For the last three years BMC has been sending out a mainframe survey to customers and contacts throughout the world. The results have just arrived and it just continues the drum beat of mainframe resurgence we’ve been seeing… Some of the more interesting stats are:

Customer are GROWING Capacity!:  62% of respondents report they are growing capacity, and in large shops over 10,000 MIPS it is an astonishing 86%!

Customers are getting BUSINESS VALUE:  Respondents report they are growing the platform because of SUPERIOR TRANSACTION PERFORMANCE, AVAILABILITY, DATA SERVING STRENGTHS, and SECURITY advantages.  Over ¾ of large shops cite these attributes!

Customers are focused on operational excellence:  The number one pressure cited for mainframe customers it the continued drive to reduce costs and improve productivity.  Over 70% of the respondents highlighted this issue, over 12 points ahead of the next closest issue (which happens to be staff skills)

Business Service Management customers EXPECT mainframe support!:  An overwhelming number of customers (well over 60%) consider mainframe or enterprise coverage extremely important for ITIL disciplines such as change management, service desk, and service level management.

BMC mainframe products are considered best in class:  Respondents rated BMC the #1 or #2 competitor in terms of leadership and innovation in every product category we compete in.

I'll try to get more details soon.

Just read the article Is Microsoft Boxing Itself into an IT Corner, by Eric Lai in Computerworld (June 8). It is an interesting approach but there might be a better approach if Micsrosoft partners with IBM.

Maybe the time is right for Microsoft to rebuild their relationship with IBM and think about leveraging the zSeries instead of containers of Intel Servers. They could then roll in the "box" rather than "drop it in". This would decrease the amount of dead space which would be required by the cargo craine for maneuvering. They could put the disk drives into boxes as well and attach it to the CPU "box".

There are two approaches to make this a reality ... one is to develop a WINTEL specialty engine with IBM ... the other is to bring out the Linux Server variants that Microsoft MUST have developed as part of a fallback plan. I remeber years ago they had 40,000 ZLinux machine running. I'm sure the were models have surpassed that limit ... kinda makes 2,000 somewhat insignificant. Anyways Ron has a blog which can tell you more about zVM and zLinux.

If you want to further reduce the temperatures in a data center .. build it where the ambient temperature is cold. This doesn't mean to have to move it to the artic circle ... dig a hole ... a deep hole and build the data center there ... or drill into the side of a mountain and build it there. If you built a data center in the ocean .. you might be able to power it via waves ... and let the icy cold depths do the cooling ... now that is Green.

The New York Times not known for their coverage of the mainframe has released a  story prompted by McKinsey research on the inefficiencies of data center. They claim that data centers are about to surpass the airline industry as the largest greenhouse gas polluter.

The article mentions that the mainframe of old was more efficient than today's hardware populating data centers. A McKinsey researcher suggests bringing them back into the data center. So are we that close to a resurgence of the mainframe?

Certainly the beating Microsoft appears to be taking from Apple, combined with their unsuccesful attempt to upgrade everyone from XP may play into the resurgence of the mainframe. The minimalization of Windows and continue popularity of Linux as a server platform coupled with the balance of client machines provides the necessary environment to support distributed workload deployment on z10 hadrware.

What are you seeing? .... Has the mainframe become the talk of progressive data centers? Is there a chance? Or is IT management in denial clinging to Distributed Systems hoping the energy problems are temporary ... and that the chilled fluid rack mounted shower heads will avert the problem?

I made a wrong turn and ended up in a power and cooling seminar at the Gartner Infrastructure and Operations Conference in Orlando last week. Having walked in a few minutes late ... I decided to stay and push my education beyond the mainframe rather than making a rapid u-turn after seeing my mistake. Well it seems there is some relatively new technology out there which sprays a non-conductive liquid on processors and system boards in rack mounts. A collector tray catches the liquid and circulates it through heat exchanger tied into chilled water to cool for re-cycling and the spraying / cooling continues.

I was immediately reminded of the new open systems technology a few years ago called "virtualization". before that it was mult-tasking ....

While I'd love to compare the costs of power for 40k Linux servers rack mounted against the costs of a mainframe with zLinux x40k .... I think I'll wait till 2011 when the cost of cooling is anticipated to be 2 times the cost of powering the dense silicon. Gartner states that the cost of cooling today is only 60% of powering .....

I wonder what new technology open systems will 'invent' next year ... maybe a bus and tag system for more robust peripheral communications.

I recently came across an article of interest entitled "Mainframes, SOA and SEX" by James Governer regarding SOA as a catalyst for mainframe growth and respect.

As an equal partner in the delivery of business services the mainframe can be leveraged as "just" another technology, and its strengths can be exploited. In order to exploit those strengths, SOA architects,  SOA programmers and SOA vendors unfamiliar with the mainframe need to get spec'd up. Exploitation is only possible with the knowledge of the capabilities and strengths of the platform. Think of the possibilities ...

When the internet bubble began to increase in size ... and the ASP model became the talk of the town there were thoughts that the ability to cloak the platform behind the internet might support a resurgence for more mature platform like the mainframe and the AS/400. There were some providers actually offering services over the internet which were delivered by these platforms. I believe psychological barriers proved to be insurmountable, and the need to have data (a companies crown jewels) within the confines of the company's walls thwarted acceptance of this model.

SOA does not suffer from the remoteness of data, but does cloak and exploit mainframe systems. It allows mainframes to do the heavy lifting, and GUI enabled platforms to make life easy for users. This is just what the mainframe needs ... a way to appeal to the non-mainframe techies ... and to continue to support business. SOA is the 'Screen' providing a gender neutral approach to computing platforms.

I’m surprised by a particular survey question in Gartner’s "Survey Results Provide Insight Into IBM Mainframe Market Momentum" (7 February 2006 ID Number: G00137484). In essence,(since this is copyrighted material I can’t be too specific) mainframe users are blaming ISVs for the high costs of mainframe computing. Interestingly enough I was at the Gartner Conference last year when the polling was done, and as a vendor, I did not vote that way. In fact I guess you might say that the poll reflects vendors and mainframe users.

The point is that mainframe software costs more than distributed software for a number of sound economic reasons and thus it is more expensive. But as most users know it has a much more rapid ROI, and provides more business value (savings) and thus delivers more value.

What is most disturbing is that mainframe software provided by vendors other than IBM has been relatively flat for years. I know for fact that is true with BMC mainframe software and market intelligence supports that the vendor constantly raising the price of software is …. IBM. Few users may have figured this out, and certainly procurement is still in the dark about the fact that with IBM IPLAs you don’t license a product you license a product number. While this may not seem like much … you need to upgrade the product every time the product number changes, regardless of ongoing maintenance. This upgrade has nothing to do with capacity changes; it is totally dependent on when a new version of the product is introduced by IBM. With each product number change carries an additional upgrade charge. Then there is the subsystem licensing, i.e. MLCs. When was the last time a new release of DB2 or IMS didn’t go up?

With BMC Software you license a product … reflected by a product name. Your maintenance insures the best possible support as well as your entitlement to new release and versions of the product as long as maintenance is maintained. I’ll let you do the math … but it is clear to see why they can afford to give away a free software license when in a competitive pinch.

The savings that IBM has delivered in regards to the hardware as been taken away with the price increases the levee on the software... and that is a reality!

I've been intrigued through the years at the manner in which IT looks at software costs. There seems to be a trend at reducing software costs no matter what the results / cost. In many cases software is considered to be an evil neccessity and rarely looked at as a facet of the total cost of operations. Years ago Gartner focused on a holistic approach to operations which it called Total Cost of Ownership. It originally looked at the dynamics between hardware, software and services (labor) to get a better picture of the fabric of IT. Currently their methodology includes Service Levels, which makes a lot of sense since focusing on the economics of IT without consideration for the reason IT exists is moot.

I recently had the opportunity to host Bill Kerwin at a webinar which outlined a holistic approach which reduces the overall costs of IT while delivering higher levels of service to the business ... and isn't that what IT is all about.

I believe the key to these reduced costs is automation, and with automation errors and problems introduced by change are reduced leading to better service levels and that can't be done without software.

The following HP webpage surfaced recently. This is so assertive, I would have to say HP is scared to death of the mainframe and envious of its dominance. Allow me to address their concerns ;)

1. Yes mainframe skills are on the decline .. as are IT skills in general. Many companies and organizations such as BMC, CA, SHARE and IBM are addressing the specific shortage in MF skills through educational programs at all levels. It is working.

2. Mainframe as always hosted more internally developed applications than ISV applications, and the adage that "if something works ... don't mess with it". The requirement for ISV apps seems to have always been less of a concern on the mainframe. Thus, nothing has changed.

3. Yes, hardware is more expensive ... but that is only one of the 5 components supporting a Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) methodology. However, you need less people to manage, the platform supports higher levels of service and provides greater business value then alternatives .... HP is mixing in Linux here ... so imagine the power and A/C required to support 40,000 rack mount Linux servers .... I'll bet a mainframe needs less juice and A/C ... certainly takes up less space.

4. Looks like a little teaming with Microsoft on this one ... titled "Linux on the Mainframe ..." but the text talks about the performance of Windows 2003. This is a real stretch ... mixing facts to get the desired results I guess. Enough said.

5. It seems they ran out of meat after bullet 1 ... I don't see any problem re-compiling applciations for a specific hardware platform ... especially given the reliability inherent with the mainframe. There is no reason for every hardware platform to mimic Intel. As the demand for Linux on mainframe apps increases the market will deploy mainframe specific compiles. Oh ... btw way don't you need to recompile for the variety of UNIX implementations including HP's UNIX?????

6. The analyst data supporting the low HP TCO appears to be a self-serving paper .. too short in length to understand the methodology and frankly my perception is that is would have been more meaningfult to compare the HP system to a comparable system. I got the impression they were comparing the TCO of palm applications on a hadheld and then the mainframe ... and the mainframe lost. DUH!

7. Yes, sales of mainframes are down but no one has ever said this was a growth market .... it is a stable high business value market.

It seems that everyone not actice in the mainframe market is standing at the edge casting stones .. interestingly enough you couldn't get all of them in a room long enough to combine forces ... could you imagine; Microsoft, Intel, Sun, HP, Dell and Oracle ... 

I wonder when Oracle will announce their new and improved mainframe migration effort now that they've assimilated Peoplesoft into their company ... it should be coming rather soon ...

In a the flury of IBM mainframe announcements I came acorss this little bit of fluff: "... BMC Software, Computer Associates, Hewlett-Packard -- tend to either ignore or isolate the mainframe in their rival products, Zollar said. 'It's a major shortcoming of our competitors,' he said. 'They create an artificial wall between zSeries and distributed systems.'" This got me a little excited. Now I know these words were most probably structured by a new marketing dude or dudess at Tivoli ... but it's a little early to expect the mainframers to forget the facts.

Hello Al .... up until the Candle acquisition just a mere year and a half ago IBM had a pretty empty portfolio in support of zSeries monitoring ... they had virtually nothing. In fact, prior to the acqusition only the Tivoli executives could spell mainframe and that was only because a number had come from  VTAM software backgrounds in Ralegh, NC.

I would not include BMC nor CA in the camp with "artifical walls". I can speak directly for BMC, and we have been supporting mainframe and distributed for years .. and now that our customers' DS and MF organizations are merging we are meeting their needs for wholistic support for all computing platforms within Business Service Management. Our current products in Mainframe and Distributed go way beyong just monitoring, and including fixing things before they break, automating trouble tickets and most importantly; linkage with a customer's business services.

Oh, by the way ... we recognize Oracle as a leading DB vendor and offer support for Oracle environments as well as UDB in the distributed space. So when it comes to your end-to-end transaction management story ... don't forget the facts.