On Sat, 23 Aug 2025 16:51:09 +0100, Martin Ward <mar...@gkc.org.uk> wrote:
>So, switching to IBM servers (assuming that your assumption >of 250,000 z17 servers is accurate) would mean "only" >a minimum of 6 times higher power requirement. > >Sorry, what was your point again? ROTFLOL. It's as if you don't understand basic z/OS concepts. Someone mentioned Google servers dedicated to scanning the internet. That's BATCH so why doesn't Google run all servers 100% 24/7? Google does data propagation like an idiot on steroids. 32 clustered z17 (equivalent of 320 Google servers) eliminates 99% of the data propagation because of shared disks. Disk mirroring, remote copy and other disk technologies greatly increase that percentage. I could list more but that would be futile. z17 is a Ferrari, not a moped. May I remind you that Google has 0 batch experience and most likely screw the pooch if they attempt batch. z/OS with more than 70 years batch experience makes it look simple. IBM can't sell water to a man dying of thirst. I repeat, these numbers are SWAG and can't be trusted. Google will never buy a z17 because of their moped mentality. There's a boat load of computer concepts that the computer industry does not comprehend. We each are going to believe what we believe. I see your point but I completely disagree.
