Microsoft Windows, On a Mainframe 422
coondoggie writes with an excerpt from Network World: "Software that for the first time lets users run native copies of the Windows operating systems on a mainframe will be introduced Friday by data center automation vendor Mantissa. The company's z/VOS software is a CMS application that runs on IBM's z/VM and creates a foundation for Intel-based operating systems. Users only need a desktop appliance running Microsoft's Remote Desktop Connection (RDC) client, which is the same technology used to attach to Windows running on Terminal Server or Citrix-based servers. Users will be able to connect to their virtual and fully functional Windows environments without any knowledge that the operating system and the applications are executing on the mainframe and not the desktop."
WHY???? (Score:5, Insightful)
One simple word : WHY?
kinda funny (Score:5, Insightful)
the technology cycle is kinda funny. first it was dumb terminals, then the push to get everything on the desktop, now we're back to dumb terminals.
Wohoo. Queue up some Elton John.
Re:Most common use of virtualization (Score:5, Insightful)
You can use Windows and Mainframe in the same sentence.
You can even use Reliability and Mainframe int he same sentence.
But, seriously, using Windows and Reliability together??? You must be from marketing.
Re:old farts trying to stay relevent (Score:5, Insightful)
What is it with trying to get everything back on a mainframe? It's dead already, just manage your desktops and stop trying to revive it.
Dead? That would be news to IBM and the other mainframe vendors. Mainframes have many advantages:
- Solidity. You can buy mainframes with a warranty and guarantee, meaning that IT WILL NOT CRASH.
- Performance. There is lots of literature detailing the performance of mainframes under real-time conditions.
Now, these factors aren't important to everybody, but they are to some.
On the other hand, I doubt the price of PC virtualization on a mainframe is going to beat virtualizaion on Sun or VMware.
Why not VMware? (Score:5, Insightful)
Rocket powered hamster indeed.
Why wouldn't you just spend the money on a small ESX farm with a couple of nodes and a NFS or iSCSI SAN?
That's something your in house techies can manage. If something busts, you get a new part and install it yourself. No need to call Big Blue up and have the wizard come down just to replace a failed processor. You get the redundancy, and reliability that you need for mission critical services.
Running Windows on a zSeries is just lame. zSeries != x86, so you're emulating a processor /anyways/, and I can't imagine the performance would be that stellar anyhow. Chances are if you paid for a zS, you've got better things to put your processor capabilities towards rather then emulating Windows. Plus I can't imagine that *any* software that runs on a zSeries is cost effective...
-AC
Re:Let the analogies commence (Score:2, Insightful)
This is like:
Running the space shuttle on unleaded?
The space shuttle may run on liquid hydrogen, but the Russian liquid fueled rocket boosters burn kerosene (just one tiny step from diesel fuel), so I don't know why that would be such a stretch.
Re:Easy answer (Score:2, Insightful)
Most hickups when running exchange is because of crappy software, not faulty hardware. Putting a virtualised Windows on good hardware wont help a bit. You also loose a fairly good percentage of the computing power to the virtualization. A much better route would be to optimize and debug the software since exchange and dotnet really are unusually big resource-pigs.
Re:Big investment (Score:1, Insightful)
we've done two full processor replacements totally transparently to the users.
Try that with an ESX cluster.
Sure. Move your running virtual machines with vMotion off of the server that needs maintenance to another server, then power down the first server, swap the CPUs, power it up, and move the virtual machines back.
The users never notice.
Re:Easy answer (Score:4, Insightful)
actualy for MS exchange it is the reverse of what you claim.
Exchange runs quite well with very few problems in and of it's self - but if there is an IO timeout or a fail to write or something of that sort or buggy hardware drivers you will have big problems.
While you do lose some to over head virtulizing exchange is a very good idea in pratice - it plays very well and is exceptional stable in a VM.
the trick is not to never let exchange talk directly to the outside world but rather to trusted hosts you manage - which any decent size exchange deployment should be doing.
I've been running exchange in an VM for over 3 years now and have had zero problems with stability or preformace.
Don't knock it till you've tried it.. although i do have to scratch my head on doing it on a mainframe..
Re:In other news... (Score:3, Insightful)
You are so right.
So lets take a commodity OS and run it on the most expensive processor-speed licensed hardware we can find only to get the overall performance of a basic Dell PC. Ooh, and lets throw in some low-density high-cost FICON based storage expense just for fun. Ya, that's a great idea.
Anyone who buys this model is an absolute fool and just fell off the IT turnip truck.
Re:In other news... (Score:2, Insightful)
Yes, most seem to mis-interpret mainframe to mean supercomputer.
Re:And performance (Score:3, Insightful)
Running x86 emulation on zArch is going to be slooooow.
Possibly, but it's probably done with a mix of interpretation and binary-to-binary translation, so it might not be too slow.
Also: If you already have a mainframe ... (Score:3, Insightful)
In a tough economy, even the high price of a mainframe might be attractive if it means eliminating a large number of rack mounts and personnel devoted to keeping Exchange online (as well as all the other servers typically found in large corporations).
Also: If you already HAVE a mainframe and it's underutilized (which they ALWAYS are unless they're too small - and then you scale them up for a fee), moving your Microsoft server apps onto a partition of it lets you discard the racks of PC-style servers and their attendant hardware maintenance issues (and personnel) - while porting your software maintenance crew directly over to the new platform.
This could be quite a cost saving in trying times.
Just one question... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Most common use of virtualization (Score:3, Insightful)
Exchange wins because of two other factors, and its not related to costs:
The first is the fact that Exchange is the standard in the industry. It isn't perfect, but it is the lingua franca of its department.
The second is regulation compliance. Sarbanes Oxley, HIPAA, and other laws require E-mail in various departments to be archived for seven years, 50 years if its aircraft related. It is easy to add archiving and retention capability to Exchange and have it pass audits, be it SEC audits, financial audits, ISO audits, or business specific audits. You can add third party extensions for more finer grade control. Managers can pay the steep ticket for entry and know that this base is covered.
Of course, there are other solutions that do the same thing, but buying Exchange is mainly a CYA move. Something happens and mail gets lost, Microsoft can be blamed, as opposed to the company facing potential lawsuits by shareholders and company officers facing prison times for failing to do due diligence with a system that isn't proven or certified.
Pure marketing (Score:3, Insightful)
Microsoft has the problem that nobody in the big iron business takes them seriously. They hope Windows on Mainframes gives them more credibility.
IBM has the problem, that the little kids just don't do mainframes anymore. They hope to attract more Windows people to mainframes.
It's not a product anybody will actually buy. You not only need the software, but also dedicated hardware. Linux for example runs on those mainframes natively or under the virtualisation. No extra hardware required.
Re:Imagine this... (Score:5, Insightful)
Imagine,
1979, then again in 1985, then again in 1996, then again in 2001 and now in 2009...
People forgetting the huge roadblocks and drawbacks of the thin client model and imagining it solving every problem with home PCs...again (oh but this time will be different!).
See you again in another eight to ten years.
What's a Web Browser? (Score:3, Insightful)
morbid fascination? (Score:3, Insightful)
Quote:
"The product has been a bear for the development group but the thought of being able to run 3,000 copies of Windows on one System z so fascinated the team that we needed very little additional incentive"
That is one bizarre fascination.
Re:Imagine this... (Score:3, Insightful)
Imagine.. you lose your internet connection (for whatever reason)...
Emulation? (Score:3, Insightful)
The article seems very vauge when it comes to what this z/VOS actually does, but since Microsoft haven't made any noises about a version of Windows that runs on z/Arhitecture, I can only assume this is a kind of emulated Intel environment. As a very rough rule of thumb I would say that a CPU emulation would run about 10 times slower than the actual CPU; and considering that the price for a mainframe is still up there in the tens of millions of USD, give or take, is this really something worth doing when you can get fairly hefty Dell server for a few thousand USD?
After all, the great strength of the mainframe is not so much that it is unbelievably powerful or fast (it isn't, actually), but that its HW is massively redundant, and that you can hot-swap just about every component up to, and including, the CPUs.