Well, I agree that it is always simpler to implement a system when you do
not have to integrate or share it with any thing else. It must be nice to
afford the luxury of having dedicated resources. And I do agree that if you
are looking at the mere cost of CPU cycles, UNIX system tend to be cheaper
than MVS, and NT cycles tend to be cheaper than UNIX. Why is it not obvious
that a increment of CPU cycles to an existing of MVS system is not cheaper
than the addition of a totally independent non-MVS system? Has IBM made the
MVS environment too expensive?
Mark
> ----------
> From: Dwight Cook[SMTP:decook AT AMOCO DOT COM]
> Reply To: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager
> Sent: Sunday, February 14, 1999 10:56 AM
> To: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
> Subject: Re: transfer speed
>
> I have to agree... we have 15 adsm environments 13 aix and 2 mvs
> The battles over cpu cycles on MVS have forced us to eliminate the
> MVS
> adsm.
>
> Dwight
>
>
> ______________________________ Reply Separator
> _________________________________
> Subject: Re: transfer speed
> Author: lipp at unix,mime/DD.RFC-822=lipp AT STORSOL DOT COM
> Date: 2/13/99 4:37 PM
>
>
> Mark,
>
> In general, I guess I agree with you. Howsomeever, it seems ADSM in the
> MVS env
> ironment defies the rules.
>
> Stick to NT, or UNIX and your costs, and headaches, are probably
> substantially l
> ower.
>
> I'm going to steal the cost/pound stuff from you. I think it works!
>
> Kelly J. Lipp
> Storage Solutions Specialists, Inc.
> www.storsol.com
> lipp AT storsol DOT com
> (719)531-5926
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Roger Hohmann
> Sent: Friday, February 12, 1999 1:41 AM
> To: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
> Subject: Re: transfer speed
>
> Some additional thoughts:
>
> In general, I would agree to minimize the number of systems, but ..
> with adsm it's little different: Some shops have definded downtime
> windows for maintenance (HW and SW). These times are usually at night
> or weekend. This may collide with your backup window and may force you
> to decide between reducing service downtimes, buy another system or
> think about your backup strategy.
>
> In addition, IBM could not deliver (maybe it's different with OS/390
> 2.7) a fast tcpip stack, so the performance of those scalable systems is
> limited in ip appls. I can install a ip stack for each ip escon
> connection and a adsm for each ip stack, but then I have multiple adsm
> servers on a single cpu, and that does not minimize administration. So,
> in my opinion, adsm is not very scalable on mvs compared with other
> applications.
>
> And- I expect the difference of costs may come from hw and sw, too. I
> don't expect to pay a million $ for a high end NT box, but a 9672-R26
> is not far away (without disks!). Tape drives and libraries are
> expected to be same price for all platforms. (Don't tell me you have
> some for mvs, your ADSM guy gets them and don't give them back. So you
> have to buy new ones for batch processing and SMS) For a M$, I can pay
> 2 guys for 3 yrs. If you upgrade a given S390, you have additional
> costs for sw. You pay your cics and ims and db2 for all cpus in the
> box, not just the used ones. And ask your mvs guys what they think
> about an additional S390, and ask your Unix and NT guys and compare the
> answers.
>
> Scaling an adsm box is not as easy as saying "I have a mvs box, let's
> use it." I payed for it, and I think others payed, too.
>
> Roger
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mapes, Mark [SMTP:MWM4 AT PGE DOT COM]
> Sent: Thursday, February 11, 1999 7:55 PM
> To: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
> Subject: Re: transfer speed
>
> Well well well, a discussion that has caught my interest.
> Unfortunately, we can't do a comparison of apples to apples,
> but I have a theory that all computers cost the same per pound (or
> kilogram
> for our non-USA friends).
> So, given an NT box that weighs the same as an AIX box that weighs the
> same
> as an MVS box,
> (and with the assumption that you have the latest and greatest
> hardware/software for each platform, having similar applications and
> capabilities, i.e.
> 100mbps Ethernet, etc.)
> Which one will be the better performer? I do not know the answer.
> I can see potential and various advantages that each system may have.
> An NT system has the lowest threshold costs, but is not as scaleable,
> and
> probably has a lower level of functionality (at least in the TCP/IP
> arena).
> An AIX (or generic UNIX) system can probably be implemented near the
> cost of
> a mid to high-tier NT system, will probably perform better and have a
> higher
> level of functionality (again in the TCP/IP arena, but would suffer
> somewhat
> in a pure NT network environment).
> An MVS system would be the most scaleable, be able to support a higher
> amount of simultaneous discrete functions (i.e. batch processing AND
> transaction processing AND data-mining, etc., not necessary ADSM
> related).
> Of course the right answer for you would be some type of vision thing.
> That
> is, where do you want to go to.
> Assuming that the goal is the lowest TCO (total cost of ownership), you
> should be interested in reducing the big costs.
> What are the big costs? Well, I suspect it is not a big cost
> difference of
> buying an NT or UNIX of MVS (again assuming the hardware weighs the
> same).
> Nor would I suspect the cost difference be big between the hardware
> (again
> assuming the hardware weighs the same).
> So what other costs would there be? People!!!
> So, other than paying people less, how do you keep people costs down?
> You minimize the amount of people you need.
> How do you do that? Well, an educated guess (I was taught this is
> school
> many years ago) was that most people can only manage/perform 5 (or is
> it 7
> or 9???) plus or minus 2 tasks effectively. More than that and they
> get
> overwhelmed. (under that they get bored?).
> If each server is considered a task, it would make sense then to
> minimize
> the need for multiple (many) servers.
> Thus, I would tend to think that an MVS system, that is much more
> scaleable
> for all your applications, would be a better choice (with the
> assumptions
> that were made earlier).
> Just some thoughts.
>
> Mark Mapes
> PG&E
>
>
>
>
> > ----------
> > From: Richard Sims[SMTP:rbs AT BU DOT EDU]
> > Reply To: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager
> > Sent: Thursday, February 11, 1999 8:45AM
> > To: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
> > Subject: Re: transfer speed
> >
> > >The money spent trying to make that environment fast, IMHO, would be
> > better
> > >spent getting away from that environment. Big NT iron is pretty
> cheap at
> > >this point.
> >
> > Indeed, it has always been an expensive struggle to get mainframes to
> > serve at speeds proportional to their expense.
> > I could only add that big linux iron is even cheaper than NT, and
> > becoming a mission-critical platform for many companies (who are
> > uncomfortable
> > depending upon a monopolistic software supplier).
> > I've heard rumors of IBM coming to support linux, and perhaps we
> > will see an ADSM server for it. Linux has made tremendous strides in
> > the past year, with an ever-increasing amount of commercial software
> > becoming available for it.
> > Richard Sims, BU
> >
>
|
