Re: CeBIT and mainframes

On 22/03/2016 4:02 PM, David Crayford wrote: On 22/03/2016 1:17 AM, Tom Marchant wrote: On Tue, 22 Mar 2016 00:16:52 +0800, David Crayford wrote: z/OS: DOC:/u/doc/src: >time iospeed real0m 1.15s user0m 0.62s sys 0m 0.20s Dell: davcra01@cervidae:~$ time ./iospeed real

Re: CeBIT and mainframes

On 22/03/2016 1:17 AM, Tom Marchant wrote: On Tue, 22 Mar 2016 00:16:52 +0800, David Crayford wrote: z/OS: DOC:/u/doc/src: >time iospeed real0m 1.15s user0m 0.62s sys 0m 0.20s Dell: davcra01@cervidae:~$ time ./iospeed real0m0.254s user0m0.048s sys 0m0.199s I have

Re: CeBIT and mainframes

Another news article on this subject http://www.datacenterdynamics.com/servers-storage/cebit-lzlabs-enables-mainframe-code-on-commodity-hardware/95850.fullarticle -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access

Re: CeBIT and mainframes

On Tue, 22 Mar 2016 00:16:52 +0800, David Crayford wrote: >z/OS: > >DOC:/u/doc/src: >time iospeed > >real0m 1.15s >user0m 0.62s >sys 0m 0.20s > >Dell: > >davcra01@cervidae:~$ time ./iospeed > >real0m0.254s >user0m0.048s >sys 0m0.199s I have two questions. 1. What do the

Re: CeBIT and mainframes

On 19 March 2016 at 10:29, Mick Graley wrote: > Nah, not letting him off that easily! > The word "coded" is the same in both languages, and BCD ¬= BSD. > Like us Brits tend to say "kicks" and the Americans tend to say "see, > eye, see, ess" but it's still actually CICS :-)

Re: CeBIT and mainframes

Just for fun, because I know this is a very contrived test! I wrote a C program to read/writes block to an zFS file on a z114 z/OS system connected via FICON to an HDS SAN and Ubuntu server on a Dell PowerEdge blade server writing to SAS disks on the rack. Of course, there are latency

Re: CeBIT and mainframes

On 21/03/2016 11:42 PM, Ed Jaffe wrote: On 3/21/2016 7:14 AM, David Crayford wrote: My wife worked on a couple of mainframe to SAP migration projects and I can't recall any performance war stories but they were not big shops. I do recall that the customers had to change their work processes

Re: CeBIT and mainframes

On 3/21/2016 7:14 AM, David Crayford wrote: My wife worked on a couple of mainframe to SAP migration projects and I can't recall any performance war stories but they were not big shops. I do recall that the customers had to change their work processes to fit around SAP and not the other way

Re: CeBIT and mainframes

A few years ago, IBM took a Power system and a z/Architecture system and configured them as closely as they could. As I recall, they both had the same amount of C-Store available to the operating system, and they both had the same number of channels (8 if I remember correctly), and they ran

Re: CeBIT and mainframes

On 21/03/2016 9:54 PM, John McKown wrote: On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 8:14 AM, R.S. wrote: Well, I observed 1,3M IOPS on EC12 or z196 machine during WAS installation. With minimal CPU utilisation (I mean regular CPU, I haven't checked SAP). IMNSHO a PC server with

Re: CeBIT and mainframes

On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 8:14 AM, R.S. wrote: > Well, > I observed 1,3M IOPS on EC12 or z196 machine during WAS installation. With > minimal CPU utilisation (I mean regular CPU, I haven't checked SAP). > IMNSHO a PC server with collection of new shining Emulex

Re: CeBIT and mainframes

On 21/03/2016 9:14 PM, R.S. wrote: Well, I observed 1,3M IOPS on EC12 or z196 machine during WAS installation. With minimal CPU utilisation (I mean regular CPU, I haven't checked SAP). IMNSHO a PC server with collection of new shining Emulex cards has wy worse I/O capabilities. We did

Re: CeBIT and mainframes

Well, I observed 1,3M IOPS on EC12 or z196 machine during WAS installation. With minimal CPU utilisation (I mean regular CPU, I haven't checked SAP). IMNSHO a PC server with collection of new shining Emulex cards has wy worse I/O capabilities. We did some tests of database operations on

Re: LzLabs (Was: CeBIT and mainframes)

On 3/19/2016 6:35 PM, Clark Morris wrote: On 19 Mar 2016 14:53:09 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote: This is what happens when a billionaire loses a court battle with IBM. Can we expect this product to be the subject of a court battle if it is successful in doing what it claims? What

Re: CeBIT and mainframes

dcrayf...@gmail.com (David Crayford) writes: > Emulex sells an HBA that handles over 1M IOPS on a single port. IIRC, > x86 Xeon class servers have something called DDIO which facilitates > writes directly to processor cache. > It's not too dissimilar to offloading I/O to SAPs. I've got old >

Re: CeBIT and mainframes

I just read the article. Interestin, but, really, EBSDIC? Twice?!? On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 1:00 PM, Clark Morris wrote: > On 18 Mar 2016 07:27:09 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main Itschak wrote: > > >no recompile involved. Just relink to replace IBM's LE modules. > So

Re: CeBIT and mainframes

Joel C. Ewing wrote: >I notice they also claim "no need for recompilation of Cobol or PL/1 >application programmes, no source code changes, or changes to operational >procedures". I am really struggling to swallow that claim... and Dave_Craig wrote: >Queue the IP lawyers, and action! This

Re: LzLabs (Was: CeBIT and mainframes)

>Can we expect this product to be the subject of a court battle if it >is successful in doing what it claims? What are the medium to long >term implications for the z series? The i and p series? > >Clark Morris Well i and p both use proprietary hardware so no effect. For the "z Series"I don't

Re: CeBIT and mainframes

On 20/03/2016 10:50 AM, Tom Marchant wrote: I'm skeptical of all that but assuming all that, where are they going to get the I/O bandwidth needed? Emulex sells an HBA that handles over 1M IOPS on a single port. IIRC, x86 Xeon class servers have something called DDIO which facilitates writes

Re: LzLabs (Was: CeBIT and mainframes)

On Sat, Mar 19, 2016 at 8:35 PM, Clark Morris wrote: > On 19 Mar 2016 14:53:09 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote: > > >On 3/18/2016 6:30 AM, Bill Woodger wrote: > >> A google-translate of part of the final article in French from the > media section of the

Re: CeBIT and mainframes

On Sat, Mar 19, 2016 at 9:50 PM, Tom Marchant < 000a2a8c2020-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote: > ​ > > > I'm skeptical of all that but assuming all that, where are they going to > get the I/O > bandwidth needed? > ​I wonder that myself. But then, there are now SSD devices which run

Re: CeBIT and mainframes

On Mar 19, 2016, at 11:04 PM, Joel C. Ewing wrote: On 03/19/2016 03:13 PM, Ed Gould wrote: On Mar 19, 2016, at 2:42 PM, Joel C. Ewing wrote: On 03/18/2016 11:14 PM, Ed Gould wrote: On Mar 18, 2016, at 1:00 PM, Clark Morris wrote: On 18 Mar 2016 07:27:09 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main

Re: CeBIT and mainframes

On 03/19/2016 03:13 PM, Ed Gould wrote: > On Mar 19, 2016, at 2:42 PM, Joel C. Ewing wrote: > >> On 03/18/2016 11:14 PM, Ed Gould wrote: >>> On Mar 18, 2016, at 1:00 PM, Clark Morris wrote: >>> On 18 Mar 2016 07:27:09 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main Itschak wrote: > no recompile

Re: CeBIT and mainframes

On Fri, 18 Mar 2016 13:46:55 -0500, Mike Schwab wrote: >It has a small proof-of-concept box that it can make available to >those running mainframe apps where they can see how it works and try >out some of their own applications. This box, based on an Intel NUC >running

Re: LzLabs (Was: CeBIT and mainframes)

On 19 Mar 2016 14:53:09 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote: >On 3/18/2016 6:30 AM, Bill Woodger wrote: >> A google-translate of part of the final article in French from the media >> section of the LzLabs website. >> >> "Lzlabs technology leans on a container system which embeds the

Re: CeBIT and mainframes

It has a small proof-of-concept box that it can make available to those running mainframe apps where they can see how it works and try out some of their own applications. This box, based on an Intel NUC running an i7 CPU, is smaller than the size of a hardback book, but can run workloads as if it

Re: CeBIT and mainframes

IMHO they don't run compiled code. They recompile source code. Clue: Raincode is their technology partner. Raincode makes COBOL compiler. -- Radoslaw Skorupka Lodz, Poland -- Treść tej wiadomości może zawierać informacje prawnie chronione Banku przeznaczone wyłącznie do użytku służbowego

LzLabs (Was: CeBIT and mainframes)

On 3/18/2016 6:30 AM, Bill Woodger wrote: A google-translate of part of the final article in French from the media section of the LzLabs website. "Lzlabs technology leans on a container system which embeds the mainframe application and data. The application and its lines of code are included

CeBIT and mainframes

Hi I played around the CeBIT website and came across this interesting thing: http://www.cebit.de/exhibitor/lzlabs/E363469 http://www.bankingtech.com/454942/lzlabs-unveils-worlds-first-software-defined-mainframe/ I see this note: LzLabs Software Defined Mainframe (TM) enables both Red Hat

Re: CeBIT and mainframes

On 03/17/2016 08:01 AM, Elardus Engelbrecht wrote: > Hi > > I played around the CeBIT website and came across this interesting thing: > > http://www.cebit.de/exhibitor/lzlabs/E363469 > > http://www.bankingtech.com/454942/lzlabs-unveils-worlds-first-software-defined-mainframe/ > > > I see this

Re: CeBIT and mainframes

no recompile involved. Just relink to replace IBM's LE modules. Itschak On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 12:01 PM, Mark Regan wrote: > There is a ComputerWeekly article on this product at > >

Re: CeBIT and mainframes

On Mar 19, 2016, at 2:42 PM, Joel C. Ewing wrote: On 03/18/2016 11:14 PM, Ed Gould wrote: On Mar 18, 2016, at 1:00 PM, Clark Morris wrote: On 18 Mar 2016 07:27:09 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main Itschak wrote: no recompile involved. Just relink to replace IBM's LE modules. So what

Re: CeBIT and mainframes

On 03/18/2016 11:14 PM, Ed Gould wrote: > On Mar 18, 2016, at 1:00 PM, Clark Morris wrote: > >> On 18 Mar 2016 07:27:09 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main Itschak wrote: >> >>> no recompile involved. Just relink to replace IBM's LE modules. >> So what processor(s) is this code running on? What

Re: CeBIT and mainframes

There is a ComputerWeekly article on this product at http://www.computerweekly.com/blogs/quocirca-insights/2016/03/the-software-defined-mainframe.html. I noticed that the article author needs to know how to spell the acronym for EBCDIC correctly. He spells it 'EBSDIC' and did it twice. On Fri,

Re: CeBIT and mainframes

dave.g4...@gmail.com (Dave Wade) writes: > In fact its a bit like SVC's in VM/370. The code which handles them is > very different to that in the OS world, but the code still runs there was joke about the time MVS came out with 8mbyte kernel image in every virtual address space ... that the

Re: CeBIT and mainframes

Nah, not letting him off that easily! The word "coded" is the same in both languages, and BCD ¬= BSD. Like us Brits tend to say "kicks" and the Americans tend to say "see, eye, see, ess" but it's still actually CICS :-) Cheers, Mick. On 18 March 2016 at 18:35, Tom Brennan

CeBIT and mainframes

A google-translate of part of the final article in French from the media section of the LzLabs website. "Lzlabs technology leans on a container system which embeds the mainframe application and data. The application and its lines of code are included and the native format of the original data

Re: CeBIT and mainframes

and retain any communications sent from or received at this email address. -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of Joel C. Ewing Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2016 11:38 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: [IBM-MAIN] CeBIT

Re: CeBIT and mainframes

Please note I have no connection with lzlabs, other than I know some people who work there from other things I have dabbled in 1) On that note its worth doing a LinkedIn search and seeing who say they work for LZLABS. I notice a couple I know from the Hercules that I didn't know worked

Re: CeBIT and mainframes

On 16Mar17:1037-0500, Joel C. Ewing wrote: > I notice they also claim > "no need for recompilation of Cobol or PL/1 application programmes, no > source code changes, or changes to operational procedures". > > So they have somehow managed to replicate the functional behavior of all > the SVC and

Re: CeBIT and mainframes

Maybe EBSDIC is just like colour vs. color, spanner vs. wrench. John McKown wrote: I just read the article. Interestin, but, really, EBSDIC? Twice?!? -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send

Re: CeBIT and mainframes

On Mar 18, 2016, at 1:00 PM, Clark Morris wrote: On 18 Mar 2016 07:27:09 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main Itschak wrote: no recompile involved. Just relink to replace IBM's LE modules. So what processor(s) is this code running on? What exactly is being done? Clark Morris

Re: CeBIT and mainframes

Sounds a lot like http://www.z390.org/ . It took about 5 years for one guy to develop. It emulates hardware instructions and operating system calls. No IBM software (other than macro definitions for the system calls). On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 10:37 AM, Joel C. Ewing wrote: > On

Re: CeBIT and mainframes

On 18 Mar 2016 07:27:09 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main Itschak wrote: >no recompile involved. Just relink to replace IBM's LE modules. So what processor(s) is this code running on? What exactly is being done? Clark Morris > >Itschak > > > >On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 12:01 PM, Mark Regan