« V12N == Virtualization | The Mainframe Blog Home | ZapThink links to mainframe blog. Harry Potter speaks »
How about a Sandbox Slush Fund for new zSeries workloads?
I was reading ITIndepth, Anura Guruge's punchy analysis site, when something struck me.
Anura points to an issue for IBM right now - the idea that Linux is for Intel only. [Of course given AMD's punchy performance against Intel, we should probably be saying x86, not Intel, but Anura's point stands. Its still not clear where POWER fits in.]
In another analysis he questions the economics of the zAAP processor, an offload processor for Java workloads on the mainframe. That is, a place to run Java workloads without paying through the MIPS.
Ok, so we have IFL (Linux offload) and zAAP (Java offload), and at some point in the near future, I expect to see, though this is pure speculation, that IBM will also offer an offload board for XML too.
Here is a primer on some of the economics and problems facing IBM and its customers when it comes to paying, or charging for new workloads.
I was thinking about how IBM could make economics less of an issue, and I thought, why not overdeliver?
We see a lot of overdelivering in the Microsoft world, when they are fighting in the trenches for new workloads against competitive platforms. I was talking an OEM recently, and he described how MS was providing all kinds of free service and support to encourage a closer relationship and technical hooks. I know of MS paying for the consulting and deployment fees charged by value added resellers in some public sector organisations, to ensure good outcomes. Why can't IBM do the same thing.
Why not include extra capacity- say 10%- with every mainframe shipped, as a new workload sandbox? Just call it a slush fund for customers. Its effectively free money, off the books, to be applied to new workloads, for new developments. Don't charge $125k for it. Sure IBM could put some restrictions on the processors - but the fewer the better. At RedMonk we're always thinking about ways to lower the barriers to entry. Sometimes doing so means don't use DRM, sometimes it means provide better documentation. But sometimes it also means provide free stuff, under the radars of corporate purchasing. That's why Linux became successful in the first place. But I would keep the-lets call it a slushpuppy-"free", like Google 20% time.
Why not use similar thinking for zSeries? Offer the free capacity to ISVs as well as enterprises- that would help with relationships in the zEcosystem. At the moment, mainframe ISVs are often workload constrained, which means they just dont have enough hardware to deliver a new cool feature in time to support a new zOS release, for example. The slushpuppy could help with that.
Of course the folks running IBM generally, and zSeries specifically, might think this idea is insane. Not charge for 10% of the box, on our most profitable product line? "Ludicrous - we would go out of business."
It is my contention however that if IBM doesn't do even more than its already in order to encourage new workloads to the frame then we'll see problems in future. IBM needs to underpromise and overdeliver.
The idea behind the economics is that if this 10% slushpuppy, or whatever it is, is made more accessible, then it will be used. If that drives new workloads and all the new acronyms and buzzwords to the box it will soon create an even bigger pie.
| by James Governor | November 9, 2005 in Innovation Permalink |
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834521c8469e200e55069b4be8833
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference How about a Sandbox Slush Fund for new zSeries workloads?:
» Why not create a slushfund for zSeries? from James Governor's MonkChips
Seems like a good if off the wall idea, so I posted it here. Why not include extra capacity- say 10%- with every mainframe shipped, as a new workload sandbox? Just call it a slush fund for customers. Its effectively... [Read More]
Tracked on Nov 9, 2005 11:59:24 AM
Comments
Interesting idea. IBM really needs to take a look at how M$ is doing business - in many ways, the same that IBM did in the 1960's and 1970's with the System/360 and 370.
How about IBM assisting us little guys who cannot afford even a ThinkPad with FLEX-ES system for development? I've got an idea for a product, and I want to include the z/ operating systems as platforms (as well as Windows and *n*x, and others, too).
But between $2K for Partnerworld, and almost $10K for a ThinkPad with FLEX, I don't think I can convince my wife that it's worth spending 5 digits on it.
Sure there's Hercules, but I want to use stuff that's way beyond MVS 3.8j, VM/370 and DOS Release 34, and if there was ever a public domain copy of ACP...
Posted by: Ray Mullins | Nov 10, 2005 1:29:32 AM
ah, great stuff. hello ray. great to have you here. that's some good solid feedback. it will be interesting to see if anyone from ibm contacts you to talk about the possibilities. i have to say i love the company name catherdersoftware
very funny.
Posted by: james governor | Nov 10, 2005 10:39:59 AM
I believe you'd find that if IBM did this, the customer's bill would go up! Not to the HW group (i.e. they're not charging for the extra CPU power) but rather to all the other software vendors that charge based on the 'size' of the machine, and not the size of the CPU's dedicated to the SW application.
The whole reason for IFL's and zAAP engines is that it's CPU power that the SW companies can't claim as potential MIPS for their product. So even if a customer bought a CPU in order to do their own sandbox testing... that CPU counts towards their SW licensing costs!
Also consider, even if the SW wasn't sized based on 'available' CPU cycles, most companies would still require some sort of license for the products that you put on your development system.
I believe you'll find that the real barrier to entry isn't the cost for development systems, if you own a zSeries already you can use the CPU sharing to achieve this already. Most shops do development off shift to take advantage of these dips... it's what virtualization is all about!
Rather the true inhibitor of innovation is the traditional cost charging structure for SW products, coupled with the growing complexity, and knowledge required for system and product integration.
Posted by: Tat Low | Nov 10, 2005 12:59:00 PM
hey thanks very much for the feedback - tat low.
actually though the sandbox would be explicitly intended for new workloads, which would not push up total MIPS. otherwise it would be completely useless.
i am talking about trying to extend zaap and IFL thinking, not dismissing it.
Posted by: james governor | Nov 11, 2005 12:24:33 PM
Hey James,
I think the idea itself is great. But as I mentioned. It's more trying to convince the ISV's that they should allow you to use "sandbox capacity" w/o cost, than is it something IBM can do when it sells HW.
Posted by: Tat Low | Nov 13, 2005 9:10:33 PM
another great point tat.
but it works both ways. and if ibm does offer the extra capacity - what affect will that have on ISVS the next time the customer has a negotiation around tools, assuming IBM has put its own good enough tooling as an alternative? that is - offering a free 10% might actually serve to drive customers to ibm's own ims, db2 and mainframe performance management tools. it forces the issue. make sense?
Posted by: james governor | Nov 14, 2005 11:09:20 AM
James,
I think you're right. Offering 10% free for "development" would probably be good 'PR' for IBM and might influence some future purchasing decisions by the customer.
I think this might be the mentality behind their "try-and-buy" license. But I think you'd point out, rightly so, that it doesn't matter whether or not you get to play with the Middleware if you don't have capacity to run and test it!
Posted by: Tat Low | Nov 16, 2005 6:13:08 PM
zSeries and Systems z9 do offer opportunities for “free” capacity to customers to develop new workloads. It comes in two main flavors, but requires them to stay current with the HW technology, which is a good thing. The first delivery of "free" capacity comes when a customer decides to upgrade their mainframe server from one generation to the next and they are charged 10% fewer MSUs for a server of the same capacity. This benefit has been delivered on the last two generations of the high end servers and with the last generation of the z890 mid market server. As an example, (not based on an actual model but the math is the same), if a 1000 MIPS z990 rated at 600 MSU were upgraded to a 1000 MIPS System z9 then the chargeable MSUs would be 10% less or 540 MSUs. If you were to look at the same upgrade from a z900 to a z9 then the reduction compounds to roughly 19%. The second and perhaps more powerful way "free" capacity is delivered is by upgrading existing specialty engines like IFLs and zAAPs to the latest technology. Again, when the z9 was announced it came with roughly a 35% capacity jump over the z990. For customers that had say have 1 IFL and 1 zAAP installed on the z990 they can now move to the z9 transferring the IFL and zAAP at no additional hardware cost yet gain 35% more capacity on each. In the case of the zAAP that is 35% growth with no additional IBM SW charges. If the upgrade were from even older generations the increase would be significantly higher And as mentioned by Tat, there are other ways the IBM mainframe delivers spare capacity such as through virtualization and workload management technologies. Now combine that thought with WLC pricing and you can see another way to get more capacity out of existing assets. This happens because WLC help flattens out IBM MLC SW costs by using a 4 hour rolling average rather that single short duration spike to calculate SW charges. Here spikey new workload can get blended with more stable workloads to average out costs. My two cents.
Posted by: Scott Carlson | Nov 30, 2005 1:55:18 PM
zSeries and Systems z9 do offer opportunities for “free” capacity to customers to develop new workloads. It comes in two main flavors, but requires them to stay current with the HW technology, which is a good thing. The first delivery of "free" capacity comes when a customer decides to upgrade their mainframe server from one generation to the next and they are charged 10% fewer MSUs for a server of the same capacity. This benefit has been delivered on the last two generations of the high end servers and with the last generation of the z890 mid market server. As an example, (not based on an actual model but the math is the same), if a 1000 MIPS z990 rated at 600 MSU were upgraded to a 1000 MIPS System z9 then the chargeable MSUs would be 10% less or 540 MSUs. If you were to look at the same upgrade from a z900 to a z9 then the reduction compounds to roughly 19%. The second and perhaps more powerful way "free" capacity is delivered is by upgrading existing specialty engines like IFLs and zAAPs to the latest technology. Again, when the z9 was announced it came with roughly a 35% capacity jump over the z990. For customers that had say have 1 IFL and 1 zAAP installed on the z990 they can now move to the z9 transferring the IFL and zAAP at no additional hardware cost yet gain 35% more capacity on each. In the case of the zAAP that is 35% growth with no additional IBM SW charges. If the upgrade were from even older generations the increase would be significantly higher And as mentioned by Tat, there are other ways the IBM mainframe delivers spare capacity such as through virtualization and workload management technologies. Now combine that thought with WLC pricing and you can see another way to get more capacity out of existing assets. This happens because WLC help flattens out IBM MLC SW costs by using a 4 hour rolling average rather that single short duration spike to calculate SW charges. Here spikey new workload can get blended with more stable workloads to average out costs. My two cents.
Posted by: Scott Carlson | Nov 30, 2005 1:55:55 PM
thanks scott really great point.
i tend to see the elements you point to as mainframe charter economics-driving the cost per per MIP down, rather than a sandbox dedicated to new workloads though. my argument is really not about the capacity of the box though - its about what workloads you might choose to put on there. and at the moment there still *appears* to be a significant premium over intel-based pricing which represents a major barrier to entry.
Posted by: james governor | Dec 5, 2005 5:53:46 AM
