IBM z14 Microprocessor and System Control Design

Re:IBM z14 Microprocessor and System Control Design by jhallenworld on Tuesday November 20, 2018 @11:10AM (#18494900)

I used to work at IBM, making x86-based appliances. Occasionally there was a push to use Power, but x86 single-thread performance was better and cost was lower so it never happened. What would have been nice is if they allowed us to use z's CPU, but in a 1U or 2U appliance. The marketing advantage would be that we could claim to get Z's reliability for our appliance (even if it was slower). I understand they wouldn't make a generic z low end z/OS server (competing with themselves), but this would have been a nice closed-system use case.

BTW, mainframe group takes reliability very seriously. Basically it must not ever corrupt customer (financial) data plus the fit rate must be as good as it can possibly be. I remember when they were making the zBx add-on (an x86 blade center for z which could run Java web apps), they tested the x86 in a cyclotron beam to get an idea of its fit rate- it was quite good (good enough), but not as good as z's CPU.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:IBM z14 Microprocessor and System Control Design by Shivetya on Tuesday November 20, 2018 @03:59PM (#18497649)

Where I work, been here for twenty years, and in all that twenty years I have been told we are going to do away with the mainframe which is a Z series. Of course we have been told the same about the i series which is actually larger. What have we done in the last year alone, gone to the Z-14 and a 32-way 870 i.

seriously people underestimate the cost to move off a platform that is working and worse when there are so many touch points no one can seem to get an accurate handle on them all.

IBM does indeed take their reliability seriously, both i and Z are all built around not having any downtime but the Z does do it better than i which still can require it for patches.

i just find it fascinating the work that we use these machines for and how instead of being replaced more work lands on them because of reliability issues of other platforms. That and support requirements of other platforms. The z and i teams are three man admin with a few operators to nod heads... the other platforms seem to have armies

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:IBM z14 Microprocessor and System Control Design by jacquesm on Tuesday November 20, 2018 @12:55PM (#18495888)

Not having access to a cyclotron beam I would use gen-1 car phones as my go-to test device for hardware reliability in the face of RF interference. That is incredibly hard to defend against already, I can't imagine what kind of countermeasures you'd have to take to get your device to function under the circumstances you sketch.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:IBM z14 Microprocessor and System Control Design by Nokinside on Tuesday November 20, 2018 @03:32PM (#18497444)

Z's memory subsystem equally impressive.

It can detect, correct and survive normal bit errors of course. But then it can detect, correct and survive power regulator, clock, DRAM, lane, controller and channel failures. RAIM (Redundant Array of Independent Memory) eats up 20% of the memory capacity.

If you want Z CPU, then you might want the memory subsystem as well. If you have them, you probably want the redundant IO as well. Then it's easier to buy the whole thing.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:IBM z14 Microprocessor and System Control Design by classichasclass on Tuesday November 20, 2018 @05:10PM (#18498314)

The "baby system" market does exist at IBM, it's just Power-based instead. My personal POWER6 is one of those (an 8203-E4A), and with AIX you can do all the fun stuff like hotswapping PCI cards while the system is up and running. It's a different level than typical commodity boxes.

[ Parent | on HN ]