Here's the thing: We do have mainframe people in place, and it will
still be many years before they retire/get frozen for the year 2038.
So on the one side we have 390 admins, and on the other we have
people like me who do the Linux stuff.
This is a shop where we've always done things the mainframe way, and
when we can't use a mainframe we use AIX on the pSeries. So now that
Linux is the new kid on the block, it seems logical to put it on the
mainframe to these guys[0].
I think that Brian brought up a good point on processor scaling. We
aren't running Oracle, more like DB2, and my understanding is that
there are seasonal load spikes on the databases (student registration
and the like). A database sounds like it could handle the I/O, but at
some point we also generate reports[1], so would a 390 machine be
able to crunch the numbers on multiple CPUs compared to some Linux
servers? Admin work hour for work hour, which is the most efficient
assuming we have trained employees on both sides[2]?
Mark
[0]I didn't like Linux on the pSeries after doing extensive
investigation and IBM training
[1]Time to break out the Cobol
[2]Note that the UNIX and Linux people co-exist with the mainframe
people pretty well
On Aug 31, 2005, at 1:25 PM, James Washer wrote:
If you don't have a mainframe admin staff already in place, it's
hard to recommend Linux on 390, as the learning curve is steep.
If you do have such a staff, then linux on 390 is a beautiful
thing. Any Virtual Machine is great but 390 is the mother of all VMs.
If you don't need true mainframe horsepower (i/o bandwidth for
example) then you might like Vmware GSX or ESX on a big intel box..
- jim
On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 11:47:56 -0700
"Mark C. Ballew" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
This question might be targeted more toward James, but what do people
think about Linux on the Mainframe for deploying Linux? I'm looking
at using zSeries machines to run various databases under Linux, since
mainframes are often acclaimed for their i/o abilities.
Assuming money is no problem, what would be the reasoning behind
going for a normal Linux server setup with fail over compared to
using an underlying operating system such as zOS? What about a Linux
server set up running UML or Xen versus zOS?
Factors that I can think of off hand is that adding more Linux
servers is easier, and software compiled for i386/x86-64 would be far
more common, but for the software I plan to run, a zOS port would
certainly be available. Other things would be the physical labor
involved: that is something that will always be limited. There are
probably more people in the industry that know how to manage Linux
servers than Linux on zOS. zOS is also a "blackbox", so an admin
would have to rely on the vendor instead of training to fix a problem
in some cases.
Any one else have thoughts?
_______________________________________________
RLUG mailing list
RLUG@rlug.org
http://lists.rlug.org/mailman/listinfo/rlug
_______________________________________________
RLUG mailing list
RLUG@rlug.org
http://lists.rlug.org/mailman/listinfo/rlug
_______________________________________________
RLUG mailing list
RLUG@rlug.org
http://lists.rlug.org/mailman/listinfo/rlug
