> Some extracts from an article pointed to by this URL : These are very old articles (see my notes below.) Did you have a point to make or are you just doing hardware archaeology 101?
> http://news.com.com/IBM+works+to+make+mainframes+mainstream/2100-1010_3- > 1001595.html?tag=nl Published: May 14, 2003, 2:16 PM PDT > a) A new machine, code-named T-Rex > <http://news.com.com/IBM+to+unearth+T-Rex+mainframe/2100-1010_3- > 1000894.html?tag=nl> , boasts three times the performance of its predecessor, according to Big Blue Published: May 9, 2003, 5:15 PM PDT. By the way, the next generation after T-Rex will be generally available next month. You're a loooong way behind the news. > b) Farmers Insurance Group in Los Angeles. Berger is replacing five > z900<http://news.com.com/IBM+unveils+new+name%2C+strategy+for+servers/21 00- 1001_3-246501.html?tag=nl> Published: October 3, 2000, 12:00 PM PDT (Now that's recent!!!) > mainframes with three z990s. He needed the new systems' power as part of > a project to consolidate the company's data center with that of the Zurich > Financial Services Group > <http://dw.com.com/redir?destUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.zurich.com%2F&siteId=3 &o > Id > =2100-1010-1001595&ontId=1001&lop=nl.ex> , which acquired Farmers. And he > needed their ability to run modern software--in this case IBM's WebSphere > package--to provide employees with a Web-based interface to > claims-processing software. Old news. BTW, Mark Zelden (who posts here regularly) works for this company and, knowing him personally, it seems things are going pretty well for them with this configuration. He's not an unhappy camper at all. > My Comments : We tried WebSphere on the mainframe and it is too slow and > complex.. That's clearly in the eye of the beholder. There are quite a few big customers out there running very high transaction rates through Websphere. As for complexity... well I agree it's a bit more complex compared to some other system's software on z/OS. From the applications side, the tooling is a lot better than (say) CICS and IMS. And it's really just getting off the ground. It will get a lot better, a lot faster than either CICS or IMS are ever likely to. Compare the investments IBM is making in those technologies and it's obvious who's getting ahead faster. > WebSphere on the distributed platform is like IMS on the > Mainframe: Too many pieces that makes it complex because IBM build > all these extra add-on's/shells and It doesn't seem to be too bad on Linux. I am not familiar with it on other distributed platforms. On the positive side of things, it does actually appear to work... > then the mainframe shops go into their mode of many > different environments ex. Development, Test, Staging, Production. Causing > one huge piece of burocracy with Change Control etc. Perhaps, but whose fault is that? > What happened to providing quick solutions to the user ? That is service > for the user.. Never mind the "new" buzzword called SOA. If history is any guide, WAS is a significant improvement in "quick" relative to its direct competitors in the MF space. What's your point? > c) but an IBM employee changed all the mainframe code names to names > of dinosaurs--carnivorous dinosaurs--after a March 2001 advertisement by > rival Sun Microsystems derided the machines as extinct beasts that should > be consigned to museums. The naming convention stuck, Zeitler said: "The next one is called Pterodactyl." More ancient history. And BTW, have you checked out SUN's stock price and market share lately? IBM and HP are eating SUN's lunch and looking greedily at their dinner too. > d) Big Blue describes the speed of mainframe processors not by the > clock rate--the familiar megahertz and gigahertz ratings found elsewhere > in the computing world--but rather by the length of one tick of a chip's > clock. Rubbish. Frequency = 1/Cycle time. Knowing either one yields the other. > The servers' computing ability is measured using the IBM-defined > measurement MIPS. IBM-defined? You've gotta be kidding right? IBM has been trying to get away from MIPS for decades. It's the customer base that clings to MIPS. > And Big Blue refuses to subject its mainframes to the industry-standard > TPC-C <url> test commonly used to compare different systems, despite > its concerted and recently successful effort to push its Unix servers to > <http://news.com.com/Unix+reclaims+server+speed+crown/2100-1010_3- > 1000822.html?tag=nl> the top of the list. > My Comment: Maybe it's the only way IBM can hide the cost per transaction My comment; Baloney. TPC-C is as easily and frequently abused as any of the earlier benchmarks and it's awfully expensive to run a legitimate TPC-C at the real-world scale these systems are capable of. That's why -EVERYONE- who runs a TPC-C benchmark fudges the hell out of it. The customer base doesn't care about TPC numbers in the slightest. IBM looks at that effort and legitimately asks "why bother?" If it mattered, I am sure they would muster the effort. In Websphere in particular they have been doing some very serious benchmarking over the last few years. They also benchmark every new generation of hw/sw over the previous, but they use their own benchmarks such as LSPR. And why not? When you're the 800lb gorilla you can use any darn benchmark you want. > e) The mainframe's software is also improving. Its flagship > operating system, z/OS > <http://dw.com.com/redir?destUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww- > 1.ibm.com%2Fservers%2Feser > ver%2Fzseries%2Fannounce%2Fzos_r4%2F&siteId=3&oId=2100-1010- > 1001595&ontId=10 > 01&lop=nl.ex> , will improve in October with the release of version 1.5 Er... yeah that's up to date. 1.7 goes GA any day now. > My Comment : People still do not get it , you have to make the supplier > (IBM) quote you on a transaction as defined in your shop because a > transaction could be defined as anything to justify the cost of the > upgrade. And they would to that how? If you can find any vendor who will do that and can actually deliver, then stick with them like gorilla glue. Nobody does it because there's no way to make such a contractual guarantee. > Ex. They role in a new machine, they take your check for $10 million and > nothing changes for you but then IBM responds with "We did get those > improvements some where else. Ya right". So has this ever happened to you or are you just blowing smoke? If you bought a box that didn't meet your expectations you would have grounds for dickering over the contract. People have done that for decades. These days the machines are so powerful most customers are pretty happy with the box, it's the software bill they don't like. > f) Another speed increase will come with the new version 8 of > IBM's DB2 database software, due by the end of the year V8 has been out a long time already. > g) "The Sun Fire 12K and Sun Fire 15K servers provide two to four > times the performance at less than half the cost, and we don't lock our > customers into expensive, complex services agreements," Pure BS. Yes, you can configure a high end SUN box and run lots of transactions through it. Is it going to have 4x the performance of a similarly configured mainframe? Well no. They would be about the same. That's the point when it comes to the word "similar". Now if you're talking costs, you may be back in the race, or not. Both IBM and HP offer far more powerful UNIX systems than SUN these days. The SUN gear can certainly run a lot of work, but at similar scales they're not exactly cheap. Nobody is. SUN's tools are pretty darn lame. When you add in the complexity and management effort their solution might or might not be price competitive. Large businesses seldom make their decisions on bench racing arguments like these. > h) "We continue to believe that the mainframe is a declining > hardware platform, limited by applications availability and lack of > competitive hardware offerings," "We estimate that in fiscal 2002, > about a quarter of IBM's revenues and 45 percent of its operating > profits were somehow linked to the mainframe," Who believes? Gartner? They believe whatever they're paid to believe. IMO they haven't exactly had a stellar run of success at projecting the future. But maybe I'm just a tad cynical. > My Comment : Yes, but why does all the investors still keep their money in > IBM stock. All indicators points to a shrinking IBM. Is IBM doing an > "Enron" on us. Have you been living in a cave since 2002? Almost $100B annual revenues doesn't look much like Enron to me. > i) "In the time that z900 and z800 have been on the market, we've > shipped more capacity than the decade that preceded it," That's just a fact. > My Comment: My experience is shrinking quantity of mainframe computer > center's caused by consolidation, outsourcing, conversions etc. which is > causing shrinking profits for the Mainframe Software Companies and there > is still a lot of pressure on the CIO to shrink the IT budget. True enough. Of course, there's also a couple of decades of lack of innovation from the software companies. And very stable customer operating environments. And high up front costs. Lots of factors lead to things the way they are. It's not just one reason. The real question is: Is it all bad? > Summary: > There must be something IBM is not telling their investors but who knows, > maybe lots of Federal money is also going their way !! Is this conspiracy theory time or was there a real point here? CC ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
