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.
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?
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.
Mainframes are nice in that you get hw with 100% uptime. Not 99.99%, but 100%. Electronics getting old? Need replacements? Offline a couple of CPUs, then pull the cards while the machine is running. Insert new ones and bring them up. Repeat, until you've swapped all the CPUs - and the mainframe was running all the time! (Obviously not at 100% capacity, but transactions were processed continuously).
Memory modules are hot-replaceable in the same manner. So is network, disks & power supplies. All is redundant, all is replaceable without shutting down. You can do such stunts "to some extent" with PC hardware - i.e. you can get a pc-type server board with redundant power. And linux has hot-adding of CPUs already. But mainframes has 50 years of experience with this sort of always-up requirement - so it just works, without snags.
Yup - first thought that ran through my mind: "Oh, they're selling Z Series with crippled Firmware."
I'm kind of stumped. Linux on a Mainframe is a neat party trick, but it doesn't really make a lot of sense. Modern Z Series hardware is heavily derived from Power. Why not just run Power Linux? Mainframe I/O design is intentionally about as un-PDP-like as possible, so it's a bad match for Unix, Linux, or even Windows for that matter (NT ran on MIPS, so it theoretically could be ported to S/390). Mainframes get their performance by pushing computation into the channel controllers, and while you could do something like that in Linux, are any of your applications ready to treat your database like a device driver? Because that's what you'll have to do. And, incidentally, it's why every attempt from AIX/370 to Linux on Z Series has required virtualization and a ton of independent kernels to get anything resembling decent performance. And that's where Dell will come in and put thousands of cores in a 42U rack for you... No, IBM's own P Series is a better idea, and their former x86 division (now Lenovo) looks even better.
Erik
Modern Z hardware has nothing to do with POWER. Mainframes do not push computation into channel controllers, whatever gave you that bizarre idea? Treat your database like a device driver? What is that supposed to mean? Linux runs native on zSeries, so virtualization is not necessary (and has not been for more than a decade).
You seem to know absolutely nothing about mainframes, why are you posting?
Nokia's DX200 series of PSTN switches had fully redundant motherboards, you could literally physically cut the PCI bus and the thing would just keep on rolling, without dropping any calls..
And that's where Dell will come in and put thousands of cores in a 42U rack for you...
We're getting to the point where all that matters is how much performance can you get from an assemblage of nodes, and how much does it cost to buy and support it?
If IBM can provide a lower TCO than Dell with different technology and the "containers" are compatible, many customers will be interested.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Mainframes are not simply overpriced PCs. They're put together internally in quite a different way.
The original system busses were in the backplane, not in on a "motherboard". That was true even on my very first (S-100) PC, long before IBM got into the personal computer market. The backplane was almost nothing but wiring, with no caps to blow. You'd basically have to set it on fire to render it useless.
...of all the things that Linux isn't designed for, is a mainframe OS, because either the mainframe hardware will have to be changed to support Linux's "view" of the world, or Linux has to get a ton of drivers.
Now I'm stumped by your comment. Linux has no problem with "a ton of drivers", but the fact is, only a few drivers are actually needed.
I understand IBM's mainframe division is trying to stay relevant, but they need to focus on getting people to use a mainframe, not trying to make a mainframe act as a PC.
What makes you think Linux makes a mainframe act as a PC? Linux runs on many disparate architectures, some of which look very little like a PC. Sure, Linux forces every architecture to present a page table abstraction derived historically from intel's model, but is that is mainly because that simple model makes sense, and not particularly inefficient for architectures with a different approach to emulate it. Other than that, life in mainframe land is much like any other architecture, especially now that with virualization rampant, everything looks a lot more like a mainframe inside today.
Things like lockstep CPUs and such, leave that to the hypervisor, and let Linux view it as one CPU in /proc unless there are critical exceptions that need to be passed to the client OS.
Why would you think it works any differently than that?
However, what really needs to be done is sell what a mainframe does best, and that is reliability.
How do you imagine IBM sells mainframes? There was a time when customers had a lot of idle capacity siting around that could be recycled as Linux servers, but now IBM's only compelling argument is reliability. But that argument is a cruncher for some customers.
What IBM needs to do is have a case for having the hardware be expensive and reduce the number of man-hours needed to be put in to code a solution.
The mainframe proposition is not about maintenance cost, it is about the business cost of even temporary interruption or failure.
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.