AMD to leave x86 behind?

On Fri, 02 Dec 2005 20:38:02 -0800, Dean Kent wrote:

"Keith" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...

snip

Now, consider that 50% of IBMs revenues are mainframe related (hardware,
software, services). 50% of CA's revenues are mainframe related. There
are
still several other significant mainframe software vendors (Innovation,
Compuware, BMC, Serena) and a number of smaller ones. From what I can
tell, this is a tens of billions of dollars per year industry.

Hmm, taking your assertion that "50% of IBMs revenues are mainframe
related" and IBM's $94B revenue, that's "tens of billions per
year" right there. ;-)

Ah, someone got it. :-).

I also forgot to mention one other interesting set of numbers. Using zVM,
a mainframe can run dozens, hundreds, or perhaps even a thousand or more
Linux images (this is the reason zVM is used rather than hardware
partitioning, which limits you to 15 images).

zVM session(s) can be running on one (or several) of the hardware
partitions, as well. It's not either/or.

Using the best case of 1000
images, if we have just 1000 mainframes running Linux under zVM, that makes
1,000,000 Linux images - which is a little bit more difficult to sneeze at.

Of course, the reality is that most installations are likely running dozens
of images, and some will be running a hundred or more. That is still tens
of thousands of Linux images on those paltry, legacy only mainframes...
Yep, just a small niche. (grin).

....a mere bag of shells.

--
Keith

"Keith" wrote in message
news

zVM session(s) can be running on one (or several) of the hardware
partitions, as well. It's not either/or.

Yes, I am aware of that, but I was responding to what I believed was an
implication that Linux w/ zVM was used only to 'use up wasted cycles' rather
than a strategic choice.


...a mere bag of shells.

chuckle....

Yep, tell the major banks of the world that mainframes are only for legacy
apps (many of whom I deal with
regularly in my present position, and I am working with Unix, not Linux...
on the
mainframe! And Linux is even more popular for mainframe use).

Regards,
Dean



--
Keith

Dean Kent wrote:
"Keith" wrote in message
news
zVM session(s) can be running on one (or several) of the hardware
partitions, as well. It's not either/or.

Yes, I am aware of that, but I was responding to what I believed was an
implication that Linux w/ zVM was used only to 'use up wasted cycles' rather
than a strategic choice.

...a mere bag of shells.

chuckle....

Yep, tell the major banks of the world that mainframes are only for legacy
apps (many of whom I deal with
regularly in my present position, and I am working with Unix, not Linux...
on the
mainframe! And Linux is even more popular for mainframe use).

A former co-worker of mine wears a bunch of IT hats for the Royal
Bank of Canada. RBC is Canada's largest bank and apparently
their US operations put them up there with some of the larger
American banks also.

They have mainframes running mostly Unix, and their apps are
decidely *not* legacy apps. The banking industry has simply
changed too much for them to continue using legacy apps - they
have little software that is more than five years old.


Regards,
Dean


--
Keith

"Rob Stow" wrote in message
...
Dean Kent wrote:
"Keith" wrote in message
news
zVM session(s) can be running on one (or several) of the hardware
partitions, as well. It's not either/or.

Yes, I am aware of that, but I was responding to what I believed was an
implication that Linux w/ zVM was used only to 'use up wasted cycles'
rather
than a strategic choice.

...a mere bag of shells.

chuckle....

Yep, tell the major banks of the world that mainframes are only for
legacy
apps (many of whom I deal with
regularly in my present position, and I am working with Unix, not
Linux...
on the
mainframe! And Linux is even more popular for mainframe use).

A former co-worker of mine wears a bunch of IT hats for the Royal Bank of
Canada. RBC is Canada's largest bank and apparently their US operations
put them up there with some of the larger American banks also.

They have mainframes running mostly Unix, and their apps are decidely
*not* legacy apps.


What non-Linux Unix varient runs on Z series, or have we subtlely switched
the topic here? If it is not Z series, or one of the other "traditional"
mainframe systems from the "BUNCH", what architecture s it? I have heard a
lot of systems called "mainframes", where that terminology is at best, "in
dispute".

The banking industry has simply changed too much for them to continue
using legacy apps - they have little software that is more than five years
old.

On what systems are they running check processing? I am not aware of anyone
besides IBM and Unisys who make MICR readers, etc.

--
- Stephen Fuld
e-mail address disguised to prevent spam

"Stephen Fuld" wrote in message
...


What non-Linux Unix varient runs on Z series, or have we subtlely switched
the topic here?

Nope, it is IBM's variant. ;-)

In the late '90s, IBM decided to get on the Unix bandwagon and developed a
version of MVS called Open MVS, which was a POSIX compliant Unix
implementation. That didn't fare too well, so they ended up rolling it
into ESA, and called it Unix System Services (USS). It now runs as a set of
address spaces (one that is typically called OMVS), with Assembler and C
API's for accessing file system, network and other Unix services.


On what systems are they running check processing? I am not aware of
anyone
besides IBM and Unisys who make MICR readers, etc.

I don't know exactly what applications these banks are all running, as my
area is storage management. I only know that they are having to manage many
hundreds of thousands of Unix files on the mainframe (backup/recovery,
etc.). Many of them would be Websphere files, but I am sure there are other
apps being used as well. There has also been some interest in backing up
Linux files to mainframe storage devices (for a common storage management
process).

Regards,
Dean


--
- Stephen Fuld
e-mail address disguised to prevent spam

On Sun, 04 Dec 2005 10:53:23 -0800, Dean Kent wrote:

"Keith" wrote in message
news

zVM session(s) can be running on one (or several) of the hardware
partitions, as well. It's not either/or.

Yes, I am aware of that, but I was responding to what I believed was an
implication that Linux w/ zVM was used only to 'use up wasted cycles' rather
than a strategic choice.

I know *you* know, but you didn't word it such. Hardware isolation
(virtualization) also buys a seperate sandbox for developers. ..."free".

...a mere bag of shells.

chuckle....

Yep, tell the major banks of the world that mainframes are only for
legacy apps (many of whom I deal with regularly in my present position,
and I am working with Unix, not Linux... on the mainframe! And Linux
is even more popular for mainframe use).

Banks are a merely another legacy. ;-)

--
Keith

"Andi Kleen" wrote in message
news

It's not very unixy though - in particularly it uses EBCDIC.

Well, the real problem is that Unix isn't very MVSy. After all, which came
first!!! ;-) The IBM mainframe has always supported EBCDIC, so it seems
that it would be kind of difficult to have to support both (yes/no??).

I heard
it's a major pain to port existing software too. I guess that is why
people prefer using Linux.

I haven't had to port anything, but I believe the problem is that it isn't
really Unix, but a set of 'services' that conform to the POSIX standard.
From what I understand (which may be incorrect), many Unix programs aren't
strictly POSIX compliant - hence the difficulty in porting.

OTOH, I can write an application, using standard MVS services *and* Unix
services in the same app. In fact, I do! ;-).

Regards,
Dean


-Andi

"Dean Kent" writes:

"Keith" wrote in message
...

Hmm, taking your assertion that "50% of IBMs revenues are mainframe
related" and IBM's $94B revenue, that's "tens of billions per year"
right there. ;-)

Ah, someone got it. :-).

Eventually...

I also forgot to mention one other interesting set of numbers.
Using zVM, a mainframe can run dozens, hundreds, or perhaps even a
thousand or more Linux images (this is the reason zVM is used rather
than hardware partitioning, which limits you to 15 images). Using
the best case of 1000 images, if we have just 1000 mainframes
running Linux under zVM, that makes 1,000,000 Linux images - which
is a little bit more difficult to sneeze at.

I seem to remember the numer 15000 being in some ads about it.

Of course, the reality is that most installations are likely running
dozens of images, and some will be running a hundred or more. That
is still tens of thousands of Linux images on those paltry, legacy
only mainframes... Yep, just a small niche. (grin).

It is about the only way to sanely do a big web farm and keep a trace
of security.

--
Paul Repacholi 1 Crescent Rd.,
+61 (08) 9257-1001 Kalamunda.
West Australia 6076
comp.os.vms,- The Older, Grumpier Slashdot
Raw, Cooked or Well-done, it's all half baked.
EPIC, The Architecture of the future, always has been, always will be.

"Sander Vesik" wrote in message
...

Yep, but what a large portion of banks do run these days are those
"mainframes" of disputed terminology.


What a large portion of banks run is a lot of different systems. They
certainly all have desktops and workstations of some type, and almost
certainly use Windows. They likely have minis and servers running several
flavors of Unix. But I also know that most of them (if not all of them)
use IBM mainframes (zSeries) for transaction processing and for keeping
their 'mission critical data' (DB2, etc). Many of their websites are
powered by IBM mainframes running Websphere using DB2 as the data base
(under zOS and/or Linux).

BTW, this isn't limited to just banks - most other large financial
institutions fit this profile also... as well as most of the other Fortune
whatever companies.

Regards,
Dean

"Sander Vesik" wrote in message
...
In comp.arch Stephen Fuld wrote:

"Rob Stow" wrote in message

A former co-worker of mine wears a bunch of IT hats for the Royal Bank
of
Canada. RBC is Canada's largest bank and apparently their US
operations
put them up there with some of the larger American banks also.

They have mainframes running mostly Unix, and their apps are decidely
*not* legacy apps.


What non-Linux Unix varient runs on Z series, or have we subtlely
switched
the topic here? If it is not Z series, or one of the other "traditional"
mainframe systems from the "BUNCH", what architecture s it? I have heard
a
lot of systems called "mainframes", where that terminology is at best,
"in
dispute".

Yep, but what a large portion of banks do run these days are those
"mainframes" of disputed terminology.

I am certainly NOT saying that banks, etc. do not run large systems running
Unix varients. But AFAIK, most of them still run large traditional
mainframe systems, usually from IBM or Unisys for their mission critical
applications.

The banking industry has simply changed too much for them to continue
using legacy apps - they have little software that is more than five
years
old.

On what systems are they running check processing? I am not aware of
anyone
besides IBM and Unisys who make MICR readers, etc.


Is check processing really a significat part of banking any more?

I believe that banks (all of them together) still process millions of checks
a day. While the various forms of electroic payments are a rapidly
expanding part of their business, and total check volume has declined, it is
still a significant part of their business.

--
- Stephen Fuld
e-mail address disguised to prevent spam