New Redbook with SOA customer case study

A new Redbook has been published called "Implementing and Testing SOA on IBM System z: A Real Customer Case".

The Redbook does a good job of breaking down SOA implementation into a series of logical decisions, with real world implications. It covers not only the overall architecture, but the steps to get there. The final solution includes much of the WebSphere Business Process Modeling stack, including WebSphere Application Server, WebSphere Process Server, and WebSphere Portal, as well as tooling from WebSphere Integration Developer and WebSphere Business Modeler.

In particular, the Redbook shows how the SOA solutions fit into the existing ecosystem at the customer shop. SOA is evolutionary, not rip-and-replace. A good read.

Microsoft Host Integration Server - redux

A few days ago, I made a post about Microsoft Host Integration Server that probably deserves more discussion.

I was having dinner with a customer at the zBLC a few weeks ago, and the customer brought up an interesting question - "When Microsoft talks to large enterprise customers, are they intentionally lying or do they just not understand what they're saying?" It's often hard to tell the difference between mendacity and ignorance, but eventually we decided that Microsoft simply didn't understand large enterprise customers. They don't understand the personal commitment, the scale, or the intersection of all the cost pressures. Mainframe ignorance is just one example of this trend.

To some extent, it's hard to blame Microsoft too harshly for not understanding mainframe costs, because my impression is that even within large enterprise shops that have existing mainframes, the mainframe business is put into a position where they're constantly defending the mainframe investment. As one customer put it, the problem is that the costs of the mainframe are so well understood... they are able to tell their executives exactly how much they are spending on the hardware, software, personnel, power, etc. This actually puts them at a disadvantage because things are often done ad-hoc on the distributed side of the house, or at the very least there are different divisions responsible for different pieces of the distributed puzzle... one division runs the server farm buildings, another owns the machines, another manages the software, etc... that's it hard to get a full accounting of all the costs associated with the non-mainframe business. And many of the costs are more "hidden" than the mainframe costs. Sure, the grizzled mainframe veterans command good salaries, but the number of technicians who need to service the server farms outnumber them a hundred to one. And this doesn't even bring up server utilization, which approaches 100% on the mainframe and approaches 0% on distributed.

Clearly, the mainframe isn't always the answer. But just as clearly, there are cases where putting load on the mainframe is cheaper than trying building a new warehouse for your next server farm.

Maybe someday Microsoft will get it.

I'm not holding my breath, though.

Microsoft Host Integration Server?

Over on the Mainframe Blog, there's been an amusing chain of posts here, here, and here, on the topic of "What's the point of Microsoft Host Integration Server?". Just to pique people's interest, here is what Microsoft had to say about it:

I am most amused at the idea of mainframe guys arguing cost. In the interest of transparency, Timothy might also do the math on what the customer would save if they ripped the mainframe out altogether. Not only do they not need to buy HIS, but they can save a lot more on the recurring costs of the mainframe.

...

Last time I checked (and I haven’t been paying attention for a while), the mainframe was three orders of magnitude more expensive per MIP than x86 and was falling further and further behind. You’re crazy to put any new workload on the mainframe. This is why IBM is always peddling the fad of the moment on the mainframe to see if they can hoodwink people to maintaining or even increasing the workloads on their mainframe. Run Linux and Java on the mainframe, they say, never mind the fact that these cross platform approaches should drive people to the lowest cost hardware, not the highest cost.

...

To put this in perspective, we’ve just been through the biggest computing buildout ever in the last decade with the Web, and the mainframe is nowhere to be seen. Even when IBM has tried to pay customers to run portions of their web sites on a mainframe, they have failed.

Obviously it will be news to our z/OS WAS customers that running portions of their websites on a mainframe has "failed".

More evidence that when it comes to the mainframe, Microsoft just doesn't get it.

What does the Playstation 3 and the IBM Mainframe have in common?

They're both fun? They both come in whatever color you want, as long as it's black? They are both controlled remotely? They're both looking for more partner application support?

Well, apparently the answer is "They will both have IBM's cell processor" according to this article in eWeek magazine.