Well, to *support* something on a box you also have to have tested it there. At least that's the grief I get from non-IBM vendors when I ask for product x for Linux on z! It may run, but they didn't invest the testing dollars. I suspect that's part of it too. Running tests on those >4 yr. old boxes probably has a pretty big price tag and takes away from investing in the next release.
There's not much new function in 6.1. 5.4 has a nice long supported life (longer than 6.1). There will be lots of cool things in the SOD release they've talked about. If they can invest there instead, that's what I'd vote that they make their investment decision. Solves our business problems, keeps z/VM competitive with VMWARE are just 2 of the reasons. Course I don't have an old box so my opinion may be biased. .. But hey, the prices for Linux "solution"s have fallen drastically. Maybe you get a new one for < the maintenance on the old thing! Used z10 prices probably went down too with the z196 out. Call now, ops are standing by :) Marcy -----Original Message----- From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of McKown, John Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2010 1:12 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [IBMVM] Virtualizing a z10 I somewhat agree. I'm confused by IBM's z "philosophy". I remember when the S/370 arch was around and IBM was targetting from mid-size to large shops (4331 was __small__!). Now the z people seem to be like Bentley dealers. If you're not a multimillionaire, you don't even need to consider a Bentley. But that's the way Bentley has always been. All of a sudden IBM z is like Ford deciding that the family car is too much of a bother, and only go with super-luxury models. Old joke: "You want 10 million for a car!?! How many will buy that?" Answer: "I only need one!" And since it's only the PFD instruction (which the PoPs indicates has multiple subfunctions, some of which may be a NOP on some models), IBM hardware should be able to rather easily make a millicoded PFD instruction on all the z series machines which would be a NOP instead of a PIC 1. But I guess it isn't worth the development cost to them. <shrug> -- John McKown Systems Engineer IV IT Administrative Services Group HealthMarkets(r) 9151 Boulevard 26 * N. Richland Hills * TX 76010 (817) 255-3225 phone * (817)-691-6183 cell [email protected] * www.HealthMarkets.com Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message may contain confidential or proprietary information. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. HealthMarkets(r) is the brand name for products underwritten and issued by the insurance subsidiaries of HealthMarkets, Inc. -The Chesapeake Life Insurance Company(r), Mid-West National Life Insurance Company of TennesseeSM and The MEGA Life and Health Insurance Company.SM > -----Original Message----- > From: The IBM z/VM Operating System > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Ivan Warren > Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2010 3:01 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: Virtualizing a z10 > > On 9/23/2010 7:26 PM, Alan Altmark wrote: > > > > No secret: It uses the PREFETCH DATA instruction in the > > General-Instructions-Extensions Facility. Of course, since > developers are > > no longer shackled by the z900, they may use other z10+ > instructions at > > their discretion. > > <rant> > Sheesh... Would it have been hard to add a TM (On the STFLE results) > around the PFD/PFDRL ? Don't tell me the labs decided to cast off an > entire line of (<4 yo) machines (which cost >$100K) for just *ONE* > instruction (and more than that - it's only for performance.. > PFD/PFDRL > have no operational impact other than performance). > > The "underlying" problem I see is that it is putting a severe dent in > people's mind as far as IBM's view of "Invest in long lasting > technology" is concerned.. z9 is what ? 4 years old ? and IBM > is already > issuing SCPs that are no longer compatible.. > > I remember a time (yeah.. I'm an old geezer) where the time when IBM > would release SCPs that were no longer guaranteed to work on > system that > were more than 20 year old - or rather had been withdrawn > from marketing > for more than 20 years.. (I'm quite convinced that with some > effort, you > could have run VM/SP5 on a S/370 138.. And possible VM/ESA > S/370 option!) > > PS : We're not talking about the z900/z800.. or the > z990/z890.. But the z9 ! > </rant> > > --Ivan > >
