>>> On 12/9/2008 at 2:57 PM, Steve Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The support of our linux guests was moved to the UNIX (AIX) > Admin group last year about this time. They are now suggesting we move all > the linux work to AIX because its 'cheaper' and 'more reliable'.
Umm, yeah. Right. > I've > found and collected the conversation earlier this year regarding a 'costing > method' for linux guest vs Intel servers, so I have that as a starting > point. Figuring out how to charge back for something is _not_ the same as the actual cost to the organization as a whole. I wouldn't go there right now, since the history of mainframes have led them to be dumping grounds for charges that no one could figure out a good place to put them. > If anyone has experience with the pros/cons of AIX vs z/VM/LINUX I > would appreciate any information you can share. Aside from that any other > 'food for thought' you can provide is greatly appreciated. Our environment > is essentially WebShpere App server and MQ, accessing DB2 data on z/OS. > Yes, we are using Hipersocket connectivity to z/OS from Linux. Resource sharing, resource sharing, resource sharing. Which leads to software license reductions and people cost reductions (also knows as being able to do more with the same people and money). The big key is to count _all_ the AIX systems: - Production - Failover - Development - Test - QA - DRA - Sysadmin sandboxes WebSphere (and I believe MQ) is licensed by the processor. It doesn't take many processor licenses to pay for an IFL. AIX (System p in general) is great for super-processor-intensive workloads. Because of the architecture, it's not so good with I/O, particularly if you have multiple LPARs running, since it all gets sent through the virtual I/O LPAR. The SHARE presentation that Neale pointed you to mentions that 40% of the CPU usage on AIX was going to do I/O, not actually run the application. That all went away when it was moved to System z. One of my customers is moving all of their SAP workload from AIX to Linux on System z. We're talking about a thousand or more IFLs worth of workload when all is said and done, if they follow through to the end. (I certainly hope they do, but as we all know, things change, and not necessarily because of anything to do with the technology.) I can't speak to the reliability of AIX, particularly if they're running HACMP. I will say without hesitation that System z hardware beats the pants off System p hardware for RAS, and the people who design and build System p say the same thing. I don't know if you have any growing concerns about power, cooling and floorspace, but Linux on System z can save about 80% of each for the same workload. There will always be a place for machines running very fast processors such as System p (and System x and i). But because of the licensing cost structure for a lot of software out there, Linux on System z is capable of tremendous savings by consolidating a lot of workloads. Mark Post
