http://www.linux-mag.com/id/7167/ Open Source, Open Standards Sat, 05 Oct 2013 13:48:18 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1 http://www.linux-mag.com/id/7167/#comment-1072867 allourweb Wed, 24 Jul 2013 14:29:33 +0000 http://www.linux-mag.com/id/7167/#comment-1072867 Aw, this was a honestly nice post. In notion I would like to put in writing like this moreover - taking time and actual effort to make a pretty superior article?- but what can I say?- I procrastinate alot and by no means appear to get something completed. allourweb. Aw, this was a honestly nice post. In notion I would like to put in writing like this moreover – taking time and actual effort to make a pretty superior article?- but what can I say?- I procrastinate alot and by no means appear to get something completed. allourweb.

]]> http://www.linux-mag.com/id/7167/#comment-5839 pfloyd Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.linux-mag.com/id/7167/#comment-5839 So many similar articles focus too much on the cost of the mainframe hardware; everyone knows hardware is not the significant cost center it used to be - people and software are the big differentiators. I just completed an in-depth TSO study that compared the cost of running 160 virtual servers on the mainframe to 160 servers on Intel platforms. It wasn't even close - the mainframe was millions of dollars cheaper when ALL of the costs are totaled out over three years. When the number of servers climbs above 160 the mainframe's advantage is even greater because floor space, power and environmental factors play a larger part. Most software is licensed on a per-processor or per-core basis, and fewer larger processors (on mainframes) translate to significant savings. Savings on SAN and network port infrastructure is very significant as well; and time to procure, build, harden, and deploy are big manpower differentiators.<br /> Virtualization on Intel will narrow this gap - and we are pursuing the same TCO study comparing against a virtualized Intel infrastructure, but software-per-core will still give the mainframe the advantage I suspect. So many similar articles focus too much on the cost of the mainframe hardware; everyone knows hardware is not the significant cost center it used to be – people and software are the big differentiators. I just completed an in-depth TSO study that compared the cost of running 160 virtual servers on the mainframe to 160 servers on Intel platforms. It wasn’t even close – the mainframe was millions of dollars cheaper when ALL of the costs are totaled out over three years. When the number of servers climbs above 160 the mainframe’s advantage is even greater because floor space, power and environmental factors play a larger part. Most software is licensed on a per-processor or per-core basis, and fewer larger processors (on mainframes) translate to significant savings. Savings on SAN and network port infrastructure is very significant as well; and time to procure, build, harden, and deploy are big manpower differentiators.
Virtualization on Intel will narrow this gap – and we are pursuing the same TCO study comparing against a virtualized Intel infrastructure, but software-per-core will still give the mainframe the advantage I suspect.

]]>