Talk:IBM Z

The contents of the IBM zEnterprise System page were merged into IBM Z on 20 June 2020. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page.

Processor book was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 16 February 2017 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into IBM Z. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Technology This article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TechnologyWikipedia:WikiProject TechnologyTemplate:WikiProject TechnologyTechnology articles Computing: Software High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Software (assessed as Mid-importance). This article is supported by Computer hardware task force (assessed as High-importance).

does it still support DOS/VSE and MUSIC SP? (i assume it would under z/VM at least)...

Depends on what you mean by "Support". Will they run? I assume they would run fine as guests under z/VM, but they probably wouldn't boot on the bare metal any more. But are they "supported"? "Supported" normally implies the vendor has tested the configuration, you can log support calls with them, if you report bugs they will fix them, etc. With commercial hardware and software, the set of "supported" configurations is always going to be a smaller than the set of technically possible ones. Does IBM support running these ancient operating systems as z/VM guests? If the next version of z/VM breaks your MUSIC/SP guest, will they say "Oh sorry, that's a bug, we'll fix it!". Or will they say: "Sorry, we don't support MUSIC/SP. Can you reproduce the same issue with a supported guest operating system, i.e. z/OS or CMS or z/VSE or z/Linux or z/TPF?" I don't know what their answer will be, but I suspect it might be the later rather than the former. ZackMartin (talk) 12:20, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Calling it "the 24-bit System/360" may be confusing. Perhaps this term was used because of the 24-bit addressing; if a reference to this is what the author had in mind, perhaps there are other ways to express it. The width of the data path varied among the models; for example, the 360 model 50 had a 32-bit data path. Jim 21:00, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I changed it to "24-bit-addressing/32-bit-data System/360", as that is presumably what the author had in mind. (The width of the registers and "words" are probably more relevant than the data path widths here.) Guy Harris 03:25, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article says "zSeries/z9 servers succeeded the IBM System/390 (S/390 for short)", but System/390 is a redirect to this article. Tempshill 22:28, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It was a 32-bit line (unlike the 64-bit zSeries). It should probably have its own page. Guy Harris 09:26, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This article sounds like an advertisement. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 192.211.25.9 (talk • contribs) 20:17, 16 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]

That's correct, I de-adverted the page. --85.124.203.218 21:24, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

8 years later it still sounds like an ad, especially given the insane reverse chronological order. It's totally unlike and much less informative than the 370 and 390 articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.177.15.100 (talk) 21:58, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

is there a reference to the source of the 40 year mtbf? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.179.54.37 (talk) 19:00, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would this be sufficent? Using IBM System z to Realize Significant Operational Cost Savings TreyGeek (talk) 19:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

E.g z990

Will try to fix later on. In the middle of an edit when I spotted this. Martin Packer (talk) 13:59, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For mainframes it seems like it is not so easy to do a clean distinction between architecture, CPU features and models and the information is scattered across the articles without any obvious concept. Richiez (talk) 10:40, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the distinction is still valid. At present, only IBM implements z/Architecture in hardware; but there is nothing in principle impossible about another manufacturer producing CPUs that accept the same instruction set. In fact, that is exactly what happened with previous iterations of the System/360 and descendants family, as the article itself notes (i.e. Hitachi still manufactures ESA/390-compatible CPUs). I think the economic reality is, it is unlikely that any other manufacturer will come along to produce such a clone; but that doesn't erase the in-principle distinction between z/Architecture and its particular implementation. ZackMartin (talk) 11:58, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why so many zeroes? Why no comparision? Where are the specs of the processors etc? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gensare (talk • contribs) 14:53, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, the 10 digits of precision is silly. Unfortunately IBM is not very forthcoming with real CPU benchmarks on mainframe systems, so it's hard to offer good comparisons. Rwessel (talk) 21:44, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While these changes did add useful information to the article, and some of the editorial changes of existing material does improve the article, a substantial portion of the new material appears to be copied directly from IBM announcements (“revolutionary system design that addresses the complexity and inefficiency in today’s multi-architecture data centers”, which appears to be directly copied from http://www-03.ibm.com/systems/z/migratetoibm/offerings.html or other IBM announcements).

The resulting prose reads like IBM ad copy (and some of it actually appears to be IBM ad copy). Consider:

The zEnterprise extends mainframe governance – management efficiency, dynamic
resource allocation, serviceability — to other systems and workloads running on AIX
on POWER7, and Microsoft Windows or Linux on System x— and was designed to
change the way data centers can be managed.

Or:

The IBM zEnterprise Unified Resource Manager integrates multi-architecture platform
resources as a single virtualized system and provides unified and integrated management
across the zEnterprise System. It can identify system bottlenecks or failures among
disparate systems and if a failure occurs it can dynamically reallocate system resources
to keep applications running smoothly. It can dramatically simplify operations across the
various application environments. The Unified Resource Manager provides energy
monitoring and management, goal-oriented resource management, increased security,
virtual networking, and information management, all integrated into a single easy-to-use
interface—dramatically simplifying operations across multiple application environments.

Neither of which provides any actual information, although they do hit all the relevant marketing buzzwords.

So despite the useful changes I reverted it, as I don’t have time right now to clean it up. Rwessel (talk) 02:50, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I find it a little confusing that this article lists the models in reverse chronological order. Every other article about computer architectures I can remember reading on Wikipedia lists models in chronological order.

Is there a particular reason for this? Otherwise, I suggest changing it to "regular" chronological order.

2003:46:8D06:8A01:210:C6FF:FE1F:4ED1 (talk) 12:22, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Especially the "Comparison to other servers" section. It just sounds like it's saying how awesome the system Z is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.111.186.42 (talk) 15:26, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, and that section is particularly bad, so I've tagged it. This needs some major work, but you need to find someone with both the knowledge of a rather broad and obscure subject and the time to invest. Rwessel (talk) 06:18, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

IBM System z#IBM zEnterprise System gives a fair bit of detail about a line of models that has its own page - IBM zEnterprise System. Should some of that information be moved to IBM zEnterprise System if it's not already there, or removed if it is already there? Guy Harris (talk) 22:15, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

IBM's main page for these machines speaks of "IBM Z", and also specifically speaks of the z14. The "Hardware" entry in the "Systems and software" drop-down menu takes you to the hardware page, which lists zBC12 and z13 as well as z14.

So does this just mean that the System Formerly Known As "IBM eServer zSeries" and "System z" and "IBM zEnterprise System" is now just "IBM Z"? (If so, we should probably rename this page to "IBM Z", and speak of the z14 as the "z14" rather than as "IBM Z".) Guy Harris (talk) 22:21, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I propose the merger of IBM zEnterprise System into IBM z, because those are two names for the same product line. After the merger there should be redirects from all of the old name to the merged article. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 18:47, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. (Don't forget to put the merge templates into the the articles, pointing to this section of this talk page.) Guy Harris (talk) 19:47, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Y Merger complete. Klbrain (talk) 07:57, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There's a History of IBM mainframes, 1952 to present template, which has four links to z/Architecture mainframes. The first, about the zSeries, redirects to IBM Z. This is followed by two links to two articles about the System z generation mainframes, one for each generation. Finally, a link to the zEnterprise System article, which covers all subsequent generations, including those introduced as IBM Z System and IBM Z. I understand that IBM doesn't make things easy by introducing new names, renaming things, etc., seemingly at random and without logic, but Wikipedia's coverage is completely disorganized.

There should be one article for all z/Architecture mainframes. If the article about the z/Architecture ISA can't meet Wikipedia's sourcing guidelines, then it should also be merged into the z/Architecture mainframe article. Any z/Architecture mainframe (or generation of mainframes) with sufficient coverage should have its own article, titled by its product name (not family name). 99Electrons (talk) 22:44, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Who still buys these mainframes? -- Beland (talk) 06:45, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]