IBM Leaks Details on New Mainframe 185
Mark writes "Big Blue inadvertently revealed details about its new z10 Enterprise Class mainframe set to launch on Feb. 26, as well as details on z/OS v1.10, a new version of the mainframe OS due out in September. 'According to an internal IBM document obtained by SearchDataCenter.com, the z10 Enterprise Class will come in five different models and feature 64-way chips, compared with the 54-way z9 mainframes and earlier 32-way models. In a conference call last month, IBM CFO Mark Loughridge told investors that the z10 would have 50% more capacity, which indicates that it will probably tap out at around 27,000 million instructions per second (MIPS) at the top end, compared with about 18,000 MIPS on the previous z9 Enterprise Class.'"
Imagine... (Score:3, Interesting)
This might be a dumb question... (Score:5, Interesting)
Low-End Port to PowerPC? (Score:4, Interesting)
Is it at all possible to automatically port any nontrivial z6 software to PPC, if it doesn't require the actually different HW of the z6 (or its much higher performance)? Any possibility to run PPC SW on a z6, with some automatic porting for the higher performance?
Re:Kinda slow, eh? (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Nah Dried off? (Score:5, Interesting)
Oh, maybe they made early RELEASE of details... I wonder, in IT context, how a vendor can "leak" its own details...
Re:This might be a dumb question... (Score:1, Interesting)
Also, thousands of millions is less ambiguous for those who don't realise that the UK stopped defining a billion as a million million fifty years ago.
Re:Imagine... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Imagine... (Score:2, Interesting)
Actually, in lab tests, the mainframe virtualisation engine went up to 96,000 Linux images on a fairly old mainframe version
Re:Kinda slow, eh? (Score:3, Interesting)
The thing is, it's really hard to write code for a "soft cluster". Being fault-tolerant in your software instead of your hardware is decidedly non-trivial. With a mainframe you just write a check with enough 0s. That's very appealing unless, like Google, you're developing everyhting from scratch anyway.
Re:Kinda slow, eh? (Score:3, Interesting)
BTW, the first message was kind of a joke. It is possible to make more or less the same chip look like a few different ones by changing just a few small parts.
IIRC, there is a company being sued by IBM for making custom-microcode-Itanic-based servers that look too much like IBM mainframes.
Re:Kinda slow, eh? (Score:1, Interesting)
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/03/31/deutsche_bahn_ibm_suse_server_consolidation/ [theregister.co.uk]
Re:Kinda slow, eh? (Score:3, Interesting)
Google have a very specific set of applications which, for the most part, don't really care if chunks of data from the database go missing occasionally, can be easily mirrored and it's not particularly crucial that every mirror is in perfect lockstep.
Try proposing a system like that to the IT (or, for that matter, the Finance) director of a $multi-million firm and let me know how you get on.