Maxed Out
Because the System i can run at redline speed all day long . . .
May 29, 2007
Between a Rock and a Hard Place
The recent POWER6 developments on the System p sparked some interesting comments about processor power and the needs of the System i world — basically that the System i community doesn't have the same kinds of power-cosumption needs as the Unix world. I wrote about this topic late last year, and the article appeared in the January issue of System iNEWS.
Here's a relevant excerpt:
Exploring System i's Excess PowerIs the System i world somehow less able to recover from processor improvements? As the PC server world, for example, has tended to grow horizontally, has the System i community grown up — vertically — into a bigger machine that can do more than before? Yes. Although this doesn't mean that System i customers are downgrading into less expensive (but more powerful) boxes, it does mean that the growth tends to stick within fewer, larger boxes. Capacity on Demand is a prime example of this. Take, for example, the notion that one Windows server is used to run one basic workload even if overall CPU utilization is fairly low. If a company wants to grow those Windows applications, there's a good chance that the business will simply add another server, whether it's a standalone or blade, and keep adding new servers to meet new growth. My point isn't that server proliferation is a bad management practice; rather, I'm saying that server growth in these kinds of organizations rewards low commodity pricing by manufacturers. Does it ever and will it ever come back to bite these manufacturers? You bet.
In the System i community, on the other hand, you simply use Capacity on Demand. Turn on another processor, and boom, you have an instant upgrade. Here's where it bites IBM: If a company knew that it would experience 20 percent growth every year in processing needs, it would lease a system that was powerful enough to last three years, allowing a bit of headroom in case something unforeseen came up. So for the first two years, processor utilization would be pretty low, which would mean that the business was paying for processing power it wasn't using — bad for the customer, good for IBM. Now that a customer can make a lease decision based on performance pictures for the first, second, and third years, by turning on additional processors only when necessary and by factoring in things such as retail holiday sales bursts, the customer can pay less overall for performance.
So, when you look at massive leaps in processing power for the System i world, does this actually hurt IBM? If a 525 is vastly more powerful than a 520, for example, and less expensive, and if the need for processor power is far less than what IBM actually delivers, isn't IBM in the position of creating more machine for far less money?
That's just another reason to focus the POWER6 on the Unix world. If Unix is constantly hungry for more power . . . but the System i world is relatively not as hungry . . . no wonder IBM has had a tough time making quarterly financial reports that show positive revenue growth for the System i group.
Sure, every hardware manufacturer has this same problem, but I can't help but believe it hits the System i harder than others.
Posted by cmaxcer at May 29, 2007 8:49 AM
| Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | |
| 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 |
| 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 |
| 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 |
| 28 | 29 | 30 |
Blog Policy
We welcome your comments and opinions and encourage lively debate on the issues. However, Penton Media reserves the right to delete or move any content that it may determine, in its sole discretion, violates or may violate its Terms of Use or is otherwise unacceptable. For more information, see Penton Media's Terms of Use.