>Do they also encipher IQD traffic ? <vbg>
>But seriously: there is no reason (*) to encipher traffic within server
>room, especially if you can use fiber optic as connection medium.
>By definition we consider only machines in one room, otherwise CPC with
>IFL couldn't be used instead.
>(*) Internal regulation or security policy is *not* a reason in
>technical meaning. I mean *why* someone decided to do so. Policy is
>consequence of some reasons or just "because I said so".
You're assuming the regulation/security policies are internal ones. The
world is changing rapidly in this area, and recent U.S. news developments
aren't helping. :-(
The more I learn, the more convinced I am that security and encryption
issues will spur serious architectural rethinking. I've even come up with
a term for it: "data recentralization." ("DaRe" maybe?) You can put that
one down next to "service oriented architecture" and "enterprise service
bus." :-)
By the way, nobody has mentioned software licensing yet. One IFL = one X86
processor for purposes of software licensing with almost every vendor,
including IBM. That's a HUGE difference! I've worked with a Chicago-area
customer that's absolutely thrilled they only need two licenses of
WebSphere Commerce Server (priced at six figures U.S. per processor)
versus at least five with X86 (even with VMWare tricks, and that's if you
really jump through inconvenient hoops). Quite simply they couldn't have
afforded WebSphere Commerce without IFLs. And that's just one software
package. Oracle exhibits similar characteristics. The two licenses cover
everything: full production (including redundant failover), testing
(multiple levels), development, multiple brands (they run several server
instances), etc. Even the IBM software rep is happy because that same
customer pocketed some of the savings and spent the rest of it on other
IBM software (which they also couldn't have afforded otherwise).
Everybody's very happy, and this is a $400 million parts distributor, not
Citibank or General Motors.
Then there's labor, which others have talked about. Labor isn't free.
There are many, many customers enjoying the labor-saving benefits of Linux
virtualization on mainframes. Now, if you're an IT manager maybe that's a
bad thing, corporate bureaucracies being what they are. If you're a
business CFO then it's wonderful. Though CFOs always have the last laugh
because they can just outsource the IT organization if the internal IT
organization can't be efficient enough. :-)
Computerworld had a really great article not too long ago comparing Baldor
Electric with Welch's (the grape juice people). Both companies are about
the same size (sales, revenue), but the first one has a mainframe strategy
(Linux lately and heavily, but also DB2 UDB for z/OS) and the second one
doesn't. The article goes on for several paragraphs, but at the very end
the writer mentions a cold, hard fact: Baldor spends less than half as
much as Welch's on IT. Baldor is spending about 1% of sales, while
Welch's is spending about 2.5%. Also, Baldor's IT costs have been
decreasing, while Welch's keep increasing.
As a reminder, I'm speaking only for myself.
- - - - -
Timothy F. Sipples
Consulting Enterprise Software Architect
IBM Americas zSeries/z9 Software
Phone: +1 312 405 0750
Voice Messages: +1 312 529 1612
E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
