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."

5 of 276 comments (clear)

  1. 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.

  2. 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.
  3. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Comment removed based on user account deletion