3 ms·

Interesting how they assume static loads, 1-to-1 transferability from x86 to whatever architecture the Z wants to run (s390x?), and that admins for IBM systems

Interesting how they assume static loads, 1-to-1 transferability from x86 to whatever architecture the Z wants to run (s390x?), and that admins for IBM systems are as available as x86. It seems that this would never work in a fast moving and fast scaling environment, and the added 'special' sauce makes it incompatible with the broader FOSS ecosystem (including when "it really is the same as Linux on x86" - which it never is). Say you really do run the RHEL+Apache Webserver+Websphere+MQ+Oracle stack, are you really in a position to make sane choices anyway? Better yet, if I have 10 people doing shared services on a public cloud supporting 150 developers developing applications that run on K8S that scales from 10% to 1000% on a daily basis. How would this IBM mainframe (or even the ancient vSphere 4.0 on blades) deliver any value over K8s and a cloud? Do I fire 100 developers to then hire 20 IBM auditors, 20 IBM mainframe maintainers and 10 legacy developers? Because cost-wise that would be the same, yet output-wise it wouldn't nearly deliver the value we would have had before. And on top of that, the data tables are images? wtf? I'm sure you can construct a scenario where a mainframe would 'win' (as if there is such a thing, only 'fit' matters), but commodity workloads on commodity resources has 'won' a decade ago. The only ones that are stuck are specialist cases or 'classic' multinationals.

ClumsyPilot 5y ago
None of your points really hit at the merits of the meainframe,I think you are trying to shoehorn a rent-vs-buy discussion into this, and there are many scenarios where running your own servers is waay cheaper. Maybe your business doesnt fit that schenario - and thats fine. Then maybe the datacenter you are running on would be buying it.
game_the0ry 5y ago
SWE working in financial services here. Have some insight into decision making wrt tech. > How would this IBM mainframe (or even the ancient vSphere 4.0 on blades) deliver any value over K8s and a cloud? There value is in mitigating risk. The engineers want the new and shiny toys and for all the right reasons (development velocity, etc), but the managers fear change bc change == risk. > Because cost-wise that would be the same, yet output-wise it wouldn't nearly deliver the value we would have had before. Likely, you are right, but the budget committee will exercise some financial gymnastics in order to justify the outcome they want, instead of the budget dictating decision making. > The only ones that are stuck are specialist cases or 'classic' multinationals. Wrt banks, they are stuck on cultural inertia and risk mitigation.
giantg2 5y ago
"... and that admins for IBM systems are as available as x86." Yep. My organization is trying to move away from mainframe and COBOL due to limitations in available personnel. The systems perform well, but that doesn't matter if we can't find people to keep them running.
pc86 5y ago
> It seems that this would never work in a fast moving and fast scaling environment A fast moving environment by definition would never even consider mainframe computing. And most places who would consider mainframes are already at whatever scale they will be at the conceivable future. I used to work for a public healthcare company in the US that used mainframes extensively and when I was there we legally couldn't open any new locations. The only way to grow the business at all was to acquire existing ones, a multi-year process. So any changes or integrations typically had 12-18 months of lead time, and this was after everything was negotiated and signed. We typically heard about it a few months before that so sometimes up to two years. And as you can imagine with the amount of red tape and regulation around healthcare, and the requirements around being on the stock exchange, change control was a pretty arduous process.
rbanffy 5y ago
> and that admins for IBM systems are as available as x86. If the VM runs Linux, it's just Linux running on s390x. It's no weirder than ARM and has been on the Linux server market for far longer. I think you can install Linux directly on an LPAR. The part admins will need to learn is zVM, which isn't much more complicated than KVM or vSphere (and is much easier than K8s). The hardest part is the jargon and acronyms: IBM invented a lot of things that other manufacturers named differently. > and the added 'special' sauce makes it incompatible with the broader FOSS ecosystem (including when "it really is the same as Linux on x86" - which it never is) A mainframe usually can run Linux on zVM and it behaves just like a 5.2GHz VM with a very fast IO subsystem. From the top, it just looks like a very large computer that can run a lot of VMs in a single system. IBM started hitting diminishing returns with the number of cores and that's why core counts aren't increasing as they do on ARM and x86. Under Linux, the cores do SMT2. > How would this IBM mainframe (or even the ancient vSphere 4.0 on blades) deliver any value over K8s and a cloud? zVM is very mature technology and Z hardware and software have been coevolving for longer than most of us have been alive. More interestingly, you can partition your mainframe (into LPARs) and have several completely separated and isolated systems. It’s below zVM, so it doesn’t even suspect it doesn’t have the machine for itself. It's very common to run production, staging and development on the same system this way, as if you had three separate machines. > 10 legacy developers? Unless you plan to deploy your web app written in COBOL running on CICS and zOS, I'd suggest using different tools. If you already have systems running on zOS, you can easily access them from Linux VMs hosted on the same machine, through an imaginary network that's really fast (because it's not really a network). > Because cost-wise that would be the same, yet output-wise it wouldn't nearly deliver the value we would have had before. As the article points out, the mainframe itself is a little more costly, but the operational cost is lower. The convenience of having a single very reliable system instead of a cluster of less reliable ones can't be ignored. As Seymour Cray once said, it's better to plow a field with two strong oxen than with 1024 chickens. There are downsides - IBM doesn't have these machines in stock the same way you can order a Dell, and ordering one is not a simple process - they'll build one for you, tailored to your needs. They'll probably deliver it with a couple extra CPUs so that when you need to upgrade it, you just pay the license and activate those resources. One cool thing the z15 does is to activate all processors on boot to speed up the process. After the machine is running, the parts you didn't pay for shut down and the machine continues working.

ClumsyPilot 5y ago

None of your points really hit at the merits of the meainframe,I think you are trying to shoehorn a rent-vs-buy discussion into this, and there are many scenarios where running your own servers is waay cheaper. Maybe your business doesnt fit that schenario - and thats fine. Then maybe the datacenter you are running on would be buying it.

game_the0ry 5y ago

SWE working in financial services here. Have some insight into decision making wrt tech. > How would this IBM mainframe (or even the ancient vSphere 4.0 on blades) deliver any value over K8s and a cloud? There value is in mitigating risk. The engineers want the new and shiny toys and for all the right reasons (development velocity, etc), but the managers fear change bc change == risk. > Because cost-wise that would be the same, yet output-wise it wouldn't nearly deliver the value we would have had before. Likely, you are right, but the budget committee will exercise some financial gymnastics in order to justify the outcome they want, instead of the budget dictating decision making. > The only ones that are stuck are specialist cases or 'classic' multinationals. Wrt banks, they are stuck on cultural inertia and risk mitigation.

giantg2 5y ago

"... and that admins for IBM systems are as available as x86." Yep. My organization is trying to move away from mainframe and COBOL due to limitations in available personnel. The systems perform well, but that doesn't matter if we can't find people to keep them running.

pc86 5y ago

> It seems that this would never work in a fast moving and fast scaling environment A fast moving environment by definition would never even consider mainframe computing. And most places who would consider mainframes are already at whatever scale they will be at the conceivable future. I used to work for a public healthcare company in the US that used mainframes extensively and when I was there we legally couldn't open any new locations. The only way to grow the business at all was to acquire existing ones, a multi-year process. So any changes or integrations typically had 12-18 months of lead time, and this was after everything was negotiated and signed. We typically heard about it a few months before that so sometimes up to two years. And as you can imagine with the amount of red tape and regulation around healthcare, and the requirements around being on the stock exchange, change control was a pretty arduous process.

rbanffy 5y ago

> and that admins for IBM systems are as available as x86. If the VM runs Linux, it's just Linux running on s390x. It's no weirder than ARM and has been on the Linux server market for far longer. I think you can install Linux directly on an LPAR. The part admins will need to learn is zVM, which isn't much more complicated than KVM or vSphere (and is much easier than K8s). The hardest part is the jargon and acronyms: IBM invented a lot of things that other manufacturers named differently. > and the added 'special' sauce makes it incompatible with the broader FOSS ecosystem (including when "it really is the same as Linux on x86" - which it never is) A mainframe usually can run Linux on zVM and it behaves just like a 5.2GHz VM with a very fast IO subsystem. From the top, it just looks like a very large computer that can run a lot of VMs in a single system. IBM started hitting diminishing returns with the number of cores and that's why core counts aren't increasing as they do on ARM and x86. Under Linux, the cores do SMT2. > How would this IBM mainframe (or even the ancient vSphere 4.0 on blades) deliver any value over K8s and a cloud? zVM is very mature technology and Z hardware and software have been coevolving for longer than most of us have been alive. More interestingly, you can partition your mainframe (into LPARs) and have several completely separated and isolated systems. It’s below zVM, so it doesn’t even suspect it doesn’t have the machine for itself. It's very common to run production, staging and development on the same system this way, as if you had three separate machines. > 10 legacy developers? Unless you plan to deploy your web app written in COBOL running on CICS and zOS, I'd suggest using different tools. If you already have systems running on zOS, you can easily access them from Linux VMs hosted on the same machine, through an imaginary network that's really fast (because it's not really a network). > Because cost-wise that would be the same, yet output-wise it wouldn't nearly deliver the value we would have had before. As the article points out, the mainframe itself is a little more costly, but the operational cost is lower. The convenience of having a single very reliable system instead of a cluster of less reliable ones can't be ignored. As Seymour Cray once said, it's better to plow a field with two strong oxen than with 1024 chickens. There are downsides - IBM doesn't have these machines in stock the same way you can order a Dell, and ordering one is not a simple process - they'll build one for you, tailored to your needs. They'll probably deliver it with a couple extra CPUs so that when you need to upgrade it, you just pay the license and activate those resources. One cool thing the z15 does is to activate all processors on boot to speed up the process. After the machine is running, the parts you didn't pay for shut down and the machine continues working.