OK, I'll start offering some personal thoughts on today's major
announcements, and in no particular order. I'll start in what might be an
unexpected place: sub-capacity z/VM licensing. That announcement letter is
available here:

https://www.ibm.com/common/ssi/rep_ca/9/872/ENUSAP17-0259/ENUSAP17-0259.PDF

I'm quite happy with this announcement, fundamentally because it provides
you all with some interesting, useful flexibility in what you might call
the "hybrid cloud journey." IBM is now allowing sub-capacity licensing of
z/VM and of most IBM z/VM-related products and features. That's for all
operating systems that z/VM supports.

What this means in practice is that you can now configure your machine(s)
with "anchor tenant" LPARs -- LPARs running Linux, z/OS, and/or other
operating systems -- alongside z/VM LPARs. For example, let's suppose you
have z/VM and use it to run Linux guests on your machine. But, sadly, you
don't have z/VM for z/OS yet. Well, now you can license one additional
engine (CP) of z/VM and run z/OS within z/VM on that engine -- even within
a z/VM LPAR that spans CPs, zIIPs, and IFLs if you wish. So you can spin up
lots and lots of z/OS guests for development, testing, system programmer
fun, production, etc., etc. And you can do all that for not very much money
at all. In fact, it'll probably save you money since z/VM can overcommit
memory in many real world scenarios and since you can shrink (or cap) the
number of LPARs to some extent. With z/VM you don't have to "pin" system
memory as you do with LPARs. So you can do "some of all of the above": buy
lots more memory (it's a lot more affordable), allocate more memory to your
"anchor tenant" LPARs, and overcommit memory to some degree using z/VM.

For example, you might have a couple of big, beefy, analytics and database
workloads that make sense to run in LPARs. (Maybe they need a huge amount
of memory, another area where the new IBM z14 excels.) Then, for smaller
and more numerous Linux guests -- such as your developer cloud -- you have
one or a couple IFLs running z/VM. That's fine, you can do that. You have
sub-capacity licensing flexibility. You don't have to license every IFL
and/or every CP on your machine(s). Whatever makes technical sense you
should be able to do in a more financially attractive way.

To net it out, if you haven't adopted z/VM yet -- or if your adoption is
only for one operating system among the two or more than you run -- take a
serious look at licensing at least one z/VM engine (or one more engine).
It's a great deal.

More reactions to come....

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Timothy Sipples
IT Architect Executive, Industry Solutions, IBM z Systems, AP/GCG/MEA
E-Mail: sipp...@sg.ibm.com

----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Reply via email to