Re: HP announces new Integrity servers

Main, Kerry wrote:
-----Original Message-----
From: Bill Todd [mailto:billtodd@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] Sent: September 14, 2006 7:03 PM
To: Info-VAX@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: HP announces new Integrity servers

Main, Kerry wrote:

...

Imho, consolidating HW is one small piece, but unless you can consolidate OS instances, you are not addressing the real issues of FTE counts - the biggest slice of the IT budget pie.
You're still stuck in Buzzword Heaven, Kerry. I keep asking exactly
*how* Itanic differs in this regard from x86-64 (since their hardware features are comparable and the available software, including OSs, is pretty much the same on each of them - except that there's so much
*more* software available on x86), and you keep dancing around that question and waving your hands vigorously.


The difference is the overall package.

*What* difference, dammit?

With the Wintel on any platform,
you have many FTE`s maintaining many OS instances, so even with
consolidation using VMware or Virtual Server, you still have a very high
FTE counts - the biggest sclice of the IT budget.

So what? That's not a difference between the Itanic platform and the x86-64 platform, that's a difference between running Windows (whether on x86-64 or on Itanic) and running some more competent OS (whether on x86-64 or on Itanic).

*So it's no difference between x86-64 and Itanic at all*, and you've tried to dodge the question yet again.


Yes, there are more aplications on Windows, but you can not run more
than one in any single instance (technical, culture and ISV support
issues), hence high OS instances and high FTE counts to maintain these.
Just think of the monthly security patches and all of the associated
pain these have on all of these many OS instances.

With App stacking on OS`s like OpenVMS, you can get away with much
reduced FTE counts from an Operations perspective.

And Solaris on x86-64 offers exactly the same advantage. So, once again, there's no beneficial difference (at least according to the philosophy advanced in the article which you promoted - i.e., that Solaris = HP-UX = VMS = OS/400...) to buying a ticket on Itanic.


C'mon: surely you can come up with *something* significant (other than VMS per se, which is only an unfortunate quirk of fate that the article you directed us to pay heed to considers irrelevant in today's IT
climate) that Itanic can offer and x86-64 platforms cannot.


The point of the article was emphasizing looking at IT from a business
perspective and not low level HW.

And (surprise, surprise) once again we get no answer to the direct question about what significant advantage Itanic can offer that x86-64 cannot.


Because there are plenty of things that x86-64 offers that Itanic
cannot: support from all the tier-1 server vendors rather than only one of them, *far* wider support from lower-tier vendors, processor competition that stimulates development, pricing that reflects this breadth and depth of competition at both the processor manufacturer and OEM levels, desktop-to-datacenter range, far more applications than all other platforms combined (not that most of those applications are all that significant to servers, but if you want to consolidate around a single platform all the way down to the desktop level they are)...

- bill


No Customer I have ever talked to has ever mentioned they want their
server standard to be based on their desktop standard. What Customers
have you been talking to?

Hey, a "desktop to data center" standard was a good enough idea for DEC to tout it vigorously two decades ago and for a lot of people to remember it today. But if people here no longer find it persuasive (not that such a fact is yet in evidence), there are several other significant points above that they may appreciate.


Ok, simple question - If a Customer chooses Windows or Linux on whatever
platform you want to pick, how do you propose they reduce their FTE
counts which is by far the biggest slice of their IT budget?

Yup - you're dodging it again. Instead of just posing the same non-issue over and over and over, why not try explaining why you think it's somehow more of an issue on x86-64 than it is on Itanic?

- bill
.

Relevant Pages

  • RE: HP announces new Integrity servers
    ... FTE counts - the biggest slice of the IT budget pie. ... With the Wintel on any platform, ... consolidation using VMware or Virtual Server, you still have a very high ...
    (comp.os.vms)
  • Re: Sharing folders in Windows CE 5.0
    ... CE client to CE server, ... First you do not need the Remote Registry Editor or the RemoteAdmin tool ... If you open a build window from Platform Builder and go to the ... There are no updates for this issue in CE ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsce.embedded)
  • Re: HP announces new Integrity servers
    ... Main, Kerry wrote: ... The one-app, one server ... That's not a difference between the Itanic platform and the ... Yes, Solaris is also available, but as I stated earlier, every Solaris ...
    (comp.os.vms)
  • Re: Is VMS losing the Financial Sector, also?
    ... Want to bet they will say they need a separate server for each ... With the Parallels package, I can run Mac OS X, Windows as far back as MS-DOS, Linux, and other x86-class operating systems -- and on the same box. ... It might be entertaining to load and fire up SIMH or another hardware emulation on one of that tool's various platforms, and running that platform as a guest underneath Parallels or Xen. ... That's one of the few ways where you could get OpenVMS applications involved within one of these software stacks -- this for VAX stuff, ...
    (comp.os.vms)
  • Operating System Evaluation
    ... Our firm is conducting an operating system evaluation to select a new server ... The application is already in production use. ... FreeBSD in our evaluation. ... not want the general public to know the details of their platform product ...
    (freebsd-questions)