Harder, Pieter wrote: >> I agree that the speed of CPU is not the problem anymore. But do you want >> CPU intensive load? Afaik the CPU in >mainframe, even z10, is still more >> expensive than an intel. So if you'd have CPU intensive loads, would it be >> still cost >effective to run on z? Do we still need to stay away from these >> applications? > > Just talking of the top of my head (meaning no real life comparison > experience, yet..) > > When you run out of the capabilities of standard Intellish hardware, you have > three options: > - splitting a two-tier setup to three-tier. Expensive/more complex because of > multiple server images > - look at non-standard Intellish hardware that is probably a lot more > expensive > - or look at something completely different like z or p (will Sparc still be > there to look at?) > > Of course it all depends, but option 3 may not be so far out as you think at > first glance.
To amplify: Think about what if actually costs to deploy on decent hardware. My standard Intel server would require two power supplies, two single port FBA cards (if SAN attach is a requirement), and four ethernet ports (2 x failover primary, 1 backup, 1 management). Once you start eating a couple of power points, 4 switch ports, and two fibre ports per server, the cost, if accurately accounted for, looks quite different. Then, of course, you start wanting to cluster for availability, and the cost looks even less attractive, especially since you will be buying enough hardware that you can take full load on n-1 nodes. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For LINUX-390 subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO LINUX-390 or visit http://www.marist.edu/htbin/wlvindex?LINUX-390
