Comments on: VMware and the mainframe

Why the path to reliable and efficient server virtualization will lead to the IBM zSeries mainframe.

[virtman]

Mainframe virtualization is good, but..

you can run Linux and/or zOS in the VMs. The datacentre of today is more heterogeneous than that. You want to run Linux, Windows and Solaris for various reasons and the mainframe can't support Windows and Solaris.

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.

[meh130]

Back it up with numbers, Jon

"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."

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.

[WildSignals]

You should get out more

That may work for IBM/Linux/Mainframe shops, but not for Microsoft shops. It was a stretch to get CIO's in Microsoft shops to understand blades. You gotta be kidding about mainframing Intel boxes. It makes a single point of failure. Unix and mainframe admins are a different breed than Microsoft admins. The mentality is all different.
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.

[cgvmer]

Readers should wake up

What most of these responder forget is that there is more out there than intel boxes. Yes the ROI works for linux on the MF, yes the TCO is good.
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

[MicroNix]

Virtualization (today) is all about Windows and Linux

So why even print this story when you know the IBM mainframes don't support Windows? If you'd do your research, virtualization today has nothing even remotely to do with mainframes. Period. I fail to see the point of this article...

[HeTomp]

Virtualization is NOT about any OS!

Virtualization has nothing to do with a specific operating system. Virtualization applies to optimal and efficient utilization of resources. This is why we've seen SAN's revolutionize the Storage marketplace.

[chrisgabriel123]

Take the blinkers off

Sorry, but we must all get out of our little boxes and think wider. Yes, if you have 50 or so Intel boxes then it's an obvious choice, but, virtualisation is a strategy not a box play, so picking the right platform is simply a matter of taking the wider longer term view. Why not a mainframe? Why not Unix? Why not VMWARE? If I was a CIO with 2500 Intel servers in my Data Center and its filling up then I would be looking for any strategy to stop me building a new one. The 'pain' of adopting a mainframe might well be less stressful than asking your CFO for a new data center. Embarking on a virtualisation strategy predicated on your decision to stick with the same core platform you already have isn't really a strategy is it = its shifting the deckchairs.

[BobWilkie]

Respondents missing the point

A number of the respondents here really seem to be missing the point or fundamentally misunderstanding how Linux runs on the mainframe.

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.