning on the shared 
boxes before we got this one.   


-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@listserv.ua.edu] On Behalf 
Of Paul Gilmartin
Sent: Friday, February 10, 2017 3:07 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@listserv.ua.edu
Subject: Re: IBM LinuxONE Rockhopper

So the Rockhopper is built on a z12 and Emperor on a z13.  But:
... The z13 mainframe series can hold up to 10 TBs of memory. 
Its 8-core z13 CPU can run up to 5GHz. ...

8-core seems small.  Are they only IFLs?  Uncapped?

Elsewhere I read it can use either KVM or zVM as a hypervisor.

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: IBM LinuxONE Rockhopper

[Mark Post]

>>> On 2/10/2017 at 03:58 PM, Charles Mills  wrote: 
> Everything I know about Linux administration could be engraved on the back of 
> a postage stamp but I would think that if one were a pure Linux sort of 
> person then one would almost certainly use kvm for Rockhopper virtualization, 

That is going to depend on just how hard you want to push your hardware.  z/VM 
can support a whole lot more virtual machines than KVM can on any given 
mainframe box.  I and various other people have repeatedly tried to get IBM to 
stop publicizing how many virtual machines can run on a fully loaded z13 with 
no indication of what hypervisor needed to be used for that.  z/VM would have a 
hard time hitting that oft quoted 8,000 number.  KVM as it stands today 
wouldn't even come close.  (Note that I expect KVM to continue to improve in 
this area, but I'm talking about "today.")

The people who are responsible for both z/VM and KVM on z are trying to do the 
right thing by positioning KVM as the "entry level" hypervisor for mainframe 
customers that don't have access to z/VM skills but do have Linux expertise.  I 
don't know how many people are listening to them.  Certainly IBM marketing 
isn't.

> rather than learning another two OS's (counting CMS as an OS, which it is in 
> a sense). If one were coming from Linux on z/VM, one would probably not want 
> to give up all of the CMS niftiness.

CMS is indeed an operating system.  Early on it used to be able to run 
independently of z/VM, but that is no longer true.


Mark Post

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: IBM LinuxONE Rockhopper

[Mark Post]

>>> On 2/10/2017 at 03:06 PM, Paul Gilmartin
<000433f07816-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote: 
> So the Rockhopper is built on a z12 and Emperor on a z13.  But:

Not any more.  With the release of the z13s, that changed.

> ... The z13 mainframe series can hold up to 10 TBs of memory. 
> Its 8-core z13 CPU can run up to 5GHz. ...
> 
> 8-core seems small.  Are they only IFLs?  Uncapped?

That's 8 cores per socket.  They contain the same number of customer usable 
processors as their "normal" relations: 141 for the Emperor, and 20 for the 
Rockhopper.  The LinuxONE machines are IFL only boxes.  Like all specialty 
engines, they run full speed.

> Elsewhere I read it can use either KVM or zVM as a hypervisor.
> Some months ago, I asked on IBMVM whether a z/VM system
> with only Linux guests could be CMS-free, using Linux for
> administrative chores and sparing administrators the need to
> learl another OS.  The answers distilled to: "You wouldn't
> want to do that; you't forgo all the utilities coded for CMS."
> I'm not sure that's unbiased.

It may be biased, but it's also correct.  Of course, for people that _want_ to 
spend untold hours reinventing the wheel with all the attendant problems that 
go along with that, that's not a real consideration.


Mark Post

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: IBM LinuxONE Rockhopper

[Mark Post]

>>> On 2/10/2017 at 10:43 AM, Charles Mills  wrote: 
> Anyone have any idea how successful it has been? Is it catching on as a 
> general Linux server, or does the Linux community view it as some weird 
> mainframey thing?

Since the current Rockhopper is, in terms of hardware only, simply  a rebranded 
z13s, I would say that it's likely to be more successful than previous 
generations of the Business Class machines for Linux-only clients.  I don't 
think there were all that many of those, in general.  Some, but mainframe Linux 
customers tend to also be running other IBM operating systems.

Having said all that, the general Linux community views all mainframes as 
weird.  A lot of them come to love them once they get to know them, others 
continue to want nothing to do with them.


Mark Post

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: IBM LinuxONE Rockhopper

[Charles Mills]

That's a launch article; does not really speak to how successful the product 
has been in the past year and a half.

Everything I know about Linux administration could be engraved on the back of a 
postage stamp but I would think that if one were a pure Linux sort of person 
then one would almost certainly use kvm for Rockhopper virtualization, rather 
than learning another two OS's (counting CMS as an OS, which it is in a sense). 
If one were coming from Linux on z/VM, one would probably not want to give up 
all of the CMS niftiness.

Gil would seem to be slightly off on his processors:

IBM LinuxONE Emperor is based on the IBM z13
IBM LinuxONE Rockhopper is based on the IBM z13s.
Note: Prior to the general availability of the z13s, Rockhopper is based on the 
IBM zEnterprize BC12.

-- 
https://www.ibm.com/support/knowledgecenter/SSB27U_6.3.0/com.ibm.zvm.v630.hcpa0/servers.htm
 [sic on the spelling of Enterprise]

Charles

-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf 
Of Paul Gilmartin
Sent: Friday, February 10, 2017 12:07 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: IBM LinuxONE Rockhopper

On Fri, 10 Feb 2017 07:43:14 -0800, Charles Mills wrote:

>Anyone have any idea how successful it has been? Is it catching on as a 
>general Linux server, or does the Linux community view it as some weird 
>mainframey thing?
>
>The answer matters to the MVS community because if IBM can sell a warehouse 
>full of them it will support further mainframe hardware development, which 
>must currently seem to IBM to be a small niche market.
> 
Well, here's a non-IBM article.  I dont know how objective:
http://www.zdnet.com/article/linuxone-ibms-new-linux-mainframes/

So the Rockhopper is built on a z12 and Emperor on a z13.  But:
... The z13 mainframe series can hold up to 10 TBs of memory. 
Its 8-core z13 CPU can run up to 5GHz. ...

8-core seems small.  Are they only IFLs?  Uncapped?

Elsewhere I read it can use either KVM or zVM as a hypervisor.
Some months ago, I asked on IBMVM whether a z/VM system with only Linux guests 
could be CMS-free, using Linux for administrative chores and sparing 
administrators the need to learl another OS.  The answers distilled to: "You 
wouldn't want to do that; you't forgo all the utilities coded for CMS."

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: IBM LinuxONE Rockhopper

[Paul Gilmartin]

On Fri, 10 Feb 2017 07:43:14 -0800, Charles Mills wrote:

>Anyone have any idea how successful it has been? Is it catching on as a 
>general Linux server, or does the Linux community view it as some weird 
>mainframey thing?
>
>The answer matters to the MVS community because if IBM can sell a warehouse 
>full of them it will support further mainframe hardware development, which 
>must currently seem to IBM to be a small niche market.
> 
Well, here's a non-IBM article.  I dont know how objective:
http://www.zdnet.com/article/linuxone-ibms-new-linux-mainframes/

So the Rockhopper is built on a z12 and Emperor on a z13.  But:
... The z13 mainframe series can hold up to 10 TBs of memory. 
Its 8-core z13 CPU can run up to 5GHz. ...

8-core seems small.  Are they only IFLs?  Uncapped?

Elsewhere I read it can use either KVM or zVM as a hypervisor.
Some months ago, I asked on IBMVM whether a z/VM system
with only Linux guests could be CMS-free, using Linux for
administrative chores and sparing administrators the need to
learl another OS.  The answers distilled to: "You wouldn't
want to do that; you't forgo all the utilities coded for CMS."
I'm not sure that's unbiased.

-- gil

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: IBM LinuxONE Rockhopper

[Charles Mills]

Anyone have any idea how successful it has been? Is it catching on as a general 
Linux server, or does the Linux community view it as some weird mainframey 
thing?

The answer matters to the MVS community because if IBM can sell a warehouse 
full of them it will support further mainframe hardware development, which must 
currently seem to IBM to be a small niche market.

Charles

-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf 
Of Steve Beaver
Sent: Friday, February 10, 2017 7:05 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: IBM LinuxONE Rockhopper

Has anyone in the group ever priced out an IBM LinuxONE Rockhopper?

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: IBM LinuxONE Rockhopper

[Mike Beer]

Link to some pricing info:

https://www-01.ibm.com/common/ssi/cgi-bin/ssialias?subtype=SP=PM=LUS12345USEN=LUS12345USEN.PDF

Mike

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN