>>> On 10/30/2012 at 11:46 AM, Roger Evans <[email protected]> wrote: > Thanks Alan - those are my sentiments precisely. And that is what we > have today (except that I don't know for a fact that the memory is ECC). > But sometimes you have to take a bizarre idea and see if there's > something in it. Like Escher is reputed to have said: "Only those who > attempt the absurd will achieve the impossible". > > Mvh./Best Regards > Roger Evans, Autodata Norge A/S > http://www.autodata.no +47 93 25 92 36 > > > On Tue, 2012-10-30 at 10:41 +0000, Alan Cox wrote: > -snip- >> I'd have thought a pair of PC class boxes with ECC RAM would be a better >> fit.
And that mindset is how you wind up with excessive server sprawl. In almost every case, a single application running on distributed hardware is going to look cheaper than running on Linux on System z. The question is, which part(s) of the server farm _could_ be run on z/VM or some other virtualization platform, would they meet their business objectives in that environment, and would there be sufficient cost savings to justify the more expensive hardware? Not every workload is a good candidate for running virtualized, whether on z/VM or something else. Not every workload is a good candidate for System z, virtualized or not. As I said previously, picking the right tool for the job is more complex than most people want to have to deal with. But if you're not going to paint yourself into a corner, the bigger picture needs to be considered for every workload that gets deployed. Mark Post ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For more information on Linux on System z, visit http://wiki.linuxvm.org/
