In what one IBM-watcher calls a ‘dramatic change’ in IBM’s thinking, Big Blue is now starting to push mainframes that run Linux — and only Linux.
Goodbye zOS? Your Next Big Unix Box Might Be a Linux Mainframe
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
Nothing like a low throughput operating system on big iron
what took IBM 6 long years to do they are finaly doing.
you don’t realy think that they would put billions into Linux and NOT use it eventualy. BTW, Bascule, what makes you think they will not just strip it down and hone it with patches to make it even better for their mainframes?
Are they going to release some source then
?
you don’t realy think that they would put billions into Linux and NOT use it eventualy.
They were already using it in virtual server instances running on top of zOS, and letting zOS do the task management and virtual memory management. This solution makes much more sense to me personally, considering that zOS is quite mature and tuned to the underlying hardware.
BTW, Bascule, what makes you think they will not just strip it down and hone it with patches to make it even better for their mainframes?
I certainly hope they do this, and the same goes for SGI on Altix. I can only speak from personal experience, and the last time I did throughput testing on Linux (2.4) its scores were rather dismal. If anyone cares for the numbers I can dig them up from a previous post…
It’s always nice to see IBM Big Iron news on OSnews, but this article has certain flaws.
There are three possible ways to run Linux on a mainframe, according to Jens Sandmann, enterprise sales manager for SuSE. Most common is to run Linux on a mainframe under zOS, either in a logical partition, or LPAR, or on a hardware engine dedicated to Linux.
0) There is a / in z/OS, as there was in that operating system’s previous names: OS/390, MVS/ESA, MVS/XA, MVS/SP, MVS/370… There’s also a / in z/VM. There is no / in the z800 and z900 mainframe hardware hardware designations.
1) Linux is never run “under” z/OS. It is commonly run in a LPAR side-by-side with z/OS. Both operating systems would be under the control of a hypervisor which handles processor and resource allocation e.g. LPAR A running z/OS gets 80% of CPU, LPAR B running Linux/390 gets 20%.
IBM’s IFL — Integrated Facility for Linux — engines, which run only Linux, cost less than processors which run zOS.
This is misleading. These are the same processors. IBM just prices licenses differently based on whether you’ll be running z/OS or Linux, and how much of each.
Enough criticism. Back to our regular OS advocacy! Good news for Linux/390 is good news for z/VM, grandchild of one of my first OS loves, VM/SP. Go IBM! Rah! Rah! Rah!
Sincerely yours,
Jeffrey Boulier
Note that the hypervisor that manages the LPARs is distinct from z/VM, of ‘1000s of Linux/390 instances on the same physical hardware’ fame.
Yours truly,
Jeffrey Boulier
What you fail to see is what IBM sees and that is, Linux 2.6 and the advances it brings. Linux 2.6 + Mainframe would be a god send for those wanting to have a large website but don’t want to have 100s of servers costings millions to maintain.
As far as I’m aware, the only IBM bare-metal mainframe operating system that doesn’t have a / in its name is TPF, the “Transaction Processing Facility”. Two other non-IBM bare-metal operating systems for IBM mainframes are also /less, KeyKOS (does anyone actually still use that?) and UTS.
I suppose Linux doesn’t have a /, but its mainframe incarnation is generally referred to as Linux/390, as opposed to Linux/x86 (what people tend to assume when one says “Linux”) or Alpha Linux. In any event, Stallman claims the name should be GNU/Linux.
Time for me to stop rambling. Whenever the subject gets to mainframes I start thinking of hot, oil-cooled disk subsystems vibrating seductively, and need to go take a cold shower.
Sincerely yours,
Jeffrey Boulier
What some people fail to believe is Linux is not static, rather it is dynamic. Dynamic in that it is moving forward. 2.0 was not as good as 2.2, which was not as good as 2.4 and 2.6 is going to be even better. To those who say Linux can’t work on the big iron(or that Linux can’t be a desktop OS) seem to be convinced that since today’s Linux isn’t ready, tomorrow’s Linux won’t be either.
Ofcourse IBM is going to pump more power into Linux. If IBM had 100 developers maintaining z/OS, don’t you think that IBM would just move some(if not all) of them over to work on Linux, and make it as good or better then z/OS? Ofcourse they will, it just takes time.
will linux ever 100% replace z/os on ibm mainframes they sell? i just cant see it.
This is just the last hurra before the mainframe
will be switched off for ever. IBM with it’s fear of Wintel (now on 64) is having peoblems to think logically.
But that’s no surprise to me, because they didn’t found
the silver bullet since the late 80s.
Two years ago there where still significantly more transactions processed by mainframes then all the http traffic.
It is sad how low tech win/unix/linux/bsd really are.
We have spent 10 years and had little improvement.
These machines still out class the above oses on slower cpus with less memory much of the time. Single machines with 5 9’s? don’t know anything but mainframes and non stops that get there.
Keep my banking off unix and windows….
There is reason all the markets in the world run on nonstop. Course they don’t have any other customers..
Mr. Burns writes: If IBM had 100 developers maintaining z/OS, don’t you think that IBM would just move some(if not all) of them over to work on Linux, and make it as good or better then z/OS?
No, I don’t. Money that IBM spends on Linux developement also helps all their competitors, who can sit back and reap the benefits. Money spent on z/OS pays its returns just to IBM. Furthermore, there’s a lot less lock-in for Linux users than z/OS; users have a much easier time migrating their applications from IBM hardware running Linux to HP or Dell than they would if they needed to move off of z/OS.
Now, because IBM has a virtual monopoly(1) on 360-compatibles they have more incentive to put resources into ensuring Linux runs well on zSeries than Dell has to make sure Linux runs well on x86. But corporate money for linux will always be limited by the “tragedy of the commons”.
Yours truly,
Jeffrey Boulier
(1) Outside of the software emulator vendors and Hercules, this might be an actual monopoly. Fujitsu/Amdahl exited the IBM mainframe clone business; are Hitachi and NEC still around?
Money that IBM spends on Linux developement also helps all their competitors, who can sit back and reap the benefits.
^– that’s only if it was BSD-style licensed 🙂
you fail to mention that the things SGI, et al. add also help IBM. if they work together they can make a Free software platform so good that only the hardware will matter because the choice will be obvious ((GNU||custom)+Linux)