John, > > > > I can matter matter, 100 PC's need at least 100 network connections and > 100 connections to the SAN.
Poppycock! Can you say iSCSI? > Normally you would have 2 network > connections for each server and two connections to the SAN for redudency > and performance. However, with z/VM you could share 2, 4, or even 6 LAN > and SAN connections. The SAN and Networking requirement are much less > with the mainframe. Can you say VMWARE or Egenera? > > Even with blade if you get a max of 14 servers in a blade center, you > will still need more network connections and SAN connections. > No. Two Network connections per blade! You can choose to use iSCSI or NAS over the same network connections shared by all fourteen blades, or the same 14 blades can share SAN connections through two integrated switches. > No only that, but you would need a few more people to manage 100 > physicall PC's than you would to manage 100 virtual machines. You still > need the same number of people to manange the actually OS environment. I have seen enough server farms to know that this is far from true. Most large server farms live in lights out environments right along side the mainframe. The amount of shrink-wrap application software available on Unix and Wintel platforms means there is more in the way of Admin, and less programmers and analysts. I don't see companies with applications across several 100 servers supporting this with a 1000 programmers and analysts. I think your info on Unix and Wintel applications is a little out of date. It is similar to the SUN and HP people that quote IBM's 10 people per TB for Storage Management on a Mainframe. Ron ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
