Re: Slowly biting the dust.... IBM scalable... but only so far
Steve Comstock writes: My understanding of how the IBM world works today is that the largest 600 IBM customers are actually handled by IBM salespeople who are really IBM employess. Everyone else is served by VARs. Maybe the OP's VAR is doing cherry picking, only bothering to go after the clients with the most potential net revenue. It's not your father's IBM any more. John would probably know what the reality is. But it sounds like he's getting a proposal from IBM for SAP on p and he is disappointed IBM is not providing an SAP on z proposal for their consideration. I have no idea why that is and would never presume to pass judgment, but I'm volunteering to look into it if John wishes my help. I agree with one sentence: no, this is not my father's IBM. I think my (grand)father worked for IBM, but there were two big differences: (1) he was a salesperson; (2) he knew a lot about meat scales. - - - - - Timothy Sipples IBM Consulting Enterprise Software Architect Specializing in Software Architectures Related to System z Based in Tokyo, Serving IBM Japan and IBM Asia-Pacific E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: Slowly biting the dust.... IBM scalable... but only so far
John, You can contact me offline if you wish and I can look into why you're not getting an SAP on z proposal from IBM. That bothers me, absent more information at least. I am not aware of any particular size issues like you describe. In terms of company revenue, Baldor (SAP on z) is quite a bit smaller than you are, I would expect. I'm located where your corporate parent is if that's convenient. Sometimes the basis for comparison is skewed. If, for example, you (or your bosses, in particular) profess not to care about such mundane issues as disaster recovery, or at least forget about it when making a purchasing decision, then you can get some strange results. If you don't care about qualities of service even slightly then the mainframe might be at a disadvantage. A common pattern (unfortunately) is that businesses forget about QoS, implement SAP in one manner, then come back and say, I guess we do care and reimplement. (We have a number of cases like that.) That epiphany might come the first time there's a database version upgrade or patch when the factory runs 24 hours a day, to pick an example. I suppose that reimplementation is good business for somebody's services team, but I wouldn't recommend that pattern if you can avoid it. - - - - - Timothy Sipples IBM Consulting Enterprise Software Architect Specializing in Software Architectures Related to System z Based in Tokyo, Serving IBM Japan and IBM Asia-Pacific E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: Slowly biting the dust.... IBM scalable... but only so far
Timothy Sipples wrote: John, You can contact me offline if you wish and I can look into why you're not getting an SAP on z proposal from IBM. That bothers me, absent more information at least. I am not aware of any particular size issues like you describe. In terms of company revenue, Baldor (SAP on z) is quite a bit smaller than you are, I would expect. I'm located where your corporate parent is if that's convenient. My understanding of how the IBM world works today is that the largest 600 IBM customers are actually handled by IBM salespeople who are really IBM employess. Everyone else is served by VARs. Maybe the OP's VAR is doing cherry picking, only bothering to go after the clients with the most potential net revenue. It's not your father's IBM any more. Sometimes the basis for comparison is skewed. If, for example, you (or your bosses, in particular) profess not to care about such mundane issues as disaster recovery, or at least forget about it when making a purchasing decision, then you can get some strange results. If you don't care about qualities of service even slightly then the mainframe might be at a disadvantage. A common pattern (unfortunately) is that businesses forget about QoS, implement SAP in one manner, then come back and say, I guess we do care and reimplement. (We have a number of cases like that.) That epiphany might come the first time there's a database version upgrade or patch when the factory runs 24 hours a day, to pick an example. I suppose that reimplementation is good business for somebody's services team, but I wouldn't recommend that pattern if you can avoid it. - - - - - Timothy Sipples IBM Consulting Enterprise Software Architect Specializing in Software Architectures Related to System z Based in Tokyo, Serving IBM Japan and IBM Asia-Pacific E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Kind regards, -Steve Comstock The Trainer's Friend, Inc. 303-393-8716 http://www.trainersfriend.com z/OS Application development made easier * Our classes include + How things work + Programming examples with realistic applications + Starter / skeleton code + Complete working programs + Useful utilities and subroutines + Tips and techniques == call or email to receive a free sample student handout == -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: Slowly biting the dust.... IBM scalable... but only so far
On Tue, 29 Apr 2008, John Mattson wrote: Well, it had to happen eventually. My shop will lay MVS to rest, but it will probably take a few years. Sorry to hear this. Our parent company is all SAP, and the pressure has been on us to conform. So, I thought Hey, all those articles in z/Journal about Linux and IFL's and zVM !!! Just get the sales guys from big Blue in there, and show how the old dino can keep up with the kids. 'Taint so folks. IBM and the business partners looked at the sizing documents and would not even submit a bid. Said they were not able to compete for the price against open systems. So, we end up going with AIX servers, and run Oracle DB's and SAP. Well, it sure beats Intel and Windows! I have not been able to get a clear answer from IBM on this, but it appers from what I can find out to be a matter of size. Currently we are a 300 mip z890, and although we would have to grow to go with the SAP solution, the mainframe/IFL/VM/DB2 solution just cannot compete for the price at this end of the size range. So just where the cut-off is, I am not sure. But I can tell you that it is somewhere above 300 mips. Looks like z/OS 1.8 may be the last MVS level I even install. Hard decision. About 10 years until retirement. Become a DBA, or polish up the resume? Decisions, decisions. On this point, my question would be do you like your current company? If yes, then becoming a DBA could be a good thing. If no, then time to move on. Where I am now, we are supposedly phasing out z/OS as well. But we don't have any kind of actual plan. It's just a direction. Our newest open manager hates Windows and loves AIX. I've been hold that he would like to have the z/OS people learn AIX due to our professionalism. I would like that. I think z/OS is the ultimate OS out there, right now. But AIX (and Linux) are good too. Anything but Windows. I despise Microsoft and think Windows is a perfect example of how to not design an enterprise OS. As a desktop, well it's acceptable. Though I would never give up my Linux desktop to run Windows again (at home). Well, What a long, strange trip it's been. -- Q: What do theoretical physicists drink beer from? A: An EIN stein. Maranatha! John McKown -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: Slowly biting the dust.... IBM scalable... but only so far
John Mattson wrote: Well, it had to happen eventually. My shop will lay MVS to rest, but it will probably take a few years. Our parent company is all SAP, and the pressure has been on us to conform. So, I thought Hey, all those articles in z/Journal about Linux and IFL's and zVM !!! Just get the sales guys from big Blue in there, and show how the old dino can keep up with the kids. 'Taint so folks. IBM and the business partners looked at the sizing documents and would not even submit a bid. Said they were not able to compete for the price against open systems. So, we end up going with AIX servers, and run Oracle DB's and SAP. I have not been able to get a clear answer from IBM on this, but it appers from what I can find out to be a matter of size. Currently we are a 300 mip z890, and although we would have to grow to go with the SAP solution, the mainframe/IFL/VM/DB2 solution just cannot compete for the price at this end of the size range. So just where the cut-off is, I am not sure. But I can tell you that it is somewhere above 300 mips. Looks like z/OS 1.8 may be the last MVS level I even install. Hard decision. About 10 years until retirement. Become a DBA, or polish up the resume? Decisions, decisions. Well, What a long, strange trip it's been. -- How many AIX servers and what size? -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
