Slashdot Mirror
IBM Launches Linux-Only Mainframes
An anonymous reader writes: IBM is introducing two mainframe servers that only run on Linux. It's part of a new initiative from the Linux Foundation called the Open Mainframe Project. "The idea is that those companies participating in this project can work together, and begin building a set of open source tools and technologies for Linux mainframes, while helping one another overcome common development issues in the same manner as all open source projects." IBM's hardware release is accompanied by 250,000 lines of code that they're open sourcing as well. "Ultimately the mainframe mainstays are hoping to attract a new generation of developers to their platform. To help coax new users, IBM will be offering free access to the LinuxOne cloud, a mainframe simulation tool it developed for creating, testing and piloting Linux mainframe applications." Canonical is working with IBM to bring Ubuntu to mainframes.
IBM is introducing two mainframe servers that only run on Linux.
In Capitalist America, Linux runs on mainframe servers.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
To help coax new users, IBM will be offering free access to the LinuxOne cloud,
Is this access just for coax users or is it available via fibre or twisted pair?
Suse has supported linux on Z-Series for quite some time https://www.suse.com/products/...
~corporate tool, but employed~
You'll need an EBCDIC keypunch to create the input card deck.
THIS is the kind of story /. was designed for..... VERY cool!!
THANK YOU, Edward Snowden!! Americans owe you a debt of gratitude (whether they know it or not..)
I'm sorry, but Ubuntu on mainframes? Ubuntu is the linux distribution FURTHEST from being appropriate for a mainframe - it's heavily targeted towards desktop users, particularly those with a lower level of expertise (or a lower desire to put work into their OS) than the average linux user. What's more, it's adware/spyware now, which is definitely something I'd hate to have on a mainframe - the last thing you want is your OS transmitting and receiving data at random!
These are mainframes that only run Linux. There is no other supported operating system.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Large, fast, massive IO, and extremely reliable computers running a POSIX or POSIX like OS.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
Correct me if i'm wrong, but isn't the sole reason for running and mainframe either to run legacy applications/software/images _OR_ software that can guarantee certian conditions of reability/transactions/processing. I'm aware that z-Series and i-Series machines can boot up Linux images for some years now, but it feels a bit of a niché.
Or will IBM add this "guarantee" to software like the kernel, Apache, PostgreSQL, etc.., or else it will be only a astronomical expensive Linux VPS. It's sure is fantstic machines, and Linux will probably run lovely on them. But at what gained value, and cost?
The issue with Mainframe is that there are still customers running MVS because they are locked with their COBOL applications. Is it COBOL good or bad? Does it makes sense making new developments in COBOL? I don't know. Plus there is the evil Monthly License Charge (MLC) on older mainframes, which means that you "rent" the software and if you stop paying you must unplug your mainframe. It is time for IBM to help customers to "really" move away from MVS and older mainframe infrastructure instead of looking at the older mainframe as "the legacy that gives me some cash".
Is it supported merely for legacy systems, or does IBM still find a niche use for AIX? Anybody care to enlighten me?
I notice TFA has no mention of what the hardware will cost, or what IBM will charge for Linux on a mainframe, or even the model numbers of these two mainframes which are Linux only. And MongoDB on an IBM mainframe? Talk about a culture clash.
Question:"... which IBM server range can run applications written for Windows NT and 2000, Novell NetWare, Aix and OS/2 as well as..."
Answer: "Probably the most important development, however, came in 1998, when the ability to run Windows NT was added (Windows 2000 has become an option now on the latest version)"
* BOTH quotes are from -> http://www.computerweekly.com/...
APK
P.S.=> Still, it's pretty cool seeing Linux being helped along thus by IBM (one of their BIGGEST proponents from the commercial world imo, & afaik, one of the BIGGEST contributors of helping Linux's codebase become more solid as well)... apk
I guess if MS can do it, IBM can too. I also noticed the TechCrunch article has a link to the announcement:
http://www.linuxfoundation.org/news-media/announcements/2015/08/linux-foundation-brings-together-industry-heavyweights-advance
which produces "Access Denied"!! So I shortened it:
http://www.linuxfoundation.org/news-media/announcements/2015/08/
And that page shows no such announcement. WTF? Smells fishy to me.
Except for, well the actual facts. Canonical does in fact put Ubuntu on phones. That's actually one of their products, Ubuntu Phone. Red Hat, on the other hand, sells Red Hat ENTERPRISE Linux. They do in fact have a different focus.
"It's all Linux", one might say. Both do use (different) Linux kernels, just like Android does. There are also differences, such as the focus on new features vs time-tested reliability. Red Hat doesn't get the hottest new stuff the moment that upstream releases a beta. They wait until it's stable and reliable. For mainframes, you probably want stable and reliable.
What spyware, please include citations.
Scale out with Ubuntu Server
@Anon: "I'm sorry, but Ubuntu on mainframes? Ubuntu is the linux distribution FURTHEST from being appropriate for a mainframe - it's heavily targeted towards desktop users, particularly those with a lower level of expertise (or a lower desire to put work into their OS) than the average linux user. What's more, it's adware/spyware now, which is definitely something I'd hate to have on a mainframe - the last thing you want is your OS transmitting and receiving data at random!" ref
I'm also interested in picking one of these up. Can somebody give us a ball-park figure on this bad boy?
mainframe servers that only run on Linux.
Something about that quote seems backwards to me. Can I run that server on a raspberry pi running Linux?
I tried to make as much sense as the parent. Know what? Ubuntu has been quite similar to debian especially if you consider that LTS is the real version (that's semi-official since the other ones got reduced to 9 monthes)
Currently Ubuntu LTS is more conservative than debian jessie, since the latter has systemd. I'm not up to speed about what petty things people can troll about with command-line Ubuntu LTS though.
AFAIK, they never did actually kill RETAIN off. Nothing could outperform that thing, much less fucking Lotus Notes. Also AFAIK, Lotus Notes continues to suck for E-Mail inside IBM The old mainframe-based E-Mail, Profs, was a significantly better E-Mail system. And they killed OS/2 off in '95 or '96. Quite possibly the best thing about Linux everywhere on the company's hardware is that IBM Didn't Invent It.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Everyone should run all applications on a simulated mainframe run on AWS! Talk about best ROI.
The only reason IBM sells mainframes is because of lock-in effects. If customers could migrate off mainframes, they would because they are very very expensive and sloooow. You need only ten Intel Xeon cpus to match the largest IBM z13 mainframe with 24 sockets.
1) IBM sells a few 100s mainframes each year, and they account for something like 15% of IBM total revenue (which is huge).
2) Mainframes are sloooooow. Mainframe cpus are much much slower than a decent x86 cpu. IBM refuse to publish benchmarks comparing an Mainframe cpu to a x86 cpu, why? If the IBM z13 cpu really was the fastest cpu in the world, IBM would publish benchmark top records all over the internet. But they don't. Why? Let us draw conclusions.
First of all, you can emulate a mainframe on a laptop with the TurboHercules emulator:
https://blogs.oracle.com/jsavit/entry/hercules_goes_commercial
An old 8-socket Nehalem x86 server gives 3.200 MIPS under emulation, which is a decent midsized mainframe.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hercules_%28emulator%29#Performance
Now consider that software emulating a different architecture incurs a 5-10x performance penalty, meaning that this 8-socket x86 server would give (5-10) x 3.200 MIPS = 16.000 - 32.000 MIPS if someone ported the mainframe software to x86. This means each old Nehalem cpu gives (16.000 - 32.000) / 8 = 2.000 - 4.000 MIPS.
The newest and largest configured z13 mainframe gives 110.000 MIPS. If it is similar to the predecessor z12 mainframe, it has also 24 sockets. This means each z13 cpu gives 110.000 / 24 = 4.500 MIPS. This is only 50% faster than the old Nehalem cpu.
The latest Intel Xeon E7v3 cpu is many times faster than the 8-core Nehalem cpu.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/9193/the-xeon-e78800-v3-review/9
E7v3 has 18 very fast cores. To be conservative, say one E7v3 core is only 50% faster than a Nehalem EX core (maybe it is 2-3x faster in reality). This means that the E7v3 cpu is 3.375x faster than the Nehalem EX cpu. So, the E7v3 gives 3.375 x (2.000 - 4.000) = 6.750 - 13.500 MIPS. Let us average and say it gives 10.125 MIPS. This is a lot faster than the slow IBM z13 cpu which gives 4.500 MIPS.
Thus, you need only 110.000 MIPS / 10.125 = 10.86 Intel Xeon E7v3 cpus to fully match a 24 cpu IBM z13 mainframe. Let us round it to 10 Intel Xeon cpus.
.
.
If you instead want to compare MHz and MIPS, a rule of thumb says that 1 MIPS == 4 MHz x86.
http://www.mail-archive.com/linux-390@vm.marist.edu/msg18587.html
So the 110.000 MIPS equals 440.000 MHz = 440 GHz. Each E7v3 cpu runs at 2.8 GHz. All these 18 cores gives in total 50.4 GHz. This means you need 440 GHz / 50.4 GHz = 8.73 Intel Xeon E7v3 cpus to match the largest 24 socket IBM z13 Mainframe. So we see again that you need roughly 10 Intel Xeon E7 cpus to match the largest z13 Mainframe which has 24 cpus.
No matter how you count, you need ~10ish Intel Xeon E7v3 cpus to match the largest IBM z13 Mainframe which has 24 cpus. Ergo, the Mainframe cpus are dog slow. Much slower than a decent x86 cpu.
When a company open sources , it means no-one buys them anymore... I wonder if oracle is also interested to snatch another dead horse