Long live IBM System z

Tagged with: system z

View Comments and Questions (4)

What's Your Question � Ask Our Experts..

The term ‘mainframe' may no longer be in vogue, but despite the (greatly exaggerated) rumours of its demise, this venerable workhorse of the data centre continues to evolve ----- and thrive.

In fact, sales of IBM's System z computers have grown at a healthy rate over the last two years, says Martin Boakes, an IBM System z specialist at Logicalis. With a new version of System z to launch shortly, he says, that trend seems set to continue well into the future.

And that, adds Boakes, is because machines once known as ‘Big Iron' might, in these environmentally-conscious days, be more appropriately dubbed ‘Big Green'.

Put simply, a System z computer takes up less floorspace and consumes less power than the numerous Unix and Intel servers that would be required to process similar workloads, says Boakes. "And in terms of total cost of ownership (TCO), mainframes beat distributed systems by a significant margin," he adds.

His claims are backed up by analysts from the IT market research company, the Robert Frances Group. In a 2007 white paper titled, ‘Mainframe Computing and Power in the Data Center', they said: "Mainframe systems consume less power, both in absolute and relative terms [than standard servers]. Typically, mainframe power densities are less than half of those of current rack and blade distributed systems. When looking at like workloads, the amount of energy consumed falls precipitously, in some cases the costs associated for power needed for an application are reduced by a factor of 600."

It's no surprise, then, that organisations are taking a fresh look at what might be considered to be ‘the ultimate consolidation platform', says Boakes. "By adding virtual machine technology and the open source Linux operating system to the mix, you get a system that streamlines provisioning for new applications. And these new applications not only benefit from the inherent reliability, availability and security of the platform on which they're hosted, but also are immediately covered by existing disaster recovery processes," he says.

Better licensing terms are another big draw, he adds, since software that is sold on a per-CPU [central processing unit] basis will be sixteen times cheaper on a mainframe than on a distributed server holding 16 CPUs.

IBM itself is already making the most of that efficiency. In mid-2007, it announced plans to move the workload of 3,900 of its 8,500 servers to 30 virtualised System z computers running Linux.

A major advantage of the System z update, expected in late February, will be even faster chipsets. These, says Boakes, are likely to push the mainframe even further in front of its commodity-based rivals in the enterprise computing space.

So long live System z - living proof that all those ‘death of the mainframe' rumours have been greatly exaggerated.

Your Comments and Questions

Stuart Rees, about 1 month ago

This is such a simple question with such a wide ranging response required to help give an appreciation of many of the benefits from use of M/F's. The responses from both Chris and Martin addresses some key points. I would like to add some more. Simplicity, both in terms of infrastructure (keeping the IS complexity in a simple easy to manage IT infrastructure) and recovery are also offered by the main frame (M/F) both for current and consolidated applications. The Linux capability allows "open" environments to be more easily accommodated as well as providing the simplicity for "re-use" of exising data (however held, DB or otherwise) on the M/F the existing applications business logic to build "new or enhanced" applications. The groundswell of consolidation also allows the "z" virtualisation to play to its strengths and capabilities, ("efficient IT). ALL of the above have the overiding consideration of an effective TCO. Actually NONE of the above ever went away. Two final points 1. If you don't know that you can do all this (on a "z server" AND cost effectively then you never get to consider the value that a m/f based solution can deliver - (this awareness is still a problem within IT), it is slowly (in my view) becoming more widely appreciated, both by CIO's and IT architects. 2. Have a look at the following URL (you have to register to be able to then see (Launch)the presentation). It accompanied the recent z10 announcement, but speaks little of it and more addresses the issues facing IT execs in being able to deploy future applications and how "z" can help as well as a true understanding of (TCO) costs can be derived and that is does not need a user population of "1000's" to be able to justify. http://www.on24.com/clients/ibm/102818 Hope this helps a little and it is hard to be brief. Hardware is not the issue, but the need for "open" environments to be able to use existing "stuff" (applications/data) and make new "stuff" cost effectively. IT's all about cost (TCO)

Martin Boakes, about 1 month ago

Victoria - I'm not sure the mainframe was ever out of favour with some of the larger users as they've continued to grow over the years. However I fully accept that the term "mainframe" was forgotten about as the distributed world grew. I also think that IBM didn't address this quickly enough to move with the market trends. However the new mainframe (or should we just call it a System z server?) is now more flexible than ever before. IBM have built specialist engines for particular workloads to lower the costs to the user. With the use of VM and Linux the System z machines really have a strong efficiency message as well. IBM also announced recently that they've been working with Sine Nomine Associates and Sun to port OpenSolaris onto the System z machines just as a proof of concept...Watch this space, but it seems that IBM and System z have suddenly woken up after a ten year nap!!

Victoria, 2 months ago

If this is the case, then why did mainframes fall out of favour in the first place? Was it a question of price or scale (the fact that organisations with less than 10,000 employees simply can't justify the cost)? I recall the argument in favour of rack and blade distributed servers was based on the fact they were considered more flexible and easier to integrate with other systems, as mainframes were typically built on proprietary equipment. Is this untrue these days?