VMware and the mainframe
Enterprise Strategy Group's resident expert on all things server virtualization, Mark Bowker, tells me that there were 15,000 people at VMworld a few weeks ago. Not a surprise, the industry is gaga over server virtualization as more users look to turn physical servers into consolidated virtual partitions.
The irony here is that while the server virtualization chatter focuses on VMware, Xen, Citrix, and Microsoft, the venerable IBM zSeries (i.e. mainframe) will likely be one of the biggest beneficiaries of this virtualization frenzy.
(Credit: CNET Networks)The reason for this is fairly simple. Server virtualization is all about rationalizing IT assets and costs. Why have a bunch of Intel servers running at 10 percent utilization when you can consolidate them on a single server running at 80 percent utilization?
Once CIOs are willing to follow this line of reasoning, consolidating resources on a mainframe is a logical next step. Mainframe virtualization is rock solid, operationally efficient, and well understood. Intel server virtualization, on the other hand, remains a work in progress. When CIOs take the time to "do the math" they will find that the ROI on moving 20 old Sun systems to Linux-based mainframe VMs is a lot higher than creating 100 virtual Intel server partitions on 10 physical boxes.
IBM gets this value and has 30-plus years of experience in marketing mainframe virtualization. Beyond vision alone, IBM also has tons of charts, graphs, and customer-use cases illustrating TCO and ROI benefits, that extend from rationalizing hardware assets to reducing the corporate carbon footprint. Of course, most users are embracing VMware for Windows consolidation, something that the zSeries system can't do today. True, but IBM can still roll a blade server in (for Windows virtualization) next to the mainframe (for Linux virtualization) and manage the whole ball of wax through Tivoli operations-management tools. The mainframe still wins.
It's funny. When you think about VMware, green IT, SOA and other trendy IT topics you never even consider the mainframe. Nevertheless, IBM continues to repurpose the platform, sell more MIPS, and give customers more platform bang for the buck. In the case of server virtualization, the whole industry is making IBM's case. Technologies come and go, but the mainframe never seems to go out of style.
Jon Oltsik is a senior analyst at the Enterprise Strategy Group. He is not an employee of CNET.
Don't forget that buying mainframe requires tons of other expensive IBM software and storage (you don't have much choice here, unlike the x86 world, do you?), so you ROI calculation looks skewed at best.
You lost all credibility with that statement, Jon.
First, Linux on the mainframe is not Linux on x86. It is not binary compatible, and does not have anywhere near the commercial applications support of Linux on x86.
Second, why would 20 old servers be consolidated onto 100 VMs? Would they not be consolidated onto 20 VMs?
And why 10 physical servers? With quad-core, four-socket systems available from both Intel and AMD, why not one?
For example, it would certainly be possible to consolidate 20 2-way E220Rs to a single four-socket Tigerton/Caneland server. If utilization was below 50%, 20 4-way E420Rs would be possible on a single Tigerton server.
A fully-loaded Tigerton server, is about $35k list, along with another $15k for VMware ESX.
The cheapest Mainframe costs about $100k. But that Mainframe (~26 MIPS) has considerably less performance than a 400,000 tpmC Tigerton server.
And that does not even start to include expensive Mainframe peripherals like FICON based storage.
The ROI simply does not add up. Even if the customer has existing spare mainframe capacity, and all of the apps being redeployed are open source apps (Apache web servers, etc.), the customer still has to pay over $95,000 for an Integrated Linux Facility (IFL) license. Then the customer has to pay considerably more for Mainframe Linux support compared to the cost of x86 Linux support.
My guess is it will cost about twice as much for the IFL and Mainframe Linux on an existing, bought and paid for Mainframe, than it will to go out and buy the equivalent hardware, VMware, and Linux for an x86 consolidation solution.
Plus you're missing what companies like Dell and HP are doing to build virtualization hardware.
So your article is valid for IBM or Unix type shops, but not for Microsoft shops. They will continue to buy Dell or HP hardware, which will be built for virtualization. But they won't be mainframes in the sense you're talking about.
No, it is not binary compatible, but recompiles work well especially in OSS.
Linux can run direct on the MF without ANY additional software or h/w.. can use the SAN based storage and has few if any single points of failure unlike your intel boxes
- Respondents missing the point
-
by BobWilkie
October 12, 2007 6:11 AM PDT
- A number of the respondents here really seem to be missing the point or fundamentally misunderstanding how Linux runs on the mainframe.
-
Reply to this comment
-
(8 Comments)Q. Do you need loads of expensive SW?
A. NO. A low cost VM license per CPU, a supported Linux distribution plus whatever software you want to run - normally licensed in the same manner as on your Unix or Windows servers. Fact - you don't need the traditional mainframe OS or subsytems to run a Linux only mainframe. Don't even think of it as a traditional mainframe - it's a highly efficient host for multiple virtual servers.
So - how about running multiple virtual Oracle DB servers on a 10th (or less) the number of CPUs than you need for a typical Unix farm. Now tell me the SW is more expensive on the mainframe!!!
Statement - we're a Microsoft shop so it's not relevant to us.
Surely the business you're supporting couldn't care less what server OS you're running. They're interested in the business function you're providing them. And if you could do it cheaper and greener, you're the hero. Sure - you're not going to replace everything - Exchange doesn't run on Linux (yet). But there is loads that does so look for an alternative and you may also find it is cheaper, more efficient and has better availability than that Microsoft app it's replacing.