Re: HP announces new Integrity servers
- From: Dave Froble <davef@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2006 13:35:53 -0400
Main, Kerry wrote:
-----Original Message-----
From: Bill Todd [mailto:billtodd@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] Sent: September 11, 2006 2:26 AM
To: Info-VAX@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: HP announces new Integrity servers
Main, Kerry wrote:Rather than blowing such smoke with zero supporting evidence, try refuting either statement above to which you purport to be responding:-----Original Message-----[snip..]
From: Bill Todd [mailto:billtodd@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] Sent: September 9, 2006 8:36 PM
To: Info-VAX@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: HP announces new Integrity servers
Main, Kerry wrote:
Again, you are in the weeds.Sigh .. How many times does it need to be repeated?their meetings
Customers are looking for supported, stable and highly available
solutions to run their business.
The ones making the business decisions are not burning uptalking about techie chip stuff.Exactly: they are looking at *standardizing* (for reasons of cost and support complexity that have nothing to do with 'techie chip stuff') on the *least expensive viable solution*. And beyond any shadow of a doubt that's x86-64 in any situation where that solution *is* viable.
1. Refute the assertion that customers are seeking to standardize (for reasons of cost and support complexity) on *the least expensive viable solution*, and/or
2. Refute the assertion that the least expensive viable solution will be x86-64 in any situation where that solution is viable.
Otherwise, shut up: you're getting tedious and offering no redeeming substance to make that worth putting up with.
You are looking at the HW only. Get out of the weeds.
How many times does that need to be said?
The BU's want IT to provide solutions that add value to the business.
They could not care less if that solution is based on OpenVMS, Windows,
Linux, Solaris or whatever. They care even less what chip that OS is
running on.
You need to get out more and talk to real Customers.
Solution TCO = HW + OS + ISV licenses + App migration porting + App
testing + New staff and/or training of old staff + new Operations costs
+ host of other stuff like security, reliability, stability etc.
If a Customer is looking at migrating to this new *cheaper?* platform,
the TCO of the new solution needs to include:
- cost of migration in terms of new staff (including payouts to old
staff and in Europe these are very large). And keep in mind the new
staff will have very little knowledge of the business processes used by
the company applications - a huge consideration when you have to support
that environment.
- cost of new server HW and keep in mind the one-app, one server culture
that is typical with Windows/Linux. Hence, even if you have a great SMP
box, Wintel Customers will continue to use the one app, one OS strategy
which means you need to virtualize the heck out of that big SMP x86-64
box.
- for Cust's with active-active clustering today where they simply add
servers into the cluster without modifying any application code to add
capacity, what is the impact of moving to a active-passive clustering
environment where primary-fail-over technology is what exists natively
on that target platform? If there is a LP add on to get the
active-active clustering on that target platform, what is the costs of
that in terms of licensing and support issues? Will there be finger
pointing if a problem arises and multiple vendors are involved?
- cost of new OS licenses. One per server and/or one per logical
partition. A single server with 10 VMware sessions running Microsoft
Enterprise Windows Apps requires 10 Windows Enterprise licenses + costs
of VMware.
- will all their ISV vendors support their application running in a
partitioned environment? As an example, Microsoft does not officially
support any of their applications running in a VMware environment. For
some Customers ISV support is critical.
- cost of new ISV products (including new Operations utilities like
backup utilities, anti-virus, batch products etc.)
- costs of testing and certifying their App's on the new OS *and* HW
platform. For large App's this can be just as large in terms of time as
the porting effort since it is both a new OS as well as a new HW
platform.
- annual re-occurring costs of testing of applications against monthly
security patches.
Not agreeing with your arguments, but I must observe:
While your arguments are valid as far as a current VMS user staying with VMS, they don't do much for attracting new VMS customers. My reading of the arguments leads me to feel, based upon the arguments, that anybody would be crazy to ever contemplate moving TO VMS.
Is this the view of VMS Ambassadors today, to hold onto as much of the cow as they can, and milk it for all it's worth? If so, then VMS is in as much trouble as it's biggest opponents claim. It's been said many times, in many ways, you cannot stand still, you either advance, or decline. If your best argument for VMS is that it's too costly to migrate to another platform, I for one cannot see VMS advancing.
Note, these comments are on your arguments, not on the merits of VMS.
--
David Froble Tel: 724-529-0450
Dave Froble Enterprises, Inc. E-Mail: davef@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
DFE Ultralights, Inc.
170 Grimplin Road
Vanderbilt, PA 15486
.
- References:
- RE: HP announces new Integrity servers
- From: Main, Kerry
- RE: HP announces new Integrity servers
- Prev by Date: Re: FOCUS application, written in?
- Next by Date: Need to read a TK50 tape
- Previous by thread: RE: HP announces new Integrity servers
- Next by thread: Re: HP announces new Integrity servers
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
