----- Original Message ----- From: "Howard Brazee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ibm-main To: <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2007 7:29 AM Subject: Re: PSI MIPS (was: Links to decent 'why the mainframe thrives' article)
> > IBM is not positioning the mainframe to compete with a computer chip. > Apples and bird seed. > > Customers of computer chips are computer manufacturers. > > IBM is positioning the mainframe to compete with server farms. That > is something very different. And the x86 speed of a PC is not what > customers care about when looking at alternatives for these business > needs. > I agree with your first point, but not your second. There *is* a reason that SPEC (and other benchmarking organizations) exist. These customers want a common performance metric to identify the value they are getting for the money they spend. Yes, reliability, fault-tolerance, data integrity, etc. are all factors too - but the mainframe does not have a lock on these features, other platforms do as well, including those based on x86. Maybe I can point out the dilemma better this way: People here have asked how managers can justify migrating their mission-critical applications off the mainframe and onto a 'PC'. At the same time, these people will say that there is no common metric to compare the various platforms, that they are just different. So, a manager who must make a business/financial decision is given no tools with which to make that decision - so is it any wonder that those decisions seem, well, random? One would think that *if* the mainframe can compete head-to-head with these other server systems that those in the business would *want* a common metric. They would *strive* to identify something that managers could use to make better decisions. This should, you would think, include the vendor who would benefit most by such information. Continually claiming that there is, and cannot be any comparison seems counter productive. You are *asking* these managers to go with the latest fad because they have nothing else to use as a guideline. If it can't compete, then perhaps it makes sense to claim that no such metric can be identified. As long as the workloads are completely different, then it makes sense. They they overlap, however, you are asking for people to flip a coin to choose unless you give them another tool to use. As for the car analogy in performance, I would suggest the following: I can look at horsepower, top speed, acceleration, luggage capacity, towing capacity, gas mileage and various other factors that are available for *all* vehicles. This allows me to make an intelligent, informed decision about which particular vehicle is best for my needs, whether it be a sportscar, a family vehicle, a farm vehicle or a large commercial vehicle. Instead, Timothy Sipples suggests (and I paraphrase from his reply to me) "if you don't know, talk to your IBM rep - he'll tell you what you need". Sure, he'll tell me I need a Sun system instead of an IBM system - right? Or perhaps I should go talk to Sun or HP or Dell to find out what best suits my needs. If you care about the platform, you should care about the problem... or so it seems to me. Regards, Dean ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
