Well, it is murky if you start generalising that way. The equivalent of Kubernetes in the Mainframe world would be Parallel Sysplex - where there is a cluster o

Well, it is murky if you start generalising that way. The equivalent of Kubernetes in the Mainframe world would be Parallel Sysplex - where there is a cluster of Mainframe servers that co-ordinate with each other and take over upon failure or over load of other participants of the cluster. A single system Z is vertically integrated and scaled. Now, I was talking about a single operating system that can handle a hotplug out/in of several of its CPUs without any kind of service degradation. Sure, I can throw in a few x86 servers, and achieve the similar convenience using say load balancer, floating IP, shared storage, and whatever else is needed for a full switch over. You see where I'm getting at. Complexity that is on YOUR plate. I'm not denying that Kubernetes gives a taste of such resilience for the common folks, just saying that the IBM system Z's engineered solution is on a different level that is just not what Kubernetes is aimed at. As a side rant, Kubernetes is a magic layer for most of the users, that it is glorious until they hit the first serious problem that makes them scratch their head and look at their complex black box differently. With Mainframes, the banks just call IBM :-)