z/10 Announcement probably is based on a specific usage pattern, that most of PC processors are idle.
The microsoft study misses some points. I can hardly believe that the power consumption is equal with all different workloads. It is not clear if the mainframe also had just 2x73GB harddrives and just one OSA card, just one FICON card, etc. I think it is invalid to compare a power consumption of a system that runs 984 transactions per second with a system that runs 354 transactions per second (see page 9), because if the throughput is not the same, this is similar to claiming that a car running 200km/h needs more gas than a car with 80km/h. Or looking at the Java throughput that seams to be better on a PC is like claiming that a truck cannot run with 200km/h. In addition Microsoft used NETCOBOL Compiler on the mainframe and I have no clue how the resulting machine code compares to other mainframe compilers. Based on the paper its not even clear if unoptimized COBOL was compared to optimized .NET code?! This comparision lacks all fundamental statistical methods and although some of the results count for PCs and some results count for a mainframe, it cannot be considered a basis for decisions. Just my 2 cent. -----Original Message----- From: Vernooy, C.P. - SPLXM <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [email protected] Sent: Thu, 30 Oct 2008 9:06 am Subject: Re: Comparing Mainframe and Windows Server CICS Transactions per kWh "Fred Schmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>.. . > The latest z/Journal has a study by Microsoft comparing Windows against > the mainframe in terms of electrical power usage for CICS web-based > applications. It claims that Windows is many times more efficient. > > You can find the PDF document at > http://www.zjournal.com/redir.cfm?rid=939 > > Comments? > I read in an IBM z/10 annoucement that 1 z/10 has the power of (iirc) 2500 Windows servers, but uses 1/18th of their power. Can two similar investigations have more contradiction results? Kees. ********************************************************************** For information, services and offers, please visit our web site: http://www.klm.com. This e-mail and any attachment may contain confidential and privileged material intended for the addressee only. If you are not the addressee, you are notified that no part of the e-mail or any attachment may be disclosed, copied or distributed, and that any other action related to this e-mail or attachment is strictly prohibited, and may be unlawful. If you have received this e-mail by error, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail, and delete this message. Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij NV (KLM), its subsidiaries and/or its employees shall not be liable for the incorrect or incomplete transmission of this e-mail or any attachments, nor responsible for any delay in receipt. Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij N.V. (also known as KLM Royal Dutch Airlines) is registered in Amstelveen, The Netherlands, with registered number 33014286 ********************************************************************** ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
