3 ms·

I'm curious what one might expect something like this to cost.

wmf 12y ago
For the previous generation: "IBM doesn’t publish prices for mainframes but the word on the street is that it is around $80,000 per core for a [Linux/Java core] compared to $400,000 per core for regular [cores] that mostly run z/OS" http://www.enterprisetech.com/2013/10/09/ibm-slashes-hardware-prices-push-linux-power/ http://www.enterprisetech.com/2013/10/09/ibm-slashes-hardwar... I'm not sure whether that's the amortized total price or just the activation after you've already bought the machine.
- qznc 12y ago
  Also the per-core licence is not the only position. You have to add a maintenance contract, buying the machine, firmware licence (which in this case is afaik a big Java application running on its own core), OS licence, setup, and probably more. This really is a cashcow of IBM, mostly because they own the "mainframe" trademark/monopoly and everybody who wants to sell a "mainframe" is sued out of the market. Without the "mainframe" title, you are dead in this market of ultra-conservative customers (banks,airlines,etc).
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
  - listic 12y ago
    I guess this this market of ultra-conservative customers are mostly US companies? I have hard time imagining companies in other countries getting into the habit of buying such kind if hardware?
    - TheCondor 12y ago
      I traveled all over the world while at IBM in the 1990s. They were doing a very nice business with the biggest banks in Europe as well as many of auto companies in Europe. Major ibm customers in Japan as well. They wouldn't build these if they couldn't sell them. With the io and data flow rates these thing can handle, there really aren't alterntives on the market. the debate I keep spinning through in my head is will the market stop caring about the hardware (it's all just in the cloud or grid) before the mainframe goes away or will the cloud be partially mainframe.
      - qznc 12y ago
        1. So far no cloud provider tried to provide reliability at the level of a mainframe. 2. Those conservative customers want to keep their data in-house. So a cloud is probably impossible to sell here. They can either build their own "in-house cloud" (paradox?!) or buy a mainframe. The later is simpler and proven. Cost savings of the roll-your-own-in-house-cloud are questionable. You could try to sell an ultra-reliable (maybe distributed) system for in-house use. However, you cannot call it a "mainframe".

wmf 12y ago

For the previous generation: "IBM doesn’t publish prices for mainframes but the word on the street is that it is around $80,000 per core for a [Linux/Java core] compared to $400,000 per core for regular [cores] that mostly run z/OS" http://www.enterprisetech.com/2013/10/09/ibm-slashes-hardware-prices-push-linux-power/ http://www.enterprisetech.com/2013/10/09/ibm-slashes-hardwar... I'm not sure whether that's the amortized total price or just the activation after you've already bought the machine.

qznc 12y ago
Also the per-core licence is not the only position. You have to add a maintenance contract, buying the machine, firmware licence (which in this case is afaik a big Java application running on its own core), OS licence, setup, and probably more. This really is a cashcow of IBM, mostly because they own the "mainframe" trademark/monopoly and everybody who wants to sell a "mainframe" is sued out of the market. Without the "mainframe" title, you are dead in this market of ultra-conservative customers (banks,airlines,etc).
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- listic 12y ago
  I guess this this market of ultra-conservative customers are mostly US companies? I have hard time imagining companies in other countries getting into the habit of buying such kind if hardware?
  - TheCondor 12y ago
    I traveled all over the world while at IBM in the 1990s. They were doing a very nice business with the biggest banks in Europe as well as many of auto companies in Europe. Major ibm customers in Japan as well. They wouldn't build these if they couldn't sell them. With the io and data flow rates these thing can handle, there really aren't alterntives on the market. the debate I keep spinning through in my head is will the market stop caring about the hardware (it's all just in the cloud or grid) before the mainframe goes away or will the cloud be partially mainframe.
    - qznc 12y ago
      1. So far no cloud provider tried to provide reliability at the level of a mainframe. 2. Those conservative customers want to keep their data in-house. So a cloud is probably impossible to sell here. They can either build their own "in-house cloud" (paradox?!) or buy a mainframe. The later is simpler and proven. Cost savings of the roll-your-own-in-house-cloud are questionable. You could try to sell an ultra-reliable (maybe distributed) system for in-house use. However, you cannot call it a "mainframe".