Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Exchange vs. Linux/390 Comparison

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the taking-a-close-look-at-it dept.

eclarkso writes: " The Consulting Times has done a quite even-handed study of the TCO for each platform in a fairly large (5000+) enterprise environment. The article is as much a commentary on the mainframe architecture as it is on Exchange vs. Linux groupware."

13 of 276 comments (clear)

  1. Linux/390 manual by alewando · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Some of the academic folks I know have had a bit of trouble installing Linux/390 (<----- ibm's linux/390 developer page), but linux390.marist.edu/ has a decent manual they've found helpful.

    Of course, it'll long be obsolete before I ever get my hands on one of these beasts. *sigh*

  2. Did I miss the hardware/software support costs? by OSgod · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Which traditionally are high for IBM systems and when you count up servers on the Intel side also count higher?

    Did we count the difference in functionality? Exchange vs. what on Linux?

    The mainframe may be back -- but make no mistake it is still the domain of the priesthood. The priesthood that the server architecture was to break up. Do Linux users really want that? A handful of techs who are well paid (the business people are cheering) but no need for the thousands of SA's and small shops can just buy time on a 390.

  3. 11 servers for exchange by Elrond_1 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Another thing to note was the fact that they figured they needed 10 (1 backup) exchange servers?
    Where did they come up with that one?
    One Compaq Proliant 6450 server with 4 x 550MHz Pentium III Xeon processors each with 2MB of L2 cache, 4GB of RAM and a 100GB external Fibre Channel disk array. Can easily handle 50k users with Exchange 2000...and if that is not enough storage for you it is easy to continue adding more disk arrays as space is needed.

    That being said I wonder how the TCO would come out over 3 years between the above solution on a Win 2k platform vs a Linux platform with the same hardware and functionality. Can anyone help on this one?

    --
    Reality Bytes
    1. Re:11 servers for exchange by SClitheroe · · Score: 5, Interesting

      There's no way Exchange2K could handle 50K users on a single box.

      First, you've never obviously worked with Fibre Channel on the kind of scale that 50K users would require (ie. a big EMC box)...that many users pounding the same box will easily chew up 50% or more of your CPU power on I/O alone. Fibre is fast, but it is so fast that it can easily swamp Xeon CPU's. I know, because I did the benchmarking at my company.

      Second, connection limitations in Win2K and Exchange alone mean that you are running very close to the theoretical maximum the OS supports..not a good idea.

      Third, running that many users off of a single box is suicide. And if you've ever watched Exchange2K failover on a Win2K cluster, you'd know that it can take several minutes for everything to come up on the second node, if you've got a lot of users.

      Finally, a 100GB array for 50K users results in a 2 megabyte mailbox..that's freaking ridiculous!

      In short, you're either running a 50-user shop, or you have no idea what you are talking about.

    2. Re:11 servers for exchange by IntlHarvester · · Score: 3, Interesting

      We tested both server platforms using a custom test suite that simulated a large population of simulated POP/SMTP users.

      *POOF* There goes that argument!

      How about some data that reflects how people actually use Exchange (through Outlook RPC). I also can't see what the client settings are -- maybe they're only pulling new mail once an hour or so.

      (I've seen MS put out Exchange "scalablity" numbers using POP3 before. Easy way to beat up on Notes or Groupwise, but POP3's the game, a Unix box or that mainframe should be able to handily kick it's ass.)

      --
      Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
  4. Re:Skewed Results by Zwack · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Not entirely...

    If this is a BIG IBM mainframe then it will take
    more floor space than a single rack of twin processor CPUs.

    I assume that VM programmers are in short enough supply that paying one $90k p.a. is reasonable. It's not far from what I get paid as a Unix SA.

    And the hardware is WAY more expensive.

    The second set of figures shows how much less you will be paying if you already have an IBM mainframe (for some other purpose) that you can use for a Linux partition (virtual machine, whatever you want to call it) compared to bringing in an NT server farm with exchange. You've already paid for the hardware, the floor space, the support staff. You're just pushing your hardware a little harder.

    Does it make sense now?

    Z.

    --
    -- Under/Overrated is meta-moderation, and therefore is Redundant.
  5. My experience with Linux/390 by isj · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I jumped at IBMs offer for developers to try out Linux running on a z/Architecure thingy. My experience so far has been pleasant and "boring" (in a positive way). Pleasant because everything ported easily. Boring because I was expecting challenging porting problems. Everything worked.

    Now for the article about TCO and stuff... I believe that it is correct. For small installations use cheap hardware to bring down initial costs. But don't be afraid of mainframes when you business grows - they are not that different.

  6. What Email/Groupware software did they use? by Bass+Clarinet · · Score: 4, Interesting

    What email/groupware software are they using on this Linux/390 machine? Is it some port of Lotus Domino server? I am only aware of Domino running natively on S/390 and on Intel x86 Linux, not on 390 mainframe Linux. Also bear in ming that there is no antivirus vendor supporting Domino on any Linux platform so that makes Domino on any Linux platform rather useless, doesn't it?

  7. What if the IBM hardware was free? by trenton · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Consider doing this analysis for a company that already owns a 390. How appealing would it be to keep your existing hardware and just switch the OS and apps? It'd be easier and more cost effective than buying a whole bunch of new servers and hiring new people. It's this customer that IBM should be targeting.

    +tl

    --
    Too big to fail? Does that make me to small to succeed?
  8. Cost per user seems high, what about Opensource... by BrookHarty · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Has anyone tested opensource freeware for 25K users? You could save money on different designs, but this really isnt the meat of the article.

    I know it can be done cheaper, we have designed email/groupware for millions of subscribers cheaper than that, all are webbased with oracle/ldap on sun equipment, with network load balancers.

    I like how Exchange looks like a cheap solution, untill you grow past your user base, then costs sky rocket.

  9. Re:Comparison by swordgeek · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Now that's an interesting point! My experience has been that when overloaded...

    1) mainframes and real Unix servers (Sun, HP, etc.) slow down instead of crashing.
    2) Linux (and NT) crashes hard.

    So the question is, does the OS crash on a given platform because of the hardware, the software, or a combination of the two? What will Linux on a Mainframe do when hit with an enormous load?

    Unless the kernel has been rewritten extensively to deal with the hardware, I suspect it would crash just as effectively on an S/390 as on a stack of Pentiums. I'd love to find out for sure, though.

    --

    "People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die." -- Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban
  10. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  11. One thing I noticed... by mindstrm · · Score: 3, Interesting

    aside form the fact that the first IBM system he first describes is vastly overpowered, and a rediculous 'solution' to supporting 5000 users.. It doesn't matter if it can scale to 50,000; that's not what it's there for.

    Why compare it on big iron? Why not compare it solely on the same hardware?
    I can support 50,000 users doing all kinds of neat things on the same hardware, running linux, for a LOT less money.

    Notice the Exchange licensing costs? a quarter million bucks?

    Keep in mind; most companies do NOT use exchange for what it is good at.. they use it for pure email, though they may purchase it thinking they will use all the groupware features.