From Newsgroup: comp.os.vms

Greetings to all the residents of this dimension!

I come from a dimension where our version of Gartner has spent the last
20+ years saying the mainframe is obsolete, in urgent need of replacement,
and dismissing anyone staying with this technology as dinosaurs, etc, etc.

I see that in this dimension Gartner actively recommends some people
consider moving from VMware to the mainframe in order to run their
Linux VMs:

https://www.theregister.com/2026/05/04/gartner_state_of_mainframes/

This is an interesting dimension to live in...

Simon.

PS: Sorry :-), but, seriously, what the hell ??? Gartner saying this ???
It sounds like a plot line that even the Asylum would reject (probably). :-) (Some Asylum movies are actually quite good, but they are not to be taken seriously.)
--
Simon Clubley, clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP
Walking destinations on a map are further away than they appear.
--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.vms

On 5/5/2026 2:30 PM, Simon Clubley wrote:

Greetings to all the residents of this dimension!

I come from a dimension where our version of Gartner has spent the last
20+ years saying the mainframe is obsolete, in urgent need of replacement, and dismissing anyone staying with this technology as dinosaurs, etc, etc.

I see that in this dimension Gartner actively recommends some people
consider moving from VMware to the mainframe in order to run their
Linux VMs:

https://www.theregister.com/2026/05/04/gartner_state_of_mainframes/

This is an interesting dimension to live in...

I think the logic is quite simple.

Gartner recommends the cheapest commercial solution
from a big software vendor.

Gartner does not like gratis open source.

The price for ESXi has gone up significantly.

So before the cost structure was:

IBM mainframe : 4000
x86-64 & ESXi : 1000 <--- Gartner recommendation
x86-64 & gratis : 500

Now it is:

x86-64 & ESXi : 10000
IBM mainframe : 4000 <--- Gartner recommendation
x86-64 & gratis : 500

(values are RNG generated and unit is cost equivalent of
tons of Haribo gummy bears!)

Arne

--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.vms

On Tue, 5 May 2026 16:39:19 -0400, Arne Vajh|+j wrote:

I see that in this dimension Gartner actively recommends some
people consider moving from VMware to the mainframe in order to run
their Linux VMs:

I think the logic is quite simple.

The logic is certainly quite simple: even something as backward as a
mainframe is a less painful option than VMware!
--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.vms

In article <10tdcvj$kevq$1@dont-email.me>, clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP (Simon Clubley) wrote:

PS: Sorry :-), but, seriously, what the hell ??? Gartner saying
this ???

Ah, you haven't grasped just how thoroughly Broadcom have alienated the
VMware customer base, especially the large ones. My employer's VMware replacement plan is well behind the original schedule, but nobody is even considering staying with Broadcom. The pricing is far too abusive.

For companies that have in-house mainframe expertise already, it isn't a
crazy idea.

John
--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.vms

Simon Clubley <clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP> wrote:

Greetings to all the residents of this dimension!

I come from a dimension where our version of Gartner has spent the last
20+ years saying the mainframe is obsolete, in urgent need of replacement, and dismissing anyone staying with this technology as dinosaurs, etc, etc.

I see that in this dimension Gartner actively recommends some people
consider moving from VMware to the mainframe in order to run their
Linux VMs:

https://www.theregister.com/2026/05/04/gartner_state_of_mainframes/

This is an interesting dimension to live in...

Simon.

PS: Sorry :-), but, seriously, what the hell ??? Gartner saying this ???

Because Broadcom did a really amazing job of quite thoroughly alienating
the VMWare customer base. Playing clever weasel games with contracts for
short term profit is not how you win solid customers in business.

Kind regards,
Alex.
--
"Opportunity is missed by most people because it is dressed in overalls and
looks like work." -- Thomas A. Edison
--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.vms

Alexander Schreiber <als@usenet.thangorodrim.de> wrote:

Because Broadcom did a really amazing job of quite thoroughly alienating
the VMWare customer base. Playing clever weasel games with contracts for >short term profit is not how you win solid customers in business.

I remember, not that long ago, when Broadcom was a hardware company that
was run by engineers and sold to engineers.

Now... I have no idea who is running them.... certainly not anyone that
cares about retaining customers...
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.vms

On 06/05/2026 22:02, Alexander Schreiber wrote:

Simon Clubley <clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP> wrote:

Greetings to all the residents of this dimension!

I come from a dimension where our version of Gartner has spent the last
20+ years saying the mainframe is obsolete, in urgent need of replacement, >> and dismissing anyone staying with this technology as dinosaurs, etc, etc. >>
I see that in this dimension Gartner actively recommends some people
consider moving from VMware to the mainframe in order to run their
Linux VMs:

https://www.theregister.com/2026/05/04/gartner_state_of_mainframes/

This is an interesting dimension to live in...

Simon.

PS: Sorry :-), but, seriously, what the hell ??? Gartner saying this ???

Look, Broadcom have basically taken a leaf out of IBMs book of assuming
its customers had no where else to go and so it can screw them into the ground.

So whilst I normally talk IBM down the game has moved on. I think in
many ways it could make sense for some big customers. The current Z
boxes are nothing like the mainframes of old. They are amazing feats of engineering built to run the systems of the largest banks or airline reservation systems. Go read some of the IBM papers on the hardware
design. They have innovative features not found in VMware farms. Yes
they are lacking some other features, but Broadcom has really tried to
screw its customers.

So whilst when running "traditional" workloads the pricing for Z
exploits the fact that migrations are expensive and is I would say
"usury" with a very tight enforced hardware and software upgrade cycle
if you want to remain supported, which for those wanting PCI or HIPAA compliance is a necessity.

However the pricing for them for running Linux on them is competitive
with WinTel servers. It pretty much has to be the case otherwise no one
would buy them. So for some it could be an option.

Because Broadcom did a really amazing job of quite thoroughly alienating
the VMWare customer base. Playing clever weasel games with contracts for short term profit is not how you win solid customers in business.

Kind regards,
Alex.

Dave
--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.vms

In article <10tgamt$45t$1@panix2.panix.com>,
Scott Dorsey <kludge@panix.com> wrote:

Alexander Schreiber <als@usenet.thangorodrim.de> wrote:

Because Broadcom did a really amazing job of quite thoroughly alienating >>the VMWare customer base. Playing clever weasel games with contracts for >>short term profit is not how you win solid customers in business.

I remember, not that long ago, when Broadcom was a hardware company that
was run by engineers and sold to engineers.

Now... I have no idea who is running them.... certainly not anyone that
cares about retaining customers...

Hock Tan, baby.

- Dan C.

--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.vms

In article <10tgb1a$1gmgv$1@dont-email.me>,
David Wade <dave@g4ugm.invalid> wrote:

On 06/05/2026 22:02, Alexander Schreiber wrote:

Simon Clubley <clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP> wrote:

Greetings to all the residents of this dimension!

I come from a dimension where our version of Gartner has spent the last
20+ years saying the mainframe is obsolete, in urgent need of replacement, >>> and dismissing anyone staying with this technology as dinosaurs, etc, etc. >>>
I see that in this dimension Gartner actively recommends some people
consider moving from VMware to the mainframe in order to run their
Linux VMs:

https://www.theregister.com/2026/05/04/gartner_state_of_mainframes/

This is an interesting dimension to live in...

Simon.

PS: Sorry :-), but, seriously, what the hell ??? Gartner saying this ???

Look, Broadcom have basically taken a leaf out of IBMs book of assuming
its customers had no where else to go and so it can screw them into the >ground.

So whilst I normally talk IBM down the game has moved on. I think in
many ways it could make sense for some big customers. The current Z
boxes are nothing like the mainframes of old. They are amazing feats of >engineering built to run the systems of the largest banks or airline >reservation systems. Go read some of the IBM papers on the hardware
design. They have innovative features not found in VMware farms. Yes
they are lacking some other features, but Broadcom has really tried to
screw its customers.

So whilst when running "traditional" workloads the pricing for Z
exploits the fact that migrations are expensive and is I would say
"usury" with a very tight enforced hardware and software upgrade cycle
if you want to remain supported, which for those wanting PCI or HIPAA >compliance is a necessity.

However the pricing for them for running Linux on them is competitive
with WinTel servers. It pretty much has to be the case otherwise no one >would buy them. So for some it could be an option.

Telum II is a pretty impressive chip: the virtual cache thing is
neat. And as you point out, it _can_ be cost-competitive with
x86 servers, but I bet our stuff at work would give it a run for
its money.

The problem with Z beyond that is two-fold:

First, you lose binary compatibility with x86; Linux works
because there is a port to Z, but if you need a Windows VM (or
VMS?), or need to host a binary-only application, you're out of
luck. And there is still a lot of Windows out there running
under ESXi.

Second, you get locked into IBM's system management/RAS
ecosystem. Are you running Linux on bare metal? In an LPAR?
Under VM? IBM may have invented virtualization, but if you go
with their solution, you are entering their unique world; caveat
emptor.

A lot of customers are probably better served with something
like Oxide for an integrated solution, or Proxmox for an
open-source route.

- Dan C.

--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.vms

On 07/05/2026 00:26, Dan Cross wrote:

In article <10tgb1a$1gmgv$1@dont-email.me>,
David Wade <dave@g4ugm.invalid> wrote:

On 06/05/2026 22:02, Alexander Schreiber wrote:

Simon Clubley <clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP> wrote:

Greetings to all the residents of this dimension!

I come from a dimension where our version of Gartner has spent the last >>>> 20+ years saying the mainframe is obsolete, in urgent need of replacement, >>>> and dismissing anyone staying with this technology as dinosaurs, etc, etc. >>>>
I see that in this dimension Gartner actively recommends some people
consider moving from VMware to the mainframe in order to run their
Linux VMs:

https://www.theregister.com/2026/05/04/gartner_state_of_mainframes/

This is an interesting dimension to live in...

Simon.

PS: Sorry :-), but, seriously, what the hell ??? Gartner saying this ??? >>

Look, Broadcom have basically taken a leaf out of IBMs book of assuming
its customers had no where else to go and so it can screw them into the
ground.

So whilst I normally talk IBM down the game has moved on. I think in
many ways it could make sense for some big customers. The current Z
boxes are nothing like the mainframes of old. They are amazing feats of
engineering built to run the systems of the largest banks or airline
reservation systems. Go read some of the IBM papers on the hardware
design. They have innovative features not found in VMware farms. Yes
they are lacking some other features, but Broadcom has really tried to
screw its customers.

So whilst when running "traditional" workloads the pricing for Z
exploits the fact that migrations are expensive and is I would say
"usury" with a very tight enforced hardware and software upgrade cycle
if you want to remain supported, which for those wanting PCI or HIPAA
compliance is a necessity.

However the pricing for them for running Linux on them is competitive
with WinTel servers. It pretty much has to be the case otherwise no one
would buy them. So for some it could be an option.

Telum II is a pretty impressive chip: the virtual cache thing is
neat. And as you point out, it _can_ be cost-competitive with
x86 servers, but I bet our stuff at work would give it a run for
its money.

The problem with Z beyond that is two-fold:

First, you lose binary compatibility with x86; Linux works
because there is a port to Z, but if you need a Windows VM (or
VMS?), or need to host a binary-only application, you're out of
luck. And there is still a lot of Windows out there running
under ESXi.

of course, that is a big draw back..
.. and if you have a lot of Windows perhaps hyper-v is a better match..

Second, you get locked into IBM's system management/RAS
ecosystem. Are you running Linux on bare metal?

as far as I know not possible on a modern z box..

In an LPAR?
Under VM? IBM may have invented virtualization, but if you go
with their solution, you are entering their unique world; caveat
emptor.

yes very different in many ways..

A lot of customers are probably better served with something
like Oxide for an integrated solution, or Proxmox for an
open-source route.

The big problem with Z for many is the size of the box. Its been 10
years since I worked but I really liked our VMware system build with
multiple mid-range 2-cpu so 16 core servers. With more 64-bit OSs these
days you probably want bigger servers..
.. but VMWARE does give you the ability to sacale up or out...

- Dan C.

Dave
--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.vms

On 2026-05-06, John Dallman <jgd@cix.co.uk> wrote:

In article <10tdcvj$kevq$1@dont-email.me>, clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP (Simon Clubley) wrote:

PS: Sorry :-), but, seriously, what the hell ??? Gartner saying
this ???

Ah, you haven't grasped just how thoroughly Broadcom have alienated the VMware customer base, especially the large ones. My employer's VMware replacement plan is well behind the original schedule, but nobody is even considering staying with Broadcom. The pricing is far too abusive.

I knew they had seriously annoyed them (and had posted comments along those lines), but I admit I had not realised just how incredibly bad and toxic
that situation had actually become.

Simon.
--
Simon Clubley, clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP
Walking destinations on a map are further away than they appear.
--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.vms

On 5/7/2026 8:39 AM, Simon Clubley wrote:

On 2026-05-06, John Dallman <jgd@cix.co.uk> wrote:

In article <10tdcvj$kevq$1@dont-email.me>,
clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP (Simon Clubley) wrote:

PS: Sorry :-), but, seriously, what the hell ??? Gartner saying
this ???

Ah, you haven't grasped just how thoroughly Broadcom have alienated the
VMware customer base, especially the large ones. My employer's VMware
replacement plan is well behind the original schedule, but nobody is even
considering staying with Broadcom. The pricing is far too abusive.

I knew they had seriously annoyed them (and had posted comments along those lines), but I admit I had not realised just how incredibly bad and toxic
that situation had actually become.

Simon.

One has to wonder what their end game is? When one has a milk cow producing well, one doesn't consign it to hamburger.
--
David Froble Tel: 724-529-0450
Dave Froble Enterprises, Inc. E-Mail: davef@tsoft-inc.com
DFE Ultralights, Inc.
170 Grimplin Road
Vanderbilt, PA 15486
--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.vms

On 5/7/2026 4:32 PM, Dave Froble wrote:

On 5/7/2026 8:39 AM, Simon Clubley wrote:

On 2026-05-06, John Dallman <jgd@cix.co.uk> wrote:

Ah, you haven't grasped just how thoroughly Broadcom have alienated the
VMware customer base, especially the large ones. My employer's VMware
replacement plan is well behind the original schedule, but nobody is
even
considering staying with Broadcom. The pricing is far too abusive.

I knew they had seriously annoyed them (and had posted comments along
those
lines), but I admit I had not realised just how incredibly bad and toxic
that situation had actually become.

One has to wonder what their end game is?-a When one has a milk cow producing well, one doesn't consign it to hamburger.

I think the real question is why did Broadcom buy VMWare
for the price they did.

Broadcom paid 69 B$ for a company that made 12-14 B$
per year in revenue and 1-2 B$ per year in profit.

And with a negative outlook for the future due to cloud
and k8s.

Those numbers do not make much sense.

So if they bought VMWare at that price their only
chance of making it a success was to dramatically
raise prices to raise revenue and profits hoping
that customers would not migrate away or at least
take a long time to migrate.

Why they did what they did is a good question.

To me it looks like they walked into a casino
and put 69 B$ on red.

Arne




--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.vms

In article <10tistu$2cr9s$1@dont-email.me>,
Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> wrote:

On 5/7/2026 8:39 AM, Simon Clubley wrote:

On 2026-05-06, John Dallman <jgd@cix.co.uk> wrote:

In article <10tdcvj$kevq$1@dont-email.me>,
clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP (Simon Clubley) wrote:

PS: Sorry :-), but, seriously, what the hell ??? Gartner saying
this ???

Ah, you haven't grasped just how thoroughly Broadcom have alienated the
VMware customer base, especially the large ones. My employer's VMware
replacement plan is well behind the original schedule, but nobody is even >>> considering staying with Broadcom. The pricing is far too abusive.

I knew they had seriously annoyed them (and had posted comments along those >> lines), but I admit I had not realised just how incredibly bad and toxic
that situation had actually become.

One has to wonder what their end game is? When one has a milk cow producing >well, one doesn't consign it to hamburger.

Cynically?

Squeeze every dime you can out of the product while users are
chained to it, funnel your customers into the cloud as they jump
ship, and sell hardware to the cloud providers. Once a
sufficient number have abandoned it, kill the product(s).

- Dan C.

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.vms

In article <10thd9j$1qo65$1@dont-email.me>,
David Wade <dave@g4ugm.invalid> wrote:

On 07/05/2026 00:26, Dan Cross wrote:

[snip]
Telum II is a pretty impressive chip: the virtual cache thing is
neat. And as you point out, it _can_ be cost-competitive with
x86 servers, but I bet our stuff at work would give it a run for
its money.

The problem with Z beyond that is two-fold:

First, you lose binary compatibility with x86; Linux works
because there is a port to Z, but if you need a Windows VM (or
VMS?), or need to host a binary-only application, you're out of
luck. And there is still a lot of Windows out there running
under ESXi.

of course, that is a big draw back..
.. and if you have a lot of Windows perhaps hyper-v is a better match..

Likely. Or something KVM-based if you don't want the vendor
lock-in that comes with Hyper-V.

Second, you get locked into IBM's system management/RAS
ecosystem. Are you running Linux on bare metal?

as far as I know not possible on a modern z box..

Not surprising. I know there's been work to make KVM work with
Z, but I if you can't run Linux on the bare metal, that doesn't
help you much for the top-level hypervisor. I suppose you'd go
with z/VM, but then you're paying against IBM's historically
crazy mainframe software licensing terms. I suppose that's good
for IBM.

In an LPAR?
Under VM? IBM may have invented virtualization, but if you go
with their solution, you are entering their unique world; caveat
emptor.

yes very different in many ways..

Oh yes. That's the big unknown with going the mainframe route;
it's a real investment a complete technology sea change for a
lot of organizations. If you've got mainframe expertise already
then I can see the attraction; if you don't, then you've got to
be _really committed_ to the direction.

A lot of customers are probably better served with something
like Oxide for an integrated solution, or Proxmox for an
open-source route.

The big problem with Z for many is the size of the box. Its been 10
years since I worked but I really liked our VMware system build with >multiple mid-range 2-cpu so 16 core servers. With more 64-bit OSs these
days you probably want bigger servers..
.. but VMWARE does give you the ability to sacale up or out...

That's a good point. I bet they're betting on a lot of
consolidation; the workloads of a gaggle of small and mid-range
servers moving onto a single high-end machine.

An IBM z17 is not your father's mainframe; it doesn't need the
x-many thousands of square feet of floor space that a 3090 did.
IBM's promotional materials show them in office environments, in
a single rack enclosure. But still, you're absolutely right
that you're starting at the high-end with one. I suspect that
the numbers vis x86 really don't make sense until you're talking
about significant workloads.

For a lot of shops, it'd be much cheaper to go with a Linux/KVM
based solution, but they may not have the in-house expertise to
stand that up themselves. Building out something with
functionality equivalent to ESXi is a heavy lift.

- Dan C.

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.vms

In article <10tistu$2cr9s$1@dont-email.me>, davef@tsoft-inc.com (Dave
Froble) wrote:

One has to wonder what their end game is? When one has a milk cow
producing well, one doesn't consign it to hamburger.

They appear to have thought that they had a unique product that they
could exploit without risk.

Many customers found their VMware bills due to rise by factors of three
to six depending on what they used. That caused all of VMware's
competitors to become very focused on making transitions easy, and VMware customers to think in terms of transitioning away.

Broadcom's response was to make special offers like "Only a 2x rise in
bills if you sign up this week!" with no commitment to maintain prices
the next year. That doesn't sell utility services like virtualisation.

It also became clear that Broadcom were slashing VMware's skilled
engineering and support staff, making it likely that you'd get much worse service when you had problems, on top of bigger bills.

Confidence in the product collapsed.

John
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.vms

On 08/05/2026 13:19, Dan Cross wrote:

In article <10thd9j$1qo65$1@dont-email.me>,
David Wade <dave@g4ugm.invalid> wrote:

On 07/05/2026 00:26, Dan Cross wrote:

[snip]
Telum II is a pretty impressive chip: the virtual cache thing is
neat. And as you point out, it _can_ be cost-competitive with
x86 servers, but I bet our stuff at work would give it a run for
its money.

The problem with Z beyond that is two-fold:

First, you lose binary compatibility with x86; Linux works
because there is a port to Z, but if you need a Windows VM (or
VMS?), or need to host a binary-only application, you're out of
luck. And there is still a lot of Windows out there running
under ESXi.

of course, that is a big draw back..
.. and if you have a lot of Windows perhaps hyper-v is a better match..

Likely. Or something KVM-based if you don't want the vendor
lock-in that comes with Hyper-V.

Second, you get locked into IBM's system management/RAS
ecosystem. Are you running Linux on bare metal?

as far as I know not possible on a modern z box..

Not surprising. I know there's been work to make KVM work with
Z, but I if you can't run Linux on the bare metal, that doesn't
help you much for the top-level hypervisor. I suppose you'd go
with z/VM, but then you're paying against IBM's historically
crazy mainframe software licensing terms. I suppose that's good
for IBM.

You can't run it on bare metal because everything runs under PR/SM which
is a micro/milli coded hypervisor. I believe that even z/VM runs under
PR/SM. I am not sure what the current restrictions on PR/SM and LPARs
are but when it first appeared it was limited to basically sharing out devices. So if you had 3 LPARs then you needed three network interfaces.

So it still makes sense to run a "software" hypervisor like KVM or Z/VM
in an LPAR on Z.

- Dan C.

Dave
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.vms

On Fri, 8 May 2026 15:01:09 +0200, David Wade wrote:

You can't run it on bare metal because everything runs under PR/SM
which is a micro/milli coded hypervisor. I believe that even z/VM
runs under PR/SM. I am not sure what the current restrictions on
PR/SM and LPARs are but when it first appeared it was limited to
basically sharing out devices. So if you had 3 LPARs then you needed
three network interfaces.

No equivalent to Linux rCLvethrCY interfaces, then?

Imagine that: IBM, supposedly the pioneer of virtualization, offers an
inferior set of capabilities compared to whatrCOs available on more
modern OSes.

YourCOd be better off with hardware that can run just a standard Linux
install as a hypervisor. And yourCOd get even more capabilities with a specialized setup like <https://xcp-ng.org/>.
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.vms

In article <10tkmql$2rohv$1@dont-email.me>,
David Wade <dave@g4ugm.invalid> wrote:

On 08/05/2026 13:19, Dan Cross wrote:

In article <10thd9j$1qo65$1@dont-email.me>,
David Wade <dave@g4ugm.invalid> wrote:

On 07/05/2026 00:26, Dan Cross wrote:

[snip]
Telum II is a pretty impressive chip: the virtual cache thing is
neat. And as you point out, it _can_ be cost-competitive with
x86 servers, but I bet our stuff at work would give it a run for
its money.

The problem with Z beyond that is two-fold:

First, you lose binary compatibility with x86; Linux works
because there is a port to Z, but if you need a Windows VM (or
VMS?), or need to host a binary-only application, you're out of
luck. And there is still a lot of Windows out there running
under ESXi.

of course, that is a big draw back..
.. and if you have a lot of Windows perhaps hyper-v is a better match..

Likely. Or something KVM-based if you don't want the vendor
lock-in that comes with Hyper-V.

Second, you get locked into IBM's system management/RAS
ecosystem. Are you running Linux on bare metal?

as far as I know not possible on a modern z box..

Not surprising. I know there's been work to make KVM work with
Z, but I if you can't run Linux on the bare metal, that doesn't
help you much for the top-level hypervisor. I suppose you'd go
with z/VM, but then you're paying against IBM's historically
crazy mainframe software licensing terms. I suppose that's good
for IBM.

You can't run it on bare metal because everything runs under PR/SM which
is a micro/milli coded hypervisor. I believe that even z/VM runs under >PR/SM. I am not sure what the current restrictions on PR/SM and LPARs
are but when it first appeared it was limited to basically sharing out >devices. So if you had 3 LPARs then you needed three network interfaces.

So it still makes sense to run a "software" hypervisor like KVM or Z/VM
in an LPAR on Z.

Sure. The point being, you can't avoid the IBM software
ecosystem.

- Dan C.

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2