Linux on S/390 Gaining Momentum 16
infodragon sent us a link to Open Source IT's story about Linux and the S/390. Not normally considered as sexy as some of the developments as Itanium and such, Linux on the S/390 has garnered a lot of attention from companies and is doing a great job of legitimizing Linux for many large companies.
Re:close minded geeks (Score:1)
Re:This article never appeared on the main page. (Score:1)
So it's not just me. I've seen this effect several times, but I was never really sure, and I never went through the trouble of keeping copies for proof.
- da Lawn
close minded geeks (Score:1)
Linux gets some real power (Score:1)
---
I care! (Score:1)
But it definitely would be nice to
---
People do care, and this is important... (Score:1)
Is there a market? (Score:1)
Re:I care! (Score:1)
Mainframes are really cool, because they are made to work well with large large loads, not PC sized ones.
even though I'm a UNIX geek, I'll always have a soft spot for them.
Re:close minded geeks (Score:1)
Re:close minded geeks (Score:1)
Guess no-one care about this... (Score:2)
Obviously not considered sext *at all*. Three posts? Seems unlikely...
S/390 Not Required To Run Linux S/390 (Score:2)
Re:Sexy! Yes its sexy! (Score:2)
The nerds who have been conditioned by { COBOL | IBM }-hating professors need to wake up to business IT realities.
Over a decade ago the demise of the mainframes was supposed to be imminent. The demise that actually occurred was SNA's plan for world domination. With the reduction of the central system to mere server status, lots of people decided "right-sizing" would finish the extinction process. However, that didn't happen.
Common sense should tell you there's too much money (CEOs and CFOs and COBs favorite word) needed for these platforms for PHBs to justify--there must be something more to them in terms of TCO and price/performance and so forth than was meeting a lot of peoples' eyes.
Well, 41,400 unique, actively processing, multi-user Linux systems running on a single piece of big iron should give you a clue.
IBM is serious about Linux. There are going to be God knows how many Linux-only shops in the world that will grow to the point of needing that kind of performance. IBM wants to sell them iron. If potential customers experience MVS and/or VM sticker shock, or aren't interested in funding the huge training budget those operating systems require, do you think that's going to stop IBM's marketing reps from closing hardware sales? Not on your life!
So find out what you've been missing, expand your horizons, and get ready for the increasing market penetration of the S/390 Linux platform. If you can't get access to a box, install the Hercules S/390 emulator on a fast I86 box and install Linux S/390 on that. If you know nothing about the hardware, you have a monster of a learning curve ahead of you, but as the riddle goes, you eat an elephant one bite at a time. And there are a lot of great people available to help you (provided you RTFM first).
Come on in, the water's fine!
Re:Umm... (Score:2)
Re:Nobody cares about the S/390 (Score:2)
In short, you couldn't be more wrong.
This article never appeared on the main page. (Score:3)
Quoting from the article"
An S/390 running a light load will not run as quickly as a fast PC server under a light load, according to Courtney. The difference between the two systems will not be apparent until the load is much larger.
"The PC will begin to degrade and will typically reach a point where it avalanches down in performance as its load limit is exceeded. The mainframe starts out at a lower performance level, from the standpoint of an individual program task, but degrades much more slowly and much more linearly as the load increases," he says.
I remember, a while ago, reading in another article about a difference of opinion between some IBM programmers and the kernel maintainers. Supposedly, IBM was complaining that Linux performance went south when the number of running tasks became large, and proposed some scheduler changes, but the kernel developers didn't want to change it because the changes would have slowed the kernel down in the "normal" case of only a few active processes. Does anyone have a link to this or remember what I'm talking about?
Sounds like this article is describing the same known effect.