R.S. wrote:
>IMHO it was a mistake from the begining.
>Whenever I asked the question: "what is the difference between zBX and
regular 19" rack with blade servers" I heard about Ensemble, OSX, OSM, etc.
Customers do not need ensembles. From customer point of view zBX is just
rack with servers, but less flexible, vendor locked and more expensive. Even
IBM did not use zBX for its appliance like IDAA.
The disadvantages you cite are real, for sure, and may have been sufficient
to kill the concept right there. But the *idea* was that high-impact
processing could be easily/seamlessly offloaded. The "too late" part is that
the folks who needed to do that had already bitten the bullet and done so.
Fifteen years ago, not so much.
I also suspect that fifteen years ago, the gaps-physical, political,
theological-between z and distributed folks were greater, such that it would
have been easier for the z folks to justify keeping the data away from those
squatty-box weenies that they didn't trust. By now, most z folks are
resigned to their interdependence on those same squatty-box weenies.
.phsiii ("It's a strange world, isn't it?" - Blue Velvet)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
