Best plan.. Get your IBM sales critter to get a technical sales support guy to give you a call... I don't play much with the s390 stuff except for kernel bug fixes, so I cannot give you good info on specific load characteristics. Sorry, but I don't have the time to chase it all down. If you get grief from the sales critter, let me know, and I'll find someone to talk to you..
- jim On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 13:44:50 -0700 "Mark C. Ballew" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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 _______________________________________________ RLUG mailing list RLUG@rlug.org http://lists.rlug.org/mailman/listinfo/rlug
