While sitting around this evening listening to the zdnet, David Berlind and Redmonk webcast, Monkcast #12: IBM HW group OEMs Solaris to chagrin of SW group & a fly in VMware’s ointment and both on the show and a web article, a few things came up that were worth commenting on, if for no other reason than to save history from being rewritten:
Archive for August, 2007
I’ve been catching up on some back issues of the IBM Open Systems magazine, in the latest issue, August ’07, Ken Milberg provides a useful overview of the new AIX Workload Partitions and comes to the same conclusion I did, “I see the WPAR as a real complement to LPARs, not a replacement”.
Over on Julien Gabel “blog’o thnet”, he does a liberal comparison of the new AIX and Power 6 features with some existing and many upcoming features promised for Solaris. It’s an interesting comparison insomuch that there has been much discussion over the similarity between AIX Workload Partitions and Solaris Containers. One of the reasons we introduced containers now was the linkage and exploitation of Live Application Mobility. Julien draws the distinction between Solaris Containers as utilization feature, and not a virtualization feature.
For my part I don’t see the difference, and the more you think about this, the more obvious it becomes. Continue reading ‘AIX/6 and Power 6 Enhancements — Tools for the task’
There is an excellent document listing and comparing all the functions, features, etc. of AIX, VIOS and HMC. It’s in the techdocs library and was written and updated by Ravi Singh. You can get it here.
I’m about a month late with this, thanks to a post by Richard Brader, another Brit’ in Power-land ,who updates the “IBM System p Expert Corner – for Business Partners” wiki.
Today IBM and SUN announced that IBM would become the first Tier-1 distributor for Solaris. SUN are obviously excited about this, it gets them access to some excellent IBM System x (x86) hardware.
In the announcement, my boss, Bill Zeitler, head of IBM Systems Group also mentions that Sine Nomine and David Boyes and the effort to make OpenSolaris on the mainframe. I’ve known David for many years, back to the early Linux mainframe days and developments like this always remind me of the interesting debate we had with SUN then. David posted on the Sine Nomine web site here. I’m sure if it can be made to work effectively, David will get it done.
The first question came up over the relationship with AIX. Bill says its about custonmer choice and open interoperability in the marketplace and later when Ashley Vance from the Register asked about running Solaris on System p, the answer was we are not doing anything
Jonathon Schwartz remarked that mainframes “set the Gold Standard for virtualization with logical partitions” and “Linux support on mainframes gives customers and outstanding set of options”.Which of course is what I was saying back in 2001. The more things change, the more they stay the same.
Ashley Vance, in his write-up, I think got slightly over excited in what was little more than a comment by Bill on customer choice. The real question is what will software vendors do here? For x86 it’s not such a big deal since one Solaris x86 binary should run on any other x86 Solaris platform, but on other platforms such as System z and other non-x86 compatible platforms it’s another binary to support, more testing to do etc. Disappointed that none of the analysts thought to ask that, or for that matter if Solaris were available on POWER hardware why SUN would bother with their own UNIX hardware. Oh well ;-)
There is a replay of the IBM/SUN conference call here.
I mentioned in a post a couple back that we would be demoing the new Power 6 Partition Mobility to the great and the good out in San Francisco. Mark Kressin and the team behind the demo did a great job and the demo’s went like clockwork.
Interestingly, here is a “home video” of a demo and briefing done by Mark on Partition Mobility and briefing from VP of Power Systems Marketing, Scott Handy. If you decide to watch, let it get past the powerpoint style introduction where they explain what is going to happen. The video shows the console and workload migration later in.
What Mark shows is migrating an Oracle DB, driving about 11,000 transactions per minute on a 4-way Power-6 System on to 12-way, non-disruptively without a single transaction being lost. Neat.
I just put my name on the attendees list for BarCampESM, it’s an excellent idea to get together in an informal attendee driven agenda. There is not date set yet for barcampESM so I really hope it will be when I can attend.
I have a lot to learn in this area, but hopefully will be able to make some useful contributions based on my background with the whole Grid services evolution and the work being done on the Server group management platform and interfaces.
[Update:] Here is a good description of Summer Camp for Systems Management, from William Hurley, one of the organizers/coordinators.
One of my first posts in this blog, was on the subject of complexity. James Governor of Redmonk weighed in today on complexity with a trackback post called “What SOA needs to learn from Ruby On Rails“.
I noted, that while our software, and often our systems were complex, that was because our customers are, not because we design them to be complex. Our customers run a vast array of machines, in widely different environments, supporting a broad range of applications. Of course, this is chicken and egg, and is a difficult tightrope for established solutions to walk. We could just remove most of the configuration options and in a generation or two the complexity would have gone, but what about the customers?
Forced into a straightjacket of “our way or the highway”, would you take the later?
It’s easy for the new kid, in this case Ruby on Rails to come out and offer little or no configuration options, side files etc. It doesn’t have to, it has never made a significant change it what or how it does things. The same isn’t true for the old-timers. Comparing SOA to Ruby, is like comparing a transport system to a footpath.
It is a subject important to me though. At the moment I’m carefully trying to marshal the merger of the function in the System p Hardware Management Console with that of IBM Systems Director and Director console. My desire is to make one simple management platform that acts both as the local platform director, managing configuration, hardware and service management etc. and at the same time providing a set of programmable, function services based interfaces to provide both remote access, and remote management.
So, I’m all for simplicity but it has to be thought through. We are doing this with the System p Configurations for SOA Entry Points. The original SOA Entry points were pure software plays divided into five categories, People, Process, Information, Connectivity, and Reuse. We are taking the entry points one step further and mapping the software onto System p removing another layer of complexity by showing how they work, how you can configure them and testing them as a total solution.
You can read the System p Configurations for SOA Entry Points overview here, via FTP
John Lennon once sang “It’s been too long since we took the time, No-one’s to blame, I know time flies so quickly” … “It’ll be just like starting over, starting over”.