TECH New IBM entry level mainframe is all Linux

Well, almost all Linux. It does still run the z/VM hypervisor OS, which allows many copies of Linux to run at the same time.

This should make our Linux fans here at TB2K smile.

http://hardware.slashdot.org/story/09/12/09/2329211/IBMs-Newest-Mainframe-Is-All-Linux

"IBM has released a new mainframe server that doesn't include its z/OS operating system. This Enterprise Linux Server line supports Red Hat or Suse. The system is packaged with mainframe management and virtualization tools. Its minimum processor configuration are two specialty mainframe processors designed for Linux. IBM wants to go after large multicore x86 Linux servers and believes the $212,000 entry price can do it."

http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9142007/IBM_s_newest_mainframe_is_all_Linux_

IBM's newest mainframe is all Linux
With starting price of $212,000, IBM wants to compete directly against higher-end x86 servers
By Patrick Thibodeau
December 9, 2009 10:00 AM ET

Computerworld - IBM has expanded its server lineup with a new mainframe system designed just for Linux that may be aimed, in particular, at higher-end x86 systems.

The new system uses IBM's specialty Linux processor and runs either Novell SUSE or Red Hat systems. It does not use the mainframe operating system z/OS but includes mainframe management software as well as IBM's z/Virtual Machine system. Together, they constitute the company's latest "solutions edition," or what IBM says are lower-cost, integrated stacks for the mainframe.

There are two servers in the Enterprise Linux Server line, and the starting price on the lower-end model, with two processors, is $212,000; it scales up from there. This system is intended to be competitive with large multicore systems used for virtualization consolidation.

The Linux-specific line is IBM's latest effort to reduce the cost of its mainframe. It's high-end z10 Enterprise Class system can cost millions. But several years ago, IBM started producing a smaller model, the z10 Business Class, which was initially offered at about $100,000, to compete with a broader range of enterprise servers.

Reed Mullen, the System z virtualization lead product planner, said that potential customers include companies that want to virtualize a lot of systems but aren't necessarily mainframe customers.

Among the arguments that IBM will make for this system is its ability to dynamically add capacity in a running environment, Mullen said.

IBM expects to upgrade its z10 next year, in keeping with its three-year upgrade cycle. IBM's mainframe sales have been off 26% in the most recent quarter compared with the same quarter last year, and server sales have been flat across the board.

Brad Day, an analyst at Forrester Research Inc., said IBM has been working to reduce the cost of its mainframe software, which can account for half the cost of a mainframe, including personnel, energy and maintenance. With this new hardware, IBM likely wants to compete with x86 systems with 16 processor cores and above, he said.

Anything that lowers the life-cycle cost of the system is critical, and by focusing on Linux, IBM is "putting meat to where most of the workloads are going," Day said. "About half of the new growth of applications on mainframe is led by Linux."

.

I'm on a huge project now, migrating all of our applications off of the mainframe on to Linux.

I can see it now .... 2 weeks after the migration is complete, management will decide to move everything back to the mainframe.

I can see it now .... 2 weeks after the migration is complete, management will decide to move everything back to the mainframe.

Click to expand...

It wouldn't be the first time.

One nice thing about a mainframe (other than this new one), is the fact that you can run several different operating systems at the same time under z/VM, side by side so to speak. You can have Linux open in one "window", z/OS in another, and z/VSE in another. This makes things like migration, or multi-OS development alot easier, IMHO...

Would you mind telling me what type of system you're moving? Nothing specific. Just stuff like are they batch or on-line (CICS) programs. What language was used on the mainframe, what OS? Is the mainframe newer "z" series hardware, or is it older, like 390/ESA tech?

Just curious...

Smilin'!

Sysman said:

Would you mind telling me what type of system you're moving? Nothing specific. Just stuff like are they batch or on-line (CICS) programs. What language was used on the mainframe, what OS? Is the mainframe newer "z" series hardware, or is it older, like 390/ESA tech?

Click to expand...

The mainframe was running z/OS Release 8. This is a batch application. COBOL programs, DB2 database, couple of VSAM files.

On the Linux side of the house, the JCL was all converted to scripts. We're using Microfocus COBOL, UDB database. All the VSAM files were converted to Microfocus indexed files.

The mainframe was running z/OS Release 8. This is a batch application. COBOL programs, DB2 database, couple of VSAM files.

On the Linux side of the house, the JCL was all converted to scripts. We're using Microfocus COBOL, UDB database. All the VSAM files were converted to Microfocus indexed files.

Click to expand...

I'm surprised they're making a move if they already have z hardware. The z was born to run Linux. Are they trying to "save money" by moving away from mainframe tech? If so, they may be surprised in the end. After you add it all up, big iron does give you more "bang for the buck". If they have any sort of serious workload (which many batch oriented jobs do), your remark about moving back to the mainframe after migration, may not be all that far out.

I played with Microfocus at my last job, back in the mid '90s. I didn't know they had a Linux version now, learn something new every day. It all worked well, but we just couldn't get the throughput. After all, even the best PC based ATA RAID-0 systems today, can't even come close to a heavily cached Shark disk array, fed by 16 fibre channels. Part of the reason why mainframes cost 6 or 7 figures...

Anyway, that said, good luck with your migration! Seriously.

One thing I forgot to say about Microfocus...

You may not have this situation, but many, especially older Cobol programs, would often CALL Assembly language subroutines. It was a very common practice. So Microfocus needed a way to support Assembly language.

I was surprised when I first got the Microfocus package. It included the PC/370 assembler and runtime. PC/370 had already been around for a long time. It was an old shareware program, I'ld been playing with it for years already.

Turns out, they hired the shareware author...

Here ya go denfoote, I posted the first one before, the million dollar IBM z10.



.

Sysman said:

I'm surprised they're making a move if they already have z hardware. The z was born to run Linux. Are they trying to "save money" by moving away from mainframe tech?

Click to expand...

This is all about cost reduction. All of our support was outsourced a few years ago. It's costing a fortune. The thinking (on the part of those who are paid to think about these things) is that the Linux environment can be supported internally, and with a smaller staff than would be required if we brought the mainframe back in house again.

Windoz vs. Linux

OK, right out the gate I'll admit to being a computer dummy. Oh, I can navigate around the things and even built a couple of PCs, but I can't write any sort of code or repair many software problems. Still, I battled Windows through its inception through every incarnation up through XP and understood it well enough to have semi-tamed the beast.

Still, semi-tamed beasts can inflict major wounds and I received more than my share from Windoz.

Last year I made the leap to Linux and have never looked back. It's much more stable and I've had absolutely no virus issues. I still don't really understand it nearly as well as I understood Windoz, but am much happier with it.

Best regards
Doc

Got a question Sysman,

What is the bogomips rating of one of these things, both as an entry level machine, and as a fully decked out UberCruncher. My Alphaservers range from around 41,000 to around 108,000 bogomips. Just wondering what a decade of new technology does for brute force speed...

Loup

Thanks Sysman!!

It is gratifying to see IBM come to it's senses in such a BIG way.

What is the bogomips rating of one of these things

Click to expand...

My understanding of a bogomip is the smallest possible program, that does absolutely nothing. Something like a jump instruction that jumps to itself. I don't think I've ever seen that number for a modern IBM mainframe.

IBM doest't publish MIPS figures. But "unofficial" estimates put the new 64-CPU z10 at 27,000 MIPS. This is a real world number, using an "average" instruction mix, doing productive work.

It's hard to compare MIPS between architectures. The EDit instruction on the mainframe is a good example. Let's say you have a number like 1234567 and you want to make it "pretty". Insert commas and a decimal point, to make it easier for humans to read. Turn it into a string that looks like 12,345.67 . You can do this with a single ED instruction on big iron. You would also need a MVC instruction to setup the mask, and if the original number is binary, you'ld need to do a CVD instruction. So you would need 3 instructions to do the job. I wrote a general purpose subroutine to do the same thing in 32-bit x86 assembly language. It took 68 instructions, using a couple loops to get the same job done...

Other factors put the mainframe in a different class. Channels are perhaps the most significant. Think of a channel as a little stand alone computer. The main CPU issuse a single SIO (Start IO) instruction, and the channel takes over. The main CPU continues to execute instructions while the channel fetches the data and puts it into, or takes it from main storage. For example, a "channel program" to read a disk record may consist of a SEEK command to move the disk head to a specific cylinder, then a SEARCH command to find the the desired record on a track, and finally a READ command to actually get the data. The channel does all this. When it's done, it "interrupts" the main CPU, and says I'm done, here's your data...

A maxed out z10 can have as many as 1,024 independent channels. All moving data on their own at multi gigaBYTE speeds, all while the 64 main CPUs continue to run code...

With all this data, it takes alot of memory. The new z10 maxes out at 1.5 terrabytes of RAM. Yes, I did say terrabytes. They only stopped there because they ran out of room in the cabinet. On the back end are things like the big disk arrays, that contain up to 64GB cache of their own. Lots of memory, everywhere.

I do Unix sysadmin .... I prefer any Unix over anything.

Linux, HP, Sun... Linux is not the only Unix player. Might be the cheapest one, especially hardware-wise.

Sysman said:

...
IBM doest't publish MIPS figures. But "unofficial" estimates put the new 64-CPU z10 at 27,000 MIPS. This is a real world number, using an "average" instruction mix, doing productive work.
...

Click to expand...

Thanks,

That is close enough to what I was looking for. MIPS ratings will work. And yes, I do realize that both the OS and the CPUs are different from mainframes to supercomputers. The mainframes have a lot of one opcode "subroutines" that do a lot in one shot, so in effect a bogomips result would be at best tainted. Prime example of this is showing how an old VAX that might have had a processor clock speed in the < 70MHz range can run Linux at about the same speed as a Pentium 3 at several hundred MHz, all because of opcode "subroutines".

I just wanted to see how much better things have gotten. When Compaq sold DEC's ALPHA IP to Intel, I watched as both Intel and AMD used that tech to boost their processor lines, and now we have 64bit EV7 and EV8 classed processors for cheap in out units at home. Sure, some of the other DEC innovations have not shown up yet, but they are getting better out there.

I just hope that "Cap and Trade" does not force more crap like the Atom processor on everybody. Goodbye performance, goodbye power...

Loup

LoupGarou said:

When Compaq sold DEC's ALPHA IP to Intel, I watched as both Intel and AMD used that tech to boost their processor lines, and now we have 64bit EV7 and EV8 classed processors for cheap in out units at home. Sure, some of the other DEC innovations have not shown up yet, but they are getting better out there.

Click to expand...

Loup -- some Alpha "innovations" were "hot," in their day -- and, some stand up to scrutiny through today's technical prism, perhaps -- what has changed over the decade or so since the demise of the Alpha CPU is simply "faster, better, cheaper" writ large, coupled with a total revamping of the hardware/firmware architectures, and related retuning/rewriting of the OS to bring about all sorts of previously unknown computing goodness -- at an affordable price-point in all segments.

Balance is the key difference that has been increasingly brought to bear in commodity computers in the last decade -- between the different parts -- hardware and software, identifying and mitigating processing bottlenecks in all areas -- not simply throwing the hotter processor at the situation -- recall the Intel Pentium fiasco -- they kept turning up the processing speed for little gain and LOTS of heat and power consumption, BECAUSE OTHER areas in the overall computing architecture were woefully deficient, and were unable to allow the faster CPU to "strut its stuff."


intothegoodnight

Doc1 said:

OK, right out the gate I'll admit to being a computer dummy. Oh, I can navigate around the things and even built a couple of PCs, but I can't write any sort of code or repair many software problems. Still, I battled Windows through its inception through every incarnation up through XP and understood it well enough to have semi-tamed the beast.

Still, semi-tamed beasts can inflict major wounds and I received more than my share from Windoz.

Last year I made the leap to Linux and have never looked back. It's much more stable and I've had absolutely no virus issues. I still don't really understand it nearly as well as I understood Windoz, but am much happier with it.

Best regards
Doc

Click to expand...

Couldn't have said it better, Doc -- as you may have noticed via my past postings on this subject, I am a big proponent of Unix/Linux/Mac OSX operating systems vs. Windows for the average computer user -- for precisely the reasons that you point out -- much less pain and thrashing, once set up properly, with only a minor amount of maintenance and monitoring needed from the end user.

Malware? WHAT malware?


intothegoodnight

...and from us "Yup! Mixed it up right here in the sink" type sys-admins...



been vely good to me!

intothatgoodnight said:

...
Balance is the key difference that has been increasingly brought to bear in commodity computers in the last decade -- between the different parts -- hardware and software, identifying and mitigating processing bottlenecks in all areas -- not simply throwing the hotter processor at the situation -- recall the Intel Pentium fiasco -- they kept turning up the processing speed for little gain and LOTS of heat and power consumption, BECAUSE OTHER areas in the overall computing architecture were woefully deficient, and were unable to allow the faster CPU to "strut its stuff."


intothegoodnight

Click to expand...

You can still see a LOT of the ALPHA technology in both of what Intel and AMD are doing, the problem is that nobody is taking it to the next level and doing what DEC did next, using a LOT of multicore processors on one board to get around the speed limiting issue. Both of my ES40 and two of my other ES series ALPHAservers have more than 64 processors each. And each processor has either two or four cores. I want to see Intel come out with a motherboard (NOT a blade server, A SINGLE motherboard with at least 16 processor sockets). Sure, I have seen boards with two or four sockets waiting for the landing of a set of P4s or Xeons, but nothing like what DEC did.

Loup

Are there still Cobol programming jobs out there using Linux or Unix ? How about the Government ?

we have 64bit EV7 and EV8 classed processors for cheap in out units at home

Click to expand...

I've said this here before, but I guess this thread is a good place to say it again.

I've been a "pro" going on 42 years now, and a "hack" for a couple before that. Watching what has happened to computers over the last 4 decades, truly, truly, amazes me...

64-bit systems are a good example. Today they are almost a toy. Average Joe Sixpack can stop by the local Techmart on the way home, and pick one up for the kids. You can put a serious computer in your living room for a few hundred bucks today...

When I first got into this business, we had 64-bit machines. All the top end System/360 models, first introduced in 1964, were 64-bit. The 360/65 /75, /85, /9x, /19x were all 64-bit systems. Memory access was 64-bits, channel transfers were in 64-bit chunks...

The difference between then and now? Size, and cost, and performance...

The 360/65 was the most popular "big machine", I worked on a couple of them for several years. The larger models, the 75, 85 and 9x, were just too expensive for the average big company to afford. Only the .gov, and the science guys, had the bucks to buy, or lease one. So IBM didn't build many of the "very large" systems. But they did build hundreds and hundreds of mod 65s...

The 65 was an apartment sized monster. It consisted of several frames, each about 6x3x8 feet. The actual CPU took a frame. Each 265K of RAM took a frame, with a max of 4 frames, or 1 MEG of main memory. The multiplexor channel took a frame. You could get 3 selector channels in a single frame, most shops ran 2, 6 channels. So a maxed out 65 took 8 boxes, plus "connecting frames", and the required "service area" space around each, like I said, apartment sized. And that's just the "CPU". Now add a row of tape drives plus the required "control unit", a few strings of disk drives each with their own control units, a card reader, a couple printers, a terminal controller, with a rack or 2 or 3 of modems. And let's not forget the giant air conditioners. The average "big mainframe" was quite literally a house sized machine...

Cost? Let's just say IBM wouldn't even return your phone call, unless you had several million in the bank, in 1960's dollars...

Performance? The 65 maxed out at 1 meg of RAM. MIPS rating - 0.85 . The top of the line, multi multi million dollar 360/195, introduced in the late '60s, maxed out with 4 meg of RAM, later expanded to 8 meg. It ran at 5.0 MIPS...

Ahh yes, the good old days...

Are there still Cobol programming jobs out there using Linux or Unix ? How about the Government ?

Click to expand...

I can't speak for *nix, but Cobol is still a very popular language on the IBM mainframe, especially if you do CICS/Cobol. And the government is still a big mainframe user.

"New development" in Cobol has slowed over the years, it isn't "as popular" as it once was. But it does still exist, and there are well paying "Cobol maintenance" jobs out there, somebody needs to manage all that "legacy code" that is still in production...

But like most things in the current economy, several people may be trying to land that one job. These days you need to be "really good" I think. Plus with all "outsourcing" going on these days, sending jobs out of the country, it makes that one job all that much harder to find in the first place...

But Cobol itself, is very much alive and well today...

Linux, the plan.

I've had a Linux box since the mid-1990's. I shoulda put a few hours on it every week. I've gone without putting power to it for years.

"The Plan", if I were more motivated, would be to get a $30 junker P4 box and run a Linux system for learning, experimentation, just getting smarter.

2 or 3 hours a week, week after week and in a few years, you'd have "read into" Linux, be pretty good with the file system, editors, scripting, DB's etc.

That's a hedge, an investment in yourself.

My client runs XP and Win applications, Office, Lotus Notes for email, Firefox. I'm comfortable with all.

There is a geemongous license fee for this. If the economy gets tighter, they might go with the penguin, Open Office, Firefox. I'm not sure where that would leave Lotus Notes.

Under the hood, I occasionally write support tools in Regina Rexx, the open source product.

The thing about Linux is that it runs well on z/, a commodity N-way server, a powerful desktop, and a low power laptop.

One OS, runs everywhere.

Sun Solaris is catching up to Linux fast. They went open source a few years ago, the software is free to download and Solaris 10 kicks serious butt.

I can tell that in most dot coms, most web server farms, Solaris is choice. The hardware is very good, stable for years without a reboot, and very expensive.

HP-UX is a flavor of Unix hugely popular with big banks, insurance, pharma, and such. Also pretty expensive and not open source. I worked with HP-UX for 15 years, it's not as popular as Sun Solaris or even Linux but that means there are fewer candidates for jobs.

There is also AIX, IBM's version of Unix, which has a significant footprint.

There is talk at work about replacing all HP-UX production boxes with Linux.

Myself, I used to have Linux but moved to Solaris 10 these days.

I know Linux has become a very serious player out there. But if you interview for a Unix job, they want real production experience with it, or Sun or HP or AIX. Most production environments out there are either Sun or HP but that's changing fast. It's not that Linux is better, it's cheaper and hardware is certainly much cheaper. If production is moved to Linux, it's because of cost, not anything else.

I think SAP does it's development on SUSE. and Oracle on RedHat. It's a positive force on the market, which influenced Sun to go open source.