You may be right Ed. Sometimes it feels like "Second Start to the left
and straight on till morning" stuff. Difficult to believe, but IBM usually does
right by their customers. -Paul
--- Begin Message ---
To both Paul Raulerson and David Boyes.
I believe that you are "Preaching to the Ch
CTED]>
> To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
> Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2007 08:17:00 +
> Subject: OT:I/O in Emulated Mainframes (Was Re: PSI
> story)
>
> --- "Jeff Gribbin, EDS" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> > With a small amount of trepidation (but inviting
> You have clarified your meaning of the word "loss" and I am a happy
camper
> now. :-)
So much for the Predator vs Chuckie movie script...8-)
On Thu, 1 Mar 2007 16:02:55 -0500 Edward M. Martin said:
>To both Paul Raulerson and David Boyes.
>
> I believe that you are "Preaching to the Choir".
>
> It is a loss. And some day Hercules may be
>supplied/support/allowed by IBM, but when small to medium companies
>switch it takes a lo
On Thursday, 03/01/2007 at 02:16 EST, David Boyes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> > > With the loss of the Flex 64-bit capability for general
> > > use
> > Sorry to nitpick, but I don't believe there has ever been a FLEX
> 64-bit
> > capability for general use.
>
> I'd say that the unavailabilit
> I believe that you are "Preaching to the Choir".
Very possibly. On the other hand, you guys write bigger checks to IBM
than I do. There are also some quiet people lurking on this list that do
have the ear of senior IBMers -- and others -- in ways that I don't.
Don't kid yourself -- HP and Sun fo
To both Paul Raulerson and David Boyes.
I believe that you are "Preaching to the Choir".
It is a loss. And some day Hercules may be
supplied/support/allowed by IBM, but when small to medium companies
switch it takes a long time for them to get the bad taste "of what IBM
did to us"
Well, just my $0.02, and I have no inside knowledge at all...
But...
My guess is IBM is doing it's level (and legal) best to get out from under
encumbering agreements, and will sooner or later, embrace Hercules as the
platform of choice for Sub 200 mips Mainframe platforms. Yep - Hercules.
Ther
> > With the loss of the Flex 64-bit capability for general
> > use
> Sorry to nitpick, but I don't believe there has ever been a FLEX
64-bit
> capability for general use.
I'd say that the unavailability of the 64 bit FLEX *is* the loss I'm
talking about.
On this list (and others), we've bee
quot;Dave Wade" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
> Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2007 08:17:00 +0000
> Subject: OT:I/O in Emulated Mainframes (Was Re: PSI
> story)
>
> --- "Jeff Gribbin, EDS" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> > With a small amount of
Hey Dave -
(Also speaking for myself) I agree with you in part. But add 100 users to a PC
and watch what happens to the IO. Or add a heavily used database with a few
hundred users. PC Servers just do not scale in terms of I/O the same way. iSCSI
and other technologies are starting to change that
--- Paul Raulerson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I see two problems with this story - one is they
> quoted Phil Payne, whose has some kind of vendetta
> against IBM going. (I suspect he lost money in an
> emulator solution) and two,
His input is pretty small and pretty accurate. Even
for us Mainfr
--- "Jeff Gribbin, EDS" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> With a small amount of trepidation (but inviting
> stomping from anybody who
> feels that I'm off-base here) can I remind folk
> that, on IBM mainframe
> hardware, MIPS aren't the whole story. There's
> channels too - and in an
> I/O-related
With a small amount of trepidation (but inviting stomping from anybody wh
o
feels that I'm off-base here) can I remind folk that, on IBM mainframe
hardware, MIPS aren't the whole story. There's channels too - and in an
I/O-related situation their power needs to be ADDED to the CPU power to
c
On Wednesday, 02/28/2007 at 04:43 EST, David Boyes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> With the loss of the Flex 64-bit capability for general
> use
Sorry to nitpick, but I don't believe there has ever been a FLEX 64-bit
capability for general use.
Alan Altmark
z/VM Development
IBM Endicott
> ...
> > > it is not running Itanium software, it is
> emulationg
> > > the zSeries arch.
> > How does this make it slower?
>
> Another interesting argument. If the basic
> assumption is that the
> emulated zArch performance is proportional to the
> underlying Itanium
> performance, there's a lot
> > I see two problems with this story - one is they
> > quoted Phil Payne, whose has some kind of vendetta
> > against IBM going. (I suspect he lost money in an
> > emulator solution) and two,
> His input is pretty small and pretty accurate. Even
> for us Mainframe Software costs are hefty...
I t
--- Paul Raulerson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I see two problems with this story - one is they
> quoted Phil Payne, whose has some kind of vendetta
> against IBM going. (I suspect he lost money in an
> emulator solution) and two,
His input is pretty small and pretty accurate. Even
for us Mainf
I see two problems with this story - one is they quoted Phil Payne, whose has
some kind of vendetta against IBM going. (I suspect he lost money in an
emulator solution) and two, Itanium hardware is faster and more modern than a
mainframe PC, but ... it is not running Itanium software, it is emul
19 matches
Mail list logo
