Re: z14 and zBX

2017-08-28 Thread Ed Jaffe
On 8/28/2017 1:06 AM, R.S. wrote: W dniu 2017-08-27 o 17:34, Ed Jaffe pisze: zBX was a mistake. Every company makes them. My English is poor, do you mean every company makes zBX or every company makes errors?  ;-))) Every company makes zBX :-D -- Phoenix Software International Edward E.

Re: z14 and zBX

2017-08-28 Thread R.S.
W dniu 2017-08-27 o 17:34, Ed Jaffe pisze: On 8/22/2017 4:27 AM, R.S. wrote: The above is some simplification, however I heard A LOT OF zBX, saw a lot of presentations, and IBMers never ever convinced me the zBX is something more than LAN-attached rack. zBX was a mistake. Every company

Re: z14 and zBX

2017-08-27 Thread Anne & Lynn Wheeler
l...@garlic.com (Anne & Lynn Wheeler) writes: > Old email about doing CP (vm370) internals class and > meetings with NSF about connecting NSF supercomputer centers > http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2011h.html#email850930 > http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2011h.html#email851114 >

Re: z14 and zBX

2017-08-27 Thread Anne & Lynn Wheeler
edja...@phoenixsoftware.com (Ed Jaffe) writes: > On 8/22/2017 4:27 AM, R.S. wrote: >> >> The above is some simplification, however I heard A LOT OF zBX, saw >> a lot of presentations, and  IBMers never ever convinced me the zBX >> is something more than LAN-attached rack. > > zBX was a mistake.

Re: z14 and zBX

2017-08-27 Thread Ed Jaffe
On 8/22/2017 4:27 AM, R.S. wrote: The above is some simplification, however I heard A LOT OF zBX, saw a lot of presentations, and  IBMers never ever convinced me the zBX is something more than LAN-attached rack. zBX was a mistake. Every company makes them. -- Phoenix Software International

Re: z14 and zBX

2017-08-23 Thread R.S.
W dniu 2017-08-22 o 16:33, Phil Smith III pisze: R.S. wrote: IMHO it was a mistake from the begining. Whenever I asked the question: "what is the difference between zBX and regular 19" rack with blade servers" I heard about Ensemble, OSX, OSM, etc. Customers do not need ensembles. From

Re: z14 and zBX

2017-08-22 Thread zMan
Mike: Not taking your point...please elaborate? On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 10:56 AM, Mike Schwab wrote: > The IBM 360 mainframe was designed to process data from other machines > and distribute to them. Punch cards, Printers, card to tape machines, > RJE machines, 3270

Re: z14 and zBX

2017-08-22 Thread Mike Schwab
The IBM 360 mainframe was designed to process data from other machines and distribute to them. Punch cards, Printers, card to tape machines, RJE machines, 3270 screens / printers. The PC with 3270 emulator (and now browser) replaced an I/O device, but also became a storage / user processing

Re: z14 and zBX

2017-08-22 Thread Phil Smith III
R.S. wrote: >IMHO it was a mistake from the begining. >Whenever I asked the question: "what is the difference between zBX and regular 19" rack with blade servers" I heard about Ensemble, OSX, OSM, etc. Customers do not need ensembles. From customer point of view zBX is just rack with servers, but

Re: z14 and zBX

2017-08-22 Thread R.S.
W dniu 2017-08-22 o 15:22, Parwez Hamid pisze: As I said, this is not the time for zBX education. Its history. Re: Regarding IDAA, at the time zBX was first introduced (z196), there was ISAO - IBM Smart Analytics Optimizer. Then they changed name (only a name?), then IDAA arrived. And not, IDAA

Re: z14 and zBX

2017-08-22 Thread R.S.
W dniu 2017-08-22 o 13:06, Parwez Hamid pisze: Re the comment: "Whenever I asked the question: "what is the difference between zBX and regular 19" rack with blade servers" I heard about Ensemble, OSX, OSM, etc. Customers do not need ensembles. From customer point of view zBX is just rack with

Re: z14 and zBX

2017-08-22 Thread Parwez Hamid
Re the comment: "Whenever I asked the question: "what is the difference between zBX and regular 19" rack with blade servers" I heard about Ensemble, OSX, OSM, etc. Customers do not need ensembles. From customer point of view zBX is just rack with servers, but less flexible, vendor locked and

Re: z14 and zBX

2017-08-22 Thread R.S.
W dniu 2017-08-22 o 02:13, Phil Smith III pisze: I believe zBX suffered from being too little, too late - if it had been released a decade earlier, it might have been a killer. It was also a fairly narrow solution in terms of what was available to run on it. IMHO it was a mistake from the

Re: z14 and zBX

2017-08-21 Thread Phil Smith III
I believe zBX suffered from being too little, too late - if it had been released a decade earlier, it might have been a killer. It was also a fairly narrow solution in terms of what was available to run on it. I also understand that it was dependent on specific hardware (blades), which IBM did

Re: z14 and zBX

2017-08-21 Thread Parwez Hamid
zBX was withdrawn from marketing on March 31, 2017. However, if you have a zBX Model 004 and the z14 has the Ensemble feature code 0025, the zBX can be in the same Ensemble as the z14. Remember, the zBX Model 004 is a standalone node and not 'tied' to a CPC e.g. z13/z13s/z14

Re: z14 and zBX

2017-08-21 Thread Allan Staller
More likely, no changes needed for zBx. I haven't seen any information regarding zBX for z14 machine. Does it mean IBM (quietly) closed the idea of zBX? ::DISCLAIMER::