4 ms·
If your software stack has per core licensing, a z/architecture mainframe can make a lot of sense. They are extremely efficient at running virtual machines (wi
by DigitalJack 11y ago
If your software stack has per core licensing, a z/architecture mainframe can make a lot of sense. They are extremely efficient at running virtual machines (with linux guests for example). Where an Intel cluster can handle 10-20 VMs per core, a z/arch mainframe can do 100s per core.
They have dedicated processors for offloading IO operations, which has a big impact on reducing pipeline stalls, and also part of why they are so much better at handling a multitude of VMs.
They have 4 levels of cache, with gigabytes of memory at level 4, data is kept close to the processors.
The hardware costs a lot, but if your software is licensed per core, there is a good chance you could save millions compared to an Intel solution. It depends on your usage scenario though. If everything is open source and you aren't paying per core fees, then there is probably no advantage for you.
- Spooky23 11y agocough Oracle cough Just be careful with this strategy. When you could start offloading per-socket IBM licensed software to more performant multi-core Intel or POWER CPUs, IBM switched from socket to "Processor Value Units". (Aka "give us more money")
- savramescu 11y agoA single core is not equivalent to a hexa core so I think PVU's make more sense in today's world. What I would like from them is to be more transparent with the requirement to use ILMT.
- MichaelGG 11y agoWho licenses per core but then ignores virtualization? (For apps where you aren't throughput bound.)