System iNetwork

Blades for system I are not really a choice now and ibm knows it. I would not recommend my clients to use it for production system (i will be irresponsible to do so)

There is much work to be done to make it an attractive option , it seems that ibm is doing it the MS way (start by marketing take care of technology later ..)

mmmmm.., it looks like Jarman and Johnson are trying to clutch at straws.
In Italy we say: "arrampicarsi sugli specchi", to climb mirrors.

Blades are not a bad thing per se. It's a complete new hardware format in which ibm did away with a few obsolete as/400 architecture elments like the separate service processor (the former mfiop cards) and simplified io adapters. Version 6.1 is needed to understand this whole new HAL (Hardware Archicture Layer - a Microsoft term).

But the danger lies with "a complete new hardware", meaning there is an increased risk of hardware failure due to faulty drivers and hardware interfaces. Also 6.1 does not communicate directly with the hardware but tru the VIOS (virtual io system), another risk factor.

Ibm tries to compensate the risk by lowering the price and as additional benefit, offering intel blades on the same box.

Only customer willing to take the increased risk against lower prices are going to step in. Might be a good deal for casino's as ibm claims Las Vegas is an important client to them. And they're willing to take a gamble, aren't they?

How it plays out, we'll have to see, but one way or another, it won't change the course the 'i' o/s is faring at the moment

One major sticking point for blades is the lack of support for certain hardware features. For instance--tape. There is no direct tape support available for IBM i running on a blade. If you've got a backup system in place for a SAN, then that may not be a big issue. But for the typical customer who has been on a System i or iSeries or AS/400 or System/38, this can be a real challenge. Especially so if they have a well-developed disaster recovery system in place which counts on tape.

We just ordered a new 520 and baldes were eliminated early in our evaluation because we have a disk-to-disk-to-tape backup system which simply can't be supported on a blade. We also have an application which required a serial communications port--also not supported on a blade.

I think the idea of a blade is very appealing and I believe IBM will eventually get it right. i.e., IBM is working toward broader support of needed/desired features, but maybe not everything for every customer. Tape support is planned for early next year. I don't know if serial communications will be ever supported.

An interestingly negative (perhaps even naive?) set of comments from players that very clearly have not implemented blades on i yet. We're a UK company and we have: 'H' chassis, JS12's, SAN storage, disk-to-disk-to-tape backup - the works. A hosting farm for our clients all over the world. Runs like a dream, low carbon footprint, and installed (by Real Solutions) very, very simply and easily. What's the fuss about? I really, really don't know. We condensed two full IBM i racks into one, with blade slots free. Luddites! I agree with you, Chris - this stuff is cool and is the way forward.

I think the POWER based blades are a huge idea. IBM does not seem to be selling it well, but for a shop that needs a new system then this is the way to go. While it's not those big honking systems we are all used to, we need to start thinking about replacing things like web servers and FTP server with small POWER blades and smaller system instead of buying more Intel/Windows blades which lead to pain and in the end it ends up hurting cute baby badger. Who wants to hurt baby badgers? Nobody!

Hold on Avison. I'm not against the idea of blades. In fact, we were very excited about consolidating some other servers into a BladeCenter. But like I said, a blade doesn't have and may never have everything for every customer. He is right, we haven't implemented a blade on i (or more correctly IBM i on a blade). We haven't done it because we can't. It won't work for us.

My point, as stated before, is shown to be true with Avison's comments. He appears to have a SAN already set up. So he had a backup system in place for a SAN. We have an older AS/400 with a Disk-to-disk-to-tape backup which (in order to work on our older AS/400) emulates a tape device. Since IBM i 6.1 on a BladeCenter doesn't directly support a tape device, our very functional disaster recovery system would need to be replaced. This priced the BladeCenter right out of the picture.

Also, the fuss includes lack of support for a serial communications port. IBM has not addressed this issue and there has not been any stated intent to do so. Again, functionality that simply isn't there.

I'm glad IBM i on a blade works for some people. I wish it would have worked for us, but it won't--at least not right now.

No intention to offend, Michael. My objective, as the first UK company to go Blade on i, was not to be controversial but to provide balance. Lots of companies like mine are seeing reasons not to progress with Blades, so I wanted to say, yes - you can do it .

For the record, we didn't have SAN storage before this - just conventional 520's and older i5 kit with their own storage. And we had to redesign our backup strategy; building on our mirroring and remote tape strategy. But it works really well.

I believe that Blades, 6.1, VIOS - all this is a logical extension of the idea that goes back to System 38, and moves forward through AS/400, iSeries, i5 and finally IBM i. It's a theme, and if modern ideas about serving are adopted we have a fairly level playing field with other virtualised platforms. I like that.