9 ms·

IBM unveils z-series with 5.5 GHz CPU and hardware transactional memory.

192 points by TallGuyShort 14y ago

zmonkeyz 14y ago
Great hardware but we just upgraded to the z196. Maybe in a couple of years :)
breckinloggins 14y ago
Can anyone who works with big iron regale us with tales of modern mainframes? These days it seems the term "mainframe" is associated with the 70s and 80s (and COBOL!), but I'm pretty sure the contemporary mainframe market has a bunch of cool stuff that we mere mortals hardly get to hear about.
- jacques_chester 14y ago
  A friend of mine worked for several years as a dinosaur herder and still does on-call work for his employer's data centre. Basically it's a different universe. Everything that might be familiar to someone with a unix or windows background is ... different. More eldritch. More powerful and yet more obtuse. Oh and JCL. JCL is the devil's work. One thing they did that I thought was cool was to consolidate a bunch of Linux servers onto their mainframes. They replaced a few racks with z/VM instances. If they needed another server, they could spin it up in literally seconds if the template was already loaded. This was back in 2004, 2005. You don't buy (actually: rent) a mainframe (actually: CPU cycles and RAM capacity) because it's cost-effective. You do so because the system absolutely must work and you have a mind-numbing number of transactions to process in a hurry.
  - Nerdfest 14y ago
    If you need it done in a hurry, you don't use a mainframe. Their performance is actually quite poor compared to pretty much anything else, as is the cost per transaction. In general, if you need a machine where the hardware never fails, and you can't get the level you need with a cluster, you use a mainframe. Of course, it's still human error that bites you in the ass every time anyway. These days, you really only use a mainframe if that's all you have.
    - astrodust 14y ago
      By "pretty much anything else" you mean what, exactly?
- josho 14y ago
  Ex-IBMer here. I worked with WebSphere (IBM's Java App Server) on zOS, and am by no means a Z-series expert. My understanding is that these machines are amazing at IO, and handle virtualized environments incredibly well (and have so for decades) (e.g. thousands of Linux machines running). If you need raw CPU performance then a mainframe is not for you. If you need competitive pricing then a mainframe is not for you. If you have a mainframe and need a have an expiring agreement then this machine may be for you. If you have legacy mainframe code then this machine may be for you. I remember watching a financial update from Sam Palmisano (IBM's previous CEO). I swear he started to drool when referring to IBM's mainframe margins. From my experience mainframes are for legacy companies with legacy systems, as they are not price competitive with other markets that experience real market competition. But, it is interesting and incredibly reliable hardware.
  - continuations 14y ago
    > My understanding is that these machines are amazing at IO What makes them amazing at IO? Isn't IO more a result of what type of disks a computer has? An SAS 15k disk can only do 300 iops whether it's a mainframe or a commodity server, no?
    - elq 14y ago
      Think throughput... Lots of cache memory and very fast buses to very large external disk arrays. An old mainframe trick was to use the previous generation hardware as the IO controller for the current generation...
    - jacques_chester 14y ago
      Mainframes tend to have prodigious amounts of expensive, unusually fast, specialised RAM. And then they have extremely smart controller hardware that the OSes can hand off almost everything off to. And this is a theme replicated throughout mainframe design. Everything is replicated, all pathways are wide as possible, everything is integrated from the hardware up to the application layer. Take virtualisation, for instance. IBM mainframes have PR/SM, a hardware-level capability to virtualise everything in the system down to the lowest level of granularity. And they've done this since 1985.
- bri3d 14y ago
  A not-so-modern but fun anecdote: My father worked on a product called SnapVantage in the late 90s and early 2000s, which basically used the copy-on-write abilities of the virtualized mainframe disk in a StorageTek disk array combined with z/Linux and z/VM as a hypervisor to instantly provision and boot Linux machines. It looked like a very, very toned down version of the AWS management console, with a near-identical ability to select a distribution, upload SSH keys, find an IP, and have a full, running VM in seconds... but this was in 1999, when watching a Linux box "copy," provision, and come up in just a few seconds was mind-blowing. I used my nascent Perl skills (as a ten-year-old) to write the installer for the host software, which I believe actually shipped to customers nearly unmodified! The zSeries still supports a lot of battle-hardened HA features like lock-step execution, hot CPU fail-over, and hot-swap memory and IO which are very rare, esoteric, and hence hard to support in the x86 world (and rare, esoteric, and untested is not what you want in your HA system). Plus, the number of VMs that can run well on a z/Linux and z/VM environment is amazing - we had hundreds and hundreds of instances running on one zSeries. There's a very full-featured zSeries emulator called Hercules which will allow you to run z/OS and z/VM (if you can find them, of course). There's also a distribution of MVS 3.8j, the 1980s System 370 / System 390 precursor to z/OS, available for Hercules for free if you want to get a taste of what administering such a system is like. A lot of obscure job-scripting languages like JCL and early scripting languages like REXX were developed for early mainframes and still live on today.
- vyrotek 14y ago
  My father has worked for IBM, Airlines and Credit Card companies developing on their mainframes. I believe the the system is called z/TPF? I can't recall any specific stats or stories right now but you can imagine the discussions between a father who develops primarily with Assembly and a son (me) who ended up being a .NET developer working on various startups. We've had a few talks about the 'cloud' mostly resulting in him laughing at what we call 'web scale'.
  - parasubvert 14y ago
    I had a number of mainframe mentors back in the 90s who taught me about TPF... TPF is an OS, transaction processing & database system that was written in mainframe assembler and deployed in 1979 to run SABRE and a few other core transaction systems (VISA, AMEX, Marriott hotels, etc.) - maybe 100 customers still use it today - and it was a descendent of a previous assembler system developed in the 1960's. It probably was (and is) the closest system to "web scale" through the 80's and 90s's in that it ran some of the highest volume workloads globally (e.g. 5000-10000+ tps back in the 80s / 90s, 25000+ tps today) at 99.99% availability. In context, Twitter hits 10-15k tweets per second during big sports events. These days it's extremely expensive and slow to make changes to TPF relative to modern technology (as it traditionally required S/370 or S/390 assembler, though these days requires C). IBM has a newer version called z/TPF which makes it easier to code in C or C++ and communicate with the outside world via web services, etc. A very different world...
    - vyrotek 14y ago
      Thank you for this! :) maybe 100 customers still use it today Indeed it does seem like there are only a few companies that use this stuff. Like you said, you had to be a pretty big company with massive amounts of transactions to merit it. He's actually contracting with the IRS right working on some newer systems to handle your tax returns. (He tells me every year it's a miracle you get your tax returns every year on the old system) Whenever he's looking for a new gig he basically has a set list of contacts he goes through. It seems like almost all the developers of these systems know each other.
  - 14y ago
- underplank 14y ago
  I used to develop software for system-z(2 years ago). As someone else said, if you are already using mainframes, get another one. If you arent, pretty much you can ignore them. Their hardware is of higher quality, but I think their uptime has more to do with the hermetic seal of human process that exists around the installations. You can't get anything changed in production, ever. And thats fine, because banks have been doing the same thing for the last 30 years. I don't actually think performance wise they have anything on a cluster of x86 servers. But its hard to benchmark things like that accurately. From a developer point of view, its not a great technology stack to work on. Its old and out dated, and is pretty incompatible with other platforms. EBCDIC is a pain, 3270 terminal is a pain. Having to allocate files manually is a pain. Having actually about 7 different types of files is a pain. Its really all a pain. Just dont go there. Also, I found that guys who had been working on mainframes for a really long time have a pretty outdated view of what the "distributed" world has to offer. A lot of the time they dont understand what "web Scale" at the level of google, facebook et al are operating at. As an additional funny annecdote, the I/O that a lot of people have been talking about is now conventional if high end disk array's AFAIK. But internally the disks are emulated for the OS to look like the disks it was using back in like 1975. Thats how it gets backwards compatibility, just dont change anything.
  - breckinloggins 14y ago
    As a technologist I'm always excited about new stuff, but there's another part of me that thinks it's really neat that some of the world's most important software was written 30 - 50 years ago and still works just fine. Can you imagine a time 1000 years into the future where software written today might still be in use? How cool would that be?!
    - wazoox 14y ago
      I'm currently reading a book written in the 1170s, so I can imagine that :)
      - arethuza 14y ago
        And I've just finished the Iliad (in translation) which dates from about 800BC describing events of ~1250BC. It's a bit like the descendants thing that was discussed a few days ago on here - either lots of stuff will survive the next 1000 years (and therefore lots of running code will) or almost nothing will.
- jlarocco 14y ago
  The Wikipedia article [1] is a pretty good summary. The main advantages are basically very high IO throughput, very good fault tolerance, and very good backwards compatibility. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mainframe_computer#Characteristics
- maigret 14y ago
  The mainframe scheduler is fantastic. z/OS has the capability of limiting the resource usages in different dimensions, including memory use. You can give priorities to processes, which means that you can define what is business critical and what is not. If the workload goes too high for the machine, then low priority work just waits. In any case, I'd advise anyone who can have a try at mainframe to give a look, even if just because it's one of the still used non-Unix based systems.
- noselasd 14y ago
  They're wicked cool in every way except the cost. This one is worth listening to, for learning a bit about mainframes: http://www.se-radio.net/2012/03/episode-184-the-mainframe-with-jeff-frey/ http://www.se-radio.net/2012/03/episode-184-the-mainframe-wi...
- no-truth 14y ago
  The trend at the moment is having java based web applications that interface with a mainframe. So we have a web front end that interfaces with a mainframe that processes/stores the data. Most companies are trying to stop using the mainframe so much, it is laughable though because they are moving from mainframe based solutions, to mainframe based solutions.
- gadders 14y ago
  I think the best thing is the capacity plan for, say, unexpected trading volumes is as simple as "Ring IBM and get more capacity unlocked."
- dgudkov 14y ago
  When I was working for IBM (software group) I heard anecdotes that in case of accident power outage mainframes can continue execution exactly from the same CPU instruction where it stopped and absolutely no data is lost. I don't know if it's true or not but this sounds cool.
jacques_chester 14y ago
The funny thing is that IBM and other major DP firms have had cloud servers for years. Decades, even. You just can't get to it with a credit card. I've sometimes thought that a cloud provider backed onto z/VMs could be a nifty business model. Sure, you'd be priced above even the "expensive" providers like AWS; but then ... it's a mainframe. At the very least your customers would get hipster cred, which tends to attract a massive markup.
- justincormack 14y ago
  I think only IBM would offer such a service...
- EwanToo 14y ago
  I'm struggling to find it, but I'm certain a germany company said they would launch a service to access Linux VMs running on zSeries. The IBM SmartCloud Enterprise+ Service (what amazing names IBM comes up with) does incorporate zSeries machines. http://www-935.ibm.com/services/us/en/managed-cloud-hosting/ http://www-935.ibm.com/services/us/en/managed-cloud-hosting/
carlic578 14y ago
Putting these in place this weekend :)
- breckinloggins 14y ago
  Just watched the intro video for the water-cooled EC12. I know nothing about mainframes other than what I've learned reading this thread and scanning IBM's website, but man that thing looks wicked. I really like the "RAIM" stuff that's apparently new. It seems like a similar idea not only to RAID, but also to this "lockstep execution" thing I just read about. I suppose the idea is that you can configure all or certain memory slots to be slaves such that all reads and writes are identical, or does this RAIM stuff also have RAIM with parity for reconstruction plus storage size increase? Also, is the ability to install this thing on a normal (non-raised floor) pretty new, or has that been an optional feature of larger mainframes for a while? Finally, the guy in the video mentioned some Java stuff. Do these things typically see lots of Java use or are they mostly programmed closer to the metal?
  - TallGuyShort 14y ago
    They used to be commonly programmed very close to the metal. The assembly languages for the System 360 and 370 machines (40 - 50 years ago) were well suited to processing records of data. These days, I believe using these as hypervisors to hundreds of Linux VMs is more common. IBM has their own Java implementation, but I don't know what it's adoption is like in the mainframe industry.
    - Nerdfest 14y ago
      hey actually sell special processors that run Java for 'Free'. Most people don't know that IBM charges you for 'MIPS'. They actually charge you for using your computer. They have some other specialized processors as well ... all are very expensive.
      - spitfire 14y ago
        I remember looking it up a while ago, for a processor to "run" Linux cost $28K at the time. Not at all sure how many VM's you cuould support there.
lotharbot 14y ago
The actual system information can be found at http://www.redbooks.ibm.com/redbooks.nsf/RedpieceAbstracts/sg248049.html?Open http://www.redbooks.ibm.com/redbooks.nsf/RedpieceAbstracts/s... As someone who never has need to touch a mainframe, it's quite strange to look through this. It's not the 120 processor cores and 3 TB of RAM that surprise me; it's things like the cooling system and the I/O system that are so different from what I'm used to from working on a desktop system.
- datapolitical 14y ago
  One of the things I always appreciated about Silicon Graphics was just how different their design was from anything else on the market. It's not exactly the computer that the world will only need five of, but focusing on machines like this is certainly closer to IBM's roots.
- lallysingh 14y ago
  There's also the fact that the 120 cores are all in one cache-coherent domain...
carlesfe 14y ago
I work with supercomputers. Mainframes are very, very extended nowadays. Researchers use them, the government uses them, some big business use them. From my point of view, there are four "mainframe" concepts, and one of them is not a monolithic mainframe per se: 1. Supercomputers: thousands of CPUs, each with access to a few gigabytes of RAM, which can run massively parallel jobs 2. Shared memory machines: 64-256 CPUs, each of them can access to 0.5-2TB of memory 3. GPUs: Hundreds of CPUs, each with access to 1-4 GPUs and a few gigabytes of RAM, to run highly parallel vector jobs 4. Clusters: Commodity hardware (either racked or workstations) connected by a network which uses a queue system The first three belong to the modern implementation of the mainframe, the last one is a "supercomputing"-like facility, built with regular hardware. This brings us to OP's article, and to my main point. There are many research centres, business and government which use them, but there is a trend towards using regular Intel processors instead of mainframe-like vector processors. Why? Because they're easier to program for. Us at the Barcelona Supercomputing Center have worked with ppc, ppc64, cell, ia64, i686 and x86_64 architectures, and here's what happened. Some of these architectures don't have debugging/profiling tools available. I joke with my colleagues about how it has been 10 years from the first CPU with hyperthreading and we still don't have fully automated tools to take advantage of parallelism on legacy code. We know it's difficult to do, but that has to be taken into account when planning to buy a new machine. Old code might run slower on the new machine because of the highly parallelism but lower raw speed. Others (cell) are just so difficult to optimize that we needed 2 postdocs working 2 years only to make a matrix multiplication take about 80% of the full computing power. I'll only say that our next machine was going to be a Cell supercomputer, but that idea was dropped after a scientific panel advised against it. Some months ago I took a course on GPU programming, and for those of you who have never programmed on vector processors, it is like the Hello World in brainfuck. My CS degree+masters wasn't just enough. It is overwhelming. The guy teaching the course was a PhD with 3 year experience programming GPUs, and he admitted that most of the times, if you compare the time it takes for you to program on a GPU with the time you save running the software, it is just not worth it. Hey, sometimes it is, and you save a lot of time. But not for most cases. So we're back to regular Intel processors again. What I'm trying to say is that nowadays we buy machines for different purposes (large number of cores, large amount of memory, large throughput for vector multiplication, etc) but most of them are x86_64. GPUs are an exception because we buy software which has already been adapted to vector operations, but somebody had to spend many days adapting the code. We work with Intel and IBM and we have access to the most recent CPUs and tools. IBM makes great hardware but they don't have anybody writing a development framework for that hardware, so you never reach even 70% of its peak throughput. TL;DR: Yes, many companies use mainframes, but most of them try to put x86_64 processors in there, because they are easier to parallelise and there are many tested programming tools available.
wtracy 14y ago
Can anyone comment on the implications of hardware transactional memory here?
- ithkuil 14y ago
  I only found this http://www.eetimes.com/electronics-news/4218914/IBM-plants-transactional-memory-in-CPU http://www.eetimes.com/electronics-news/4218914/IBM-plants-t... any other info?
islon 14y ago
"curl http://www-03.ibm.com/press/us/en/pressrelease/38653.wss http://www-03.ibm.com/press/us/en/pressrelease/38653.wss | grep -io enterprise | wc -l" >44 This new CPU is very "enterprisey".

192 points by TallGuyShort 14y ago

Great hardware but we just upgraded to the z196. Maybe in a couple of years :)

Can anyone who works with big iron regale us with tales of modern mainframes? These days it seems the term "mainframe" is associated with the 70s and 80s (and COBOL!), but I'm pretty sure the contemporary mainframe market has a bunch of cool stuff that we mere mortals hardly get to hear about.

jacques_chester 14y ago
A friend of mine worked for several years as a dinosaur herder and still does on-call work for his employer's data centre. Basically it's a different universe. Everything that might be familiar to someone with a unix or windows background is ... different. More eldritch. More powerful and yet more obtuse. Oh and JCL. JCL is the devil's work. One thing they did that I thought was cool was to consolidate a bunch of Linux servers onto their mainframes. They replaced a few racks with z/VM instances. If they needed another server, they could spin it up in literally seconds if the template was already loaded. This was back in 2004, 2005. You don't buy (actually: rent) a mainframe (actually: CPU cycles and RAM capacity) because it's cost-effective. You do so because the system absolutely must work and you have a mind-numbing number of transactions to process in a hurry.
- Nerdfest 14y ago
  If you need it done in a hurry, you don't use a mainframe. Their performance is actually quite poor compared to pretty much anything else, as is the cost per transaction. In general, if you need a machine where the hardware never fails, and you can't get the level you need with a cluster, you use a mainframe. Of course, it's still human error that bites you in the ass every time anyway. These days, you really only use a mainframe if that's all you have.
  - astrodust 14y ago
    By "pretty much anything else" you mean what, exactly?
josho 14y ago
Ex-IBMer here. I worked with WebSphere (IBM's Java App Server) on zOS, and am by no means a Z-series expert. My understanding is that these machines are amazing at IO, and handle virtualized environments incredibly well (and have so for decades) (e.g. thousands of Linux machines running). If you need raw CPU performance then a mainframe is not for you. If you need competitive pricing then a mainframe is not for you. If you have a mainframe and need a have an expiring agreement then this machine may be for you. If you have legacy mainframe code then this machine may be for you. I remember watching a financial update from Sam Palmisano (IBM's previous CEO). I swear he started to drool when referring to IBM's mainframe margins. From my experience mainframes are for legacy companies with legacy systems, as they are not price competitive with other markets that experience real market competition. But, it is interesting and incredibly reliable hardware.
- continuations 14y ago
  > My understanding is that these machines are amazing at IO What makes them amazing at IO? Isn't IO more a result of what type of disks a computer has? An SAS 15k disk can only do 300 iops whether it's a mainframe or a commodity server, no?
  - elq 14y ago
    Think throughput... Lots of cache memory and very fast buses to very large external disk arrays. An old mainframe trick was to use the previous generation hardware as the IO controller for the current generation...
  - jacques_chester 14y ago
    Mainframes tend to have prodigious amounts of expensive, unusually fast, specialised RAM. And then they have extremely smart controller hardware that the OSes can hand off almost everything off to. And this is a theme replicated throughout mainframe design. Everything is replicated, all pathways are wide as possible, everything is integrated from the hardware up to the application layer. Take virtualisation, for instance. IBM mainframes have PR/SM, a hardware-level capability to virtualise everything in the system down to the lowest level of granularity. And they've done this since 1985.
bri3d 14y ago
A not-so-modern but fun anecdote: My father worked on a product called SnapVantage in the late 90s and early 2000s, which basically used the copy-on-write abilities of the virtualized mainframe disk in a StorageTek disk array combined with z/Linux and z/VM as a hypervisor to instantly provision and boot Linux machines. It looked like a very, very toned down version of the AWS management console, with a near-identical ability to select a distribution, upload SSH keys, find an IP, and have a full, running VM in seconds... but this was in 1999, when watching a Linux box "copy," provision, and come up in just a few seconds was mind-blowing. I used my nascent Perl skills (as a ten-year-old) to write the installer for the host software, which I believe actually shipped to customers nearly unmodified! The zSeries still supports a lot of battle-hardened HA features like lock-step execution, hot CPU fail-over, and hot-swap memory and IO which are very rare, esoteric, and hence hard to support in the x86 world (and rare, esoteric, and untested is not what you want in your HA system). Plus, the number of VMs that can run well on a z/Linux and z/VM environment is amazing - we had hundreds and hundreds of instances running on one zSeries. There's a very full-featured zSeries emulator called Hercules which will allow you to run z/OS and z/VM (if you can find them, of course). There's also a distribution of MVS 3.8j, the 1980s System 370 / System 390 precursor to z/OS, available for Hercules for free if you want to get a taste of what administering such a system is like. A lot of obscure job-scripting languages like JCL and early scripting languages like REXX were developed for early mainframes and still live on today.
vyrotek 14y ago
My father has worked for IBM, Airlines and Credit Card companies developing on their mainframes. I believe the the system is called z/TPF? I can't recall any specific stats or stories right now but you can imagine the discussions between a father who develops primarily with Assembly and a son (me) who ended up being a .NET developer working on various startups. We've had a few talks about the 'cloud' mostly resulting in him laughing at what we call 'web scale'.
- parasubvert 14y ago
  I had a number of mainframe mentors back in the 90s who taught me about TPF... TPF is an OS, transaction processing & database system that was written in mainframe assembler and deployed in 1979 to run SABRE and a few other core transaction systems (VISA, AMEX, Marriott hotels, etc.) - maybe 100 customers still use it today - and it was a descendent of a previous assembler system developed in the 1960's. It probably was (and is) the closest system to "web scale" through the 80's and 90s's in that it ran some of the highest volume workloads globally (e.g. 5000-10000+ tps back in the 80s / 90s, 25000+ tps today) at 99.99% availability. In context, Twitter hits 10-15k tweets per second during big sports events. These days it's extremely expensive and slow to make changes to TPF relative to modern technology (as it traditionally required S/370 or S/390 assembler, though these days requires C). IBM has a newer version called z/TPF which makes it easier to code in C or C++ and communicate with the outside world via web services, etc. A very different world...
  - vyrotek 14y ago
    Thank you for this! :) maybe 100 customers still use it today Indeed it does seem like there are only a few companies that use this stuff. Like you said, you had to be a pretty big company with massive amounts of transactions to merit it. He's actually contracting with the IRS right working on some newer systems to handle your tax returns. (He tells me every year it's a miracle you get your tax returns every year on the old system) Whenever he's looking for a new gig he basically has a set list of contacts he goes through. It seems like almost all the developers of these systems know each other.
- 14y ago
underplank 14y ago
I used to develop software for system-z(2 years ago). As someone else said, if you are already using mainframes, get another one. If you arent, pretty much you can ignore them. Their hardware is of higher quality, but I think their uptime has more to do with the hermetic seal of human process that exists around the installations. You can't get anything changed in production, ever. And thats fine, because banks have been doing the same thing for the last 30 years. I don't actually think performance wise they have anything on a cluster of x86 servers. But its hard to benchmark things like that accurately. From a developer point of view, its not a great technology stack to work on. Its old and out dated, and is pretty incompatible with other platforms. EBCDIC is a pain, 3270 terminal is a pain. Having to allocate files manually is a pain. Having actually about 7 different types of files is a pain. Its really all a pain. Just dont go there. Also, I found that guys who had been working on mainframes for a really long time have a pretty outdated view of what the "distributed" world has to offer. A lot of the time they dont understand what "web Scale" at the level of google, facebook et al are operating at. As an additional funny annecdote, the I/O that a lot of people have been talking about is now conventional if high end disk array's AFAIK. But internally the disks are emulated for the OS to look like the disks it was using back in like 1975. Thats how it gets backwards compatibility, just dont change anything.
- breckinloggins 14y ago
  As a technologist I'm always excited about new stuff, but there's another part of me that thinks it's really neat that some of the world's most important software was written 30 - 50 years ago and still works just fine. Can you imagine a time 1000 years into the future where software written today might still be in use? How cool would that be?!
  - wazoox 14y ago
    I'm currently reading a book written in the 1170s, so I can imagine that :)
    - arethuza 14y ago
      And I've just finished the Iliad (in translation) which dates from about 800BC describing events of ~1250BC. It's a bit like the descendants thing that was discussed a few days ago on here - either lots of stuff will survive the next 1000 years (and therefore lots of running code will) or almost nothing will.
jlarocco 14y ago
The Wikipedia article [1] is a pretty good summary. The main advantages are basically very high IO throughput, very good fault tolerance, and very good backwards compatibility. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mainframe_computer#Characteristics
maigret 14y ago
The mainframe scheduler is fantastic. z/OS has the capability of limiting the resource usages in different dimensions, including memory use. You can give priorities to processes, which means that you can define what is business critical and what is not. If the workload goes too high for the machine, then low priority work just waits. In any case, I'd advise anyone who can have a try at mainframe to give a look, even if just because it's one of the still used non-Unix based systems.
noselasd 14y ago
They're wicked cool in every way except the cost. This one is worth listening to, for learning a bit about mainframes: http://www.se-radio.net/2012/03/episode-184-the-mainframe-with-jeff-frey/ http://www.se-radio.net/2012/03/episode-184-the-mainframe-wi...
no-truth 14y ago
The trend at the moment is having java based web applications that interface with a mainframe. So we have a web front end that interfaces with a mainframe that processes/stores the data. Most companies are trying to stop using the mainframe so much, it is laughable though because they are moving from mainframe based solutions, to mainframe based solutions.
gadders 14y ago
I think the best thing is the capacity plan for, say, unexpected trading volumes is as simple as "Ring IBM and get more capacity unlocked."
dgudkov 14y ago
When I was working for IBM (software group) I heard anecdotes that in case of accident power outage mainframes can continue execution exactly from the same CPU instruction where it stopped and absolutely no data is lost. I don't know if it's true or not but this sounds cool.

jacques_chester 14y ago

The funny thing is that IBM and other major DP firms have had cloud servers for years. Decades, even. You just can't get to it with a credit card. I've sometimes thought that a cloud provider backed onto z/VMs could be a nifty business model. Sure, you'd be priced above even the "expensive" providers like AWS; but then ... it's a mainframe. At the very least your customers would get hipster cred, which tends to attract a massive markup.

justincormack 14y ago
I think only IBM would offer such a service...
EwanToo 14y ago
I'm struggling to find it, but I'm certain a germany company said they would launch a service to access Linux VMs running on zSeries. The IBM SmartCloud Enterprise+ Service (what amazing names IBM comes up with) does incorporate zSeries machines. http://www-935.ibm.com/services/us/en/managed-cloud-hosting/ http://www-935.ibm.com/services/us/en/managed-cloud-hosting/

carlic578 14y ago

Putting these in place this weekend :)

breckinloggins 14y ago
Just watched the intro video for the water-cooled EC12. I know nothing about mainframes other than what I've learned reading this thread and scanning IBM's website, but man that thing looks wicked. I really like the "RAIM" stuff that's apparently new. It seems like a similar idea not only to RAID, but also to this "lockstep execution" thing I just read about. I suppose the idea is that you can configure all or certain memory slots to be slaves such that all reads and writes are identical, or does this RAIM stuff also have RAIM with parity for reconstruction plus storage size increase? Also, is the ability to install this thing on a normal (non-raised floor) pretty new, or has that been an optional feature of larger mainframes for a while? Finally, the guy in the video mentioned some Java stuff. Do these things typically see lots of Java use or are they mostly programmed closer to the metal?
- TallGuyShort 14y ago
  They used to be commonly programmed very close to the metal. The assembly languages for the System 360 and 370 machines (40 - 50 years ago) were well suited to processing records of data. These days, I believe using these as hypervisors to hundreds of Linux VMs is more common. IBM has their own Java implementation, but I don't know what it's adoption is like in the mainframe industry.
  - Nerdfest 14y ago
    hey actually sell special processors that run Java for 'Free'. Most people don't know that IBM charges you for 'MIPS'. They actually charge you for using your computer. They have some other specialized processors as well ... all are very expensive.
    - spitfire 14y ago
      I remember looking it up a while ago, for a processor to "run" Linux cost $28K at the time. Not at all sure how many VM's you cuould support there.

lotharbot 14y ago

The actual system information can be found at http://www.redbooks.ibm.com/redbooks.nsf/RedpieceAbstracts/sg248049.html?Open http://www.redbooks.ibm.com/redbooks.nsf/RedpieceAbstracts/s... As someone who never has need to touch a mainframe, it's quite strange to look through this. It's not the 120 processor cores and 3 TB of RAM that surprise me; it's things like the cooling system and the I/O system that are so different from what I'm used to from working on a desktop system.

datapolitical 14y ago
One of the things I always appreciated about Silicon Graphics was just how different their design was from anything else on the market. It's not exactly the computer that the world will only need five of, but focusing on machines like this is certainly closer to IBM's roots.
lallysingh 14y ago
There's also the fact that the 120 cores are all in one cache-coherent domain...

carlesfe 14y ago

I work with supercomputers. Mainframes are very, very extended nowadays. Researchers use them, the government uses them, some big business use them. From my point of view, there are four "mainframe" concepts, and one of them is not a monolithic mainframe per se: 1. Supercomputers: thousands of CPUs, each with access to a few gigabytes of RAM, which can run massively parallel jobs 2. Shared memory machines: 64-256 CPUs, each of them can access to 0.5-2TB of memory 3. GPUs: Hundreds of CPUs, each with access to 1-4 GPUs and a few gigabytes of RAM, to run highly parallel vector jobs 4. Clusters: Commodity hardware (either racked or workstations) connected by a network which uses a queue system The first three belong to the modern implementation of the mainframe, the last one is a "supercomputing"-like facility, built with regular hardware. This brings us to OP's article, and to my main point. There are many research centres, business and government which use them, but there is a trend towards using regular Intel processors instead of mainframe-like vector processors. Why? Because they're easier to program for. Us at the Barcelona Supercomputing Center have worked with ppc, ppc64, cell, ia64, i686 and x86_64 architectures, and here's what happened. Some of these architectures don't have debugging/profiling tools available. I joke with my colleagues about how it has been 10 years from the first CPU with hyperthreading and we still don't have fully automated tools to take advantage of parallelism on legacy code. We know it's difficult to do, but that has to be taken into account when planning to buy a new machine. Old code might run slower on the new machine because of the highly parallelism but lower raw speed. Others (cell) are just so difficult to optimize that we needed 2 postdocs working 2 years only to make a matrix multiplication take about 80% of the full computing power. I'll only say that our next machine was going to be a Cell supercomputer, but that idea was dropped after a scientific panel advised against it. Some months ago I took a course on GPU programming, and for those of you who have never programmed on vector processors, it is like the Hello World in brainfuck. My CS degree+masters wasn't just enough. It is overwhelming. The guy teaching the course was a PhD with 3 year experience programming GPUs, and he admitted that most of the times, if you compare the time it takes for you to program on a GPU with the time you save running the software, it is just not worth it. Hey, sometimes it is, and you save a lot of time. But not for most cases. So we're back to regular Intel processors again. What I'm trying to say is that nowadays we buy machines for different purposes (large number of cores, large amount of memory, large throughput for vector multiplication, etc) but most of them are x86_64. GPUs are an exception because we buy software which has already been adapted to vector operations, but somebody had to spend many days adapting the code. We work with Intel and IBM and we have access to the most recent CPUs and tools. IBM makes great hardware but they don't have anybody writing a development framework for that hardware, so you never reach even 70% of its peak throughput. TL;DR: Yes, many companies use mainframes, but most of them try to put x86_64 processors in there, because they are easier to parallelise and there are many tested programming tools available.

wtracy 14y ago

Can anyone comment on the implications of hardware transactional memory here?

ithkuil 14y ago
I only found this http://www.eetimes.com/electronics-news/4218914/IBM-plants-transactional-memory-in-CPU http://www.eetimes.com/electronics-news/4218914/IBM-plants-t... any other info?

islon 14y ago

"curl http://www-03.ibm.com/press/us/en/pressrelease/38653.wss http://www-03.ibm.com/press/us/en/pressrelease/38653.wss | grep -io enterprise | wc -l" >44 This new CPU is very "enterprisey".