Skip to main content

Mainframe Virtualization wins in the end

Once CIOs are willing to follow this line of reasoning, consolidating resources on a mainframe is a logical next step. Mainframe virtualization is rock solid, operationally efficient, and well understood. Intel server virtualization, on the other hand, remains a work in progress. When CIOs take the time to "do the math" they will find that the ROI on moving 20 old Sun systems to Linux-based mainframe VMs is a lot higher than creating 100 virtual Intel server partitions on 10 physical boxes.

IBM gets this value and has 30-plus years of experience in marketing mainframe virtualization. Beyond vision alone, IBM also has tons of charts, graphs, and customer-use cases illustrating TCO and ROI benefits, that extend from rationalizing hardware assets to reducing the corporate carbon footprint. Of course, most users are embracing VMware for Windows consolidation, something that the zSeries system can't do today. True, but IBM can still roll a blade server in (for Windows virtualization) next to the mainframe (for Linux virtualization) and manage the whole ball of wax through Tivoli operations-management tools. The mainframe still wins.


CNET reporting...
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Security: VMware Workstation 6 vulnerability

vulnerable software: VMware Workstation 6.0 for Windows, possible some other VMware products as well type of vulnerability: DoS, potential privilege escalation I found a vulnerability in VMware Workstation 6.0 which allows an unprivileged user in the host OS to crash the system and potentially run arbitrary code with kernel privileges. The issue is in the vmstor-60 driver, which is supposed to mount VMware images within the host OS. When sending the IOCTL code FsSetVoleInformation with subcode FsSetFileInformation with a large buffer and underreporting its size to at max 1024 bytes, it will underrun and potentially execute arbitrary code. Security focus
Post a Comment
Read more

OS Virtualization comparison: Parallels' Virtuozzo vs the rest

Virtuozzo's main differentiators versus hypervisors center on overhead, virtualization flexibility, administration and cost. Virtuozzo requires significantly less overhead than hypervisor solutions, generally in the range of 1% to 5% compared with 7% to 25% for most hypervisors, leaving more of the system available to run user workloads. Customers can also virtualize a wider range of applications using Virtuozzo, including transactional databases, which often suffer from performance problems when used with hypervisors. On the administration side, customers need to manage, maintain and secure just a single OS instance, while the hypervisor model requires customers to manage many OS instances. Of course, the hypervisor vendors have worked hard to automate much of this process, but it still requires more effort to manage and maintain multiple operating systems than a single instance. Finally, OS virtualization with Virtuozzo has a lower list price than the leading hypervisor for comme...
Post a Comment
Read more