Re: TCO comparison Intel vs EC12 IFLs

After talking to Phil about this some last night, the one thing that came to my mind was containable growth with scale! While working with customers, visiting datacenters and reviewing workloads for consolidation I've sadly yet to come across a case where mainframe growth is causing the need

Re: TCO comparison Intel vs EC12 IFLs

will be. Van: Linux on 390 Port <LINUX-390@VM.MARIST.EDU> namens Sergey Korzhevsky <s_korzhev...@iba.by> Verzonden: woensdag 3 februari 2016 09:44 Aan: LINUX-390@VM.MARIST.EDU Onderwerp: Re: TCO comparison Intel vs EC12 IFLs Just to add 5 cents. Besides hardware, you also chan

Re: TCO comparison Intel vs EC12 IFLs

bruari 2016 22:24 >Aan: LINUX-390@VM.MARIST.EDU >Onderwerp: Re: TCO comparison Intel vs EC12 IFLs > >On 2016-02-02 14:54, Harder, Pieter wrote: >> I think there is another factor involved. On x86 you usually run >> database engines etc with very large caches to avoid going to di

Re: TCO comparison Intel vs EC12 IFLs

: 607-348-8197 IBM Smarter Planet, Smarter Data Centers Virtualization and Enterprise System Management Technologies From: "Harder, Pieter" <pieter.har...@brabantwater.nl> To: LINUX-390@VM.MARIST.EDU Date: 02/03/2016 05:41 AM Subject:Re: TCO comparison Intel v

Re: TCO comparison Intel vs EC12 IFLs

ter > Sent: Wednesday, February 03, 2016 5:39 AM > To: LINUX-390@VM.MARIST.EDU > Subject: Re: TCO comparison Intel vs EC12 IFLs > > Quite right. You have to consider the whole stack, from storage/networking to > the hipervisor, guest OS, database and the applications. > If you only cons

Re: TCO comparison Intel vs EC12 IFLs

3, 2016 3:39 AM > To: LINUX-390@VM.MARIST.EDU > Subject: Re: TCO comparison Intel vs EC12 IFLs > > Quite right. You have to consider the whole stack, from storage/networking > to the hipervisor, guest OS, database and the applications. > If you only consider that a Xeon is cheap

Re: TCO comparison Intel vs EC12 IFLs

will be. Van: Linux on 390 Port <LINUX-390@VM.MARIST.EDU> namens Sergey Korzhevsky <s_korzhev...@iba.by> Verzonden: woensdag 3 februari 2016 09:44 Aan: LINUX-390@VM.MARIST.EDU Onderwerp: Re: TCO comparison Intel vs EC12 IFLs Just to add 5 cents. Besides h

Re: TCO comparison Intel vs EC12 IFLs

On 2016-02-02 14:54, Harder, Pieter wrote: I think there is another factor involved. On x86 you usually run database engines etc with very large caches to avoid going to disk. On z this is much less of a penalty because of the powerful I/O subsystem. I have some experience with this as we moved

Re: TCO comparison Intel vs EC12 IFLs

EDU> namens Philipp Kern <pk...@debian.org> Verzonden: dinsdag 2 februari 2016 22:24 Aan: LINUX-390@VM.MARIST.EDU Onderwerp: Re: TCO comparison Intel vs EC12 IFLs On 2016-02-02 14:54, Harder, Pieter wrote: > I think there is another factor involved. On x86 you usually run > da

Re: TCO comparison Intel vs EC12 IFLs

On 2016-02-01 19:18, Eduardo Oliveira wrote: Also the amount of memory required to run equivalent work is normally less on the z Systems than the aggregated memory from the x86 systems. What is this based upon? I can see that if you go to exploit some z technology very deeply (DCSS, XIP, etc),

Re: TCO comparison Intel vs EC12 IFLs

ison Intel vs EC12 IFLs Any TCO comparisons of Intel x86 processors (vmware) vs EC12 IFLs that is not authored by IBM? We are comparing costs on a EC12 14 IFL system running WMB, WAS, and DB2 vs running this on an x86 solution running vmware. Looking for information on how many x86 cores w

Re: TCO comparison Intel vs EC12 IFLs

Envoyé : lundi 1 février 2016 19:19 À : LINUX-390@VM.MARIST.EDU Objet : Re: TCO comparison Intel vs EC12 IFLs You would need to qualify the situation... there is no magic formula to convert x86 cores to IFLs, each case depends upon many variables, for instance: - Which Intel X86 technology is being

Re: TCO comparison Intel vs EC12 IFLs

-Oorspronkelijk bericht- Van: Linux on 390 Port [mailto:LINUX-390@VM.MARIST.EDU] Namens PROT Pierre-François Verzonden: dinsdag 2 februari 2016 14:45 Aan: LINUX-390@VM.MARIST.EDU Onderwerp: Re: TCO comparison Intel vs EC12 IFLs Hello, I also often hear the same argument from IBM about

Re: TCO comparison Intel vs EC12 IFLs

>>> On 2/2/2016 at 05:45 AM, Philipp Kern wrote: > On 2016-02-01 19:18, Eduardo Oliveira wrote: >> Also the amount of memory required to run equivalent work is normally >> less on >> the z Systems than the aggregated memory from the x86 systems. > > What is this based upon? I

Re: TCO comparison Intel vs EC12 IFLs

chnologies From: "Will, Chris" <cw...@bcbsm.com> To: LINUX-390@VM.MARIST.EDU Date: 02/01/2016 12:39 PM Subject: TCO comparison Intel vs EC12 IFLs Sent by:Linux on 390 Port <LINUX-390@VM.MARIST.EDU> Any TCO comparisons of Intel x86 processors (vmware) vs

Re: TCO comparison Intel vs EC12 IFLs

>>> On 2/1/2016 at 12:37 PM, "Will, Chris" wrote: > Any TCO comparisons of Intel x86 processors (vmware) vs EC12 IFLs that is not > authored by IBM? We are comparing costs on a EC12 14 IFL system running WMB, > WAS, and DB2 vs running this on an x86 solution running vmware.

TCO comparison Intel vs EC12 IFLs

Any TCO comparisons of Intel x86 processors (vmware) vs EC12 IFLs that is not authored by IBM? We are comparing costs on a EC12 14 IFL system running WMB, WAS, and DB2 vs running this on an x86 solution running vmware. Looking for information on how many x86 cores would be needed to replace

Re: TCO comparison Intel vs EC12 IFLs

Group / IBM Wave / RACE / Fit for Purpose / Linux on z / Virtualization / zChampion Alumni From: "Will, Chris" <cw...@bcbsm.com> To: LINUX-390@VM.MARIST.EDU Date: 02/01/2016 12:39 PM Subject: TCO comparison Intel vs EC12 IFLs Sent by:Linux on 390 Port <LINU