A couple hundred WebSphere servers is a pretty good sized lot. Even if the CPU requirements is minimal, the amount of storage that they would all require is quite large. I would want to start with measuring their utilization, then deciding if the amount of storage needed fits into the budget. Storage now goes for $10K/GB with minimum increments of 8GB for the z800.
One alternative is to put some fraction of the WAS servers on a mainframe with your database (DB2, Oracle) or database gateway (DB2 Connect) in additional virtual machines. Sounds like a cool project, but some upfront legwork is definitely warranted. On Mon, 2003-09-15 at 13:20, Eric Sammons wrote: > Having received a response from Mark and Tom I would ask the following > question, what is the feeling among the group about consolidating a couple > hundred Unix servers running WebSphere and databases onto Linux/390 under > z/VM. I guess to better phrase it based on Tom's response, would > WebSphere application servers be classified as transactional in the > opinion of the group? I of course understand that it ultimately depends > on the application written but Java in general, what would be the > implementation most would lean towards? (Linux on Intel or Linux/390 for > z/VM) > > Thank you, again the opinions and feed back are appreciated. > > Eric Sammons > (804)697-3925 > FRIT - Infrastructure Engineering > > > > > > Tom Duerbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent by: Linux on 390 Port <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > 09/15/2003 12:06 PM > Please respond to Linux on 390 Port > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > cc: > Subject: Re: Is Linux on z/VM suitable for "large > workloads" > > Well, yes and no and yes and no and it depends. > > For a long time, one of the benefits of Linux/390 on the mainframe was > the consolidation of many small servers onto fewer engines. This is a > cost thing. A license for a server is the same for Intel as the > manframe. And with VM (ok I will even include LPARS), you can have > multiple "servers" with much lessor license cost. > > For the first few years, we were warned about putting large workloads > (read CPU intensive) on the mainframe. The MIPS are still cheaper on > Intel. > > However, over the last 9 months, there have been, at least, two > discussions of shops putting very large Linux workloads on the > mainframe. One shop had 9 IFL engines running 7 Linux images. To me, > that sounds like a large work load, not server consolidation. Another > shop, about 6 weeks ago, talked about a large Linux/390 application, > without VM taking a large number of IFL engines. By the tone of the > discussion, it was the best I/O delievery platform available for their > application. > > So, based on the above two cases, I nolonger reject the notion of large > workloads under Linux/390. I now believe that, when it comes up, it is > a subject to look at. Perhaps, in certain cases, it is cost > justifiable. Perhaps it is a more expensive solution, but the best > solution. > > Being a VM bigot, both these cases left VM out in the cold. I > understand why. $45K per engine plus $11K/engine/year which is good for > many "little" workloads, but with only a few engines, LPAR seems to be > worth it. (Ok it's basically free) > > And with IBM's "capacity on demand", that adds a lot of cost savings if > you have a highly variable workload. > > Tom Duerbusch > THD Consulting > > >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 09/15/03 07:19AM >>> > I have been under the impression for some time that zLinux, while a > terrific solution for some applications, may not be the best solution > or > fit for "large workloads". Certain colleagues of mine have begun > evaluating where zLinux might fit in our organization should we choose > to > go in that direction. They have listed Linux on Intel as suitable for > small workloads and zLinux as suitable for large workloads. In fact I > have been of the understanding that zLinux would be a solution for > many > guests installed under z/VM running small to medium workloads, i.e web > server farm. I keep thinking back to the Linux 2.6 kernel which > allows > for a larger number of CPUs, more memory and more disk to be addressed. > In > addition I see Los Alamos implementing 2000+ AMD CPUs for almost 12 > trillion operations per second of processing power (This information > from > ZDNet regarding Lightning, August 14, 2003). To me that sounds like a > large work load on an Intel type platform. > > So my question is, to those of us using zLinux, what are we seeing it > implemented for and where is working best? > > > Thank you, This information will prove very helpful. > > Eric Sammons > (804)697-3925 > FRIT - Infrastructure Engineering -- Rich Smrcina Sr. Systems Engineer Sytek Services - A Division of DSG Milwaukee, WI rsmrcina at wi.rr.com rsmrcina at dsgroup.com Catch the WAVV! Stay for requirements and the free-for-all. Update your zSeries skills in 4 days for a very reasonable price. WAVV 2004 in Chattanooga, TN April 30-May 4, 2004 For details see http://www.wavv.org
