Linked by David Adams on Wed 7th Sep 2011 21:15 UTC, submitted by sjvn
Ubuntu, Kubuntu, Xubuntu Sources close to Canonical and IBM are telling me that Ubuntu may soon be certified on IBM's System p mini-computers and blades and System z mainframes.
Thread beginning with comment 489108
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:

People who keep coming into these topics and talking about just cpu power seriously need to do some research.
Because in the enterprise sector raw cpu power doesn't mean nearly as much as i/o ability and redundancy. Most servers actually sit with the cpu idling while waiting for disk or network access. This is why virtualization is becoming so common.
Secondly, mainframe architecture is very different from small systems. In a small system the cpu handles darn near everything, so it needs to be high powered. In a mainframe, all i/o is relegated to specialized processors, and there are specialized processors for Java and database programs.
A mainframe is in fact a cluster, so tightly integrated that only the head sysadmin needs to know/care.

So what? I claim that IBM Mainframe cpus are several times slower than a high end x86 cpu. I dont see that you deny that. You are talking about good I/O, etc - I have never talked about Mainframe I/O. Are you trying to shift focus away from the slow Mainframe cpus, and try to make me say things I never said about I/O?

Thus, the IBM Mainframe cpus are several times slower than a high end x86 cpu. Look in a post higher up, by me, for more information about the slowness of IBM Mainframe cpus.

Here is more information about the latest IBM Mainframe cpu, the Z196, which runs at 5.26GHz and has close to half a GB of cpu cache. IBM dubs this the "Worlds Fastest CPU" - which is quite dubios advertising.

PS. I dont understand how IBM can claim that a big Mainframe can virtualize 1.500 x86 servers, when there is no way that 24 slow Mainframe cpus can do the work of much faster 1.500 x86 cpus?

Reply Parent Score: 2

zima Member since:

So, what, is it your goal to bring this textbook strawman argument of yours into every news which touches on mainframes? Glance over replies every time?

Despite it being pointed out at least once ( and I don't see why to "agree" with something which isn't ever your initial premise, in fact is a rephrasing of what needs to be largely pointed out every time) to you what kind of fallacious point it is and that nobody promotes mainframes as if they were about CPU power, nobody uses mainframes like that, that's not their point ...yet you must criticise them on this non-issue. Nobody seems to treat them as such except you...

You are being dishonest in your evasions. Your premise does boil down to "why would anybody care about mainframes at all, their CPUs are so slow!" ...yes, it presents things like only CPU would matter, like you would dismiss all the other factors.

It's like (inevitable car analogy :p ) you'd bust into some article about a nice articulated, low-floor hybrid bus, and disparage it on the basis that it is slower than a racecar; building on that basis alone your wonder why anybody would choose to ride on it, why public authorities would waste money on buses for public transport instead of simply buying racecars.

(and many servers, services, are idling vast majority of the time, waiting for "random" request which need to be speedily replied to; that's probably a good case for "excessive" virtualisation)

Edited 2011-09-14 23:57 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2