November 17, 2009 IBM Turns the Screws on zPrime
By Maureen O’Gara
IBM System z CTO and resident spook Mark Anzani recently sent an IBM mainframe customer a letter meant to scare it into seeing the boogeyman under its bed and make sure it doesn’t use Neon Enterprise Software’s zPrime technology to reduce its mainframe costs.
The customer wants to buy IBM’s Specialty Engines for its mainframes, the so-called zIIP and zAAP processors that IBM created to accelerate and run DB2 and Java on. IBM doesn’t want to fill the order unless the customer promises in writing not to use the chips to run the workloads that the zPrime software can offload to the things. It will save the customer millions of dollars in CP cycles and IBM doesn’t like that.
Neon claims zPrime can offload more than half a mainframe’s workloads to the specialty processors, including IMB, DB2, CICS, TSO/ISPF and batch workloads, cutting 20% of a user’s annual hardware and software costs under conventional use pricing because the chips incur no usage charges. The savings would extend to third-party software.
The letter, which is here and isn’t very long, says:
“As we have reason to be concerned you intend to utilize Specialty Engines to process unauthorized workload (workload beyond that for which the Specialty Engine was created and marketed by IBM), which would constitute a breach of the license, we will fulfill the specialty engines per your order only if you provide reasonable assurances you will comply with our agreements. Please confirm that you will operate these engines in compliance with your existing agreements with IBM, and specifically including that you will not run any workload on these specialty engines other than those workloads expressly designated by IBM as eligible and authorized to run on these processors.”
The customer forwarded the letter to Neon, which only released zPrime on June 30.
Neon CEO Lacy Edwards had heard that IBM was asking users verbally for such an undertaking but this was the first time he had seen it written down.
He said it means that IBM wants to close the glaring loophole that it left opened, and that Neon is exploiting, by changing the terms of the existing contract its customers signed after the fact.
As mainframe users know, this is not the first time that IBM has changed hallowed terms and conditions to ensure its mainframe cash flow.
Since ending its Undertaking with the European Commission and consent decree with the Justice Department a decade ago, IBM has forced users to upgrade to its newer mainframe operating systems; ceased maintaining anything but 64-bit hardware; stopped providing the critical interface information it used to supply to plug-compatible manufacturers (PCMs); and has in general erected insurmountable barriers for anyone to enter the IBM-compatible mainframe market.
For instance, when a start-up called Platform Solutions Inc. (PSI) threatened to take away some of IBM’s mainframe business with its Amdahl-derived, z/OS-running Itanium system, IBM changed its sacred, long-standing RAND patent policy and dropped the words “or equivalent” from its z/OS license so the operating system could only run on its proprietary System z machines.
But getting back to the problem at hand, Anzani’s latest letter pointed the customer to a posted copy of the IBM License Agreement for Machine Code that he said governs the use of Specialty Engines and two product announcements letters also on IBM’s web site that he said summarize the eligible workloads.
Lawyers for both Neon and the mainframe customer reviewed Anzani’s letter, the IBM License Agreement for Machine Code and the product announcements and concluded that IBM’s bluffing.
There’s nothing in any of the documents quoted by the IBM CTO that restricts what a user can run on the specialty processors. The IBM license, the lawyers told Edwards, has no bearing on Neon; zPrime isn’t in violation.
The lawyers are so certain of their position that one of them reportedly told the mainframe customer it might as well go ahead and give IBM the assurances it wants because it won’t impact its use of zPrime. It can keep on using it.
The customer reportedly isn’t going to do that however. Instead it’s planning on having a showdown with IBM and going belly-to-belly with the titan. What will happen is anybody’s guess. There’s a big gap between saying you’re not scared of IBM and spitting in its Big Blue eye.
IBM’s an old hand at the art of intimidation. A generation ago ex-IBMer Gene Amdahl, who dared to go into competition with IBM with his own mainframe company, coined the term “FUD” to describe the fear, uncertainty and doubt that IBM used to dominate the industry. Thirty-five years later and nothing much has changed.
Neon users to a man are currently afraid to admit publicly that they have zPrime in their shop for fear of the repercussions such a confession could have even if they know that stripping away the veil of secrecy will lessen IBM’s hold over them.
Gen Xs and Ys, most of whom don’t know what real fear is, have flipply applied the term to Microsoft. Microsoft never made grown men afraid the way IBM has.
IBM has sent the first monthly bills to customers that are in production with zPrime and they’re a lot lower than they used to be. Edwards has had reports that IBM is now demanding to do audits and suspending annual Enterprise License Agreement (ELA) negotiations. It’s threatening, he said, to send bills that cover its shortfall and customers are reportedly telling IBM it has no right to do that.
On July 10, a few days after Neon went to market, Anzani wrote a letter to all mainframe customers suggesting zPrime wasn’t legal and warning them:
“...regarding any claimed ability to reduce IBM Program license charges by off-loading workloads to Specialty Engines beyond the eligible workload identified by IBM. IBM’s applicable pricing terms governing Eligible Workloads on zIIPs and zAAPs will not apply to zIIPs and zAAPs running anything other than IBM-specified eligible workloads. Therefore, customers should not anticipate any reduction (and may actually experience an increase) in the IBM Program License Charges associated with non-Eligible Workloads which may be off-loaded to IBM Specialty Engines, since the non-Eligible Workload running will cause the software running on the Specialty Engine to be chargeable. IBM cannot comment on the potential impact on the software charges from other third-party software providers.”
(See here for the whole letter.)
What’s really odd about this situation is IBM’s brass in the face of a fresh antitrust investigation by the Justice Department, since it seems what it’s doing is a clear case of abusing its monopoly, price gouging and requiring customers of its operating system to use only IBM hardware, a serious antitrust no-no and something IBM is specifically forbidden to do under the lingering terms of its now-dissolved 1956 consent decree with the United States government.
IBM’s actions are reminiscent of behavior that has landed other tech giants in antitrust hot water.
Intel just paid AMD $1.25 billion so it wouldn’t have to face the threat of treble damages in the antitrust suit that AMD brought against it – and that was after getting hit with a $1.45 billion antitrust fine from the European Commission. It still may have to face action by the U.S. Federal Trade Commission, the sister agency to the Justice Department’s Antitrust Division.
And one can argue that Microsoft incurred the wrath of the European Commission for less and paid handsomely for it.
Ironically, IBM demanded Microsoft provide reasonable and non-discriminatory interoperability access to its technology but won’t do that itself.
Edwards says IBM’s schoolyard bullying merely compensates Blue for its own deep-seated insecurity and that zPrime has got IBM spooked. Since IBM can’t hit Neon with the patent claims it made against PSI before IBM buried the upstart by buying it, zPrime is the mainframe establishment’s best chance at changing its future, he contends.
IBM’s posturing didn’t stop Neon from upgrading zPrime a few days ago.
Version 1.2 is supposed to simplify and streamline the offloading of programs and applications to specialty processors, while providing greater control in selecting which application workloads are shifted to the things.
Neon says a new Enablement Console lets users select the applications and programs they want to move for processing on zIIPs and zAAPs during the critical and costly peak periods.
And a Language Environment (LE) Initialization Exit automatically enables all LE-compliant applications, which means almost all the legacy mainframe applications around.
Richard Ptak, principal analyst at Ptak, Noel and Associates, says using zPrime doesn’t sacrifice functionality or disrupt mainframe environments in any way,
Neon currently claims 14 companies are now in production with zPrime and that since the software was announced nearly 50 organizations around the world – including some of the world’s largest corporations – have tested, documented and validated its cost savings.
On average, it says, these companies have been able to offload 90% of their Information Management System (IMS) application processing; 90% of their batch application processing; 80% of their DB2 application processing; 75 % of their TSO/ISPF application processing; and 45% of their Customer Information Control System (CICS) applications.
Edwards says, “This incredibly rapid adoption reflects how much companies – and how many of them – want to reduce the high costs of mainframe computing.”
Reader Comments (23)
Wow, such snide writing, as usual: "boogeyman"; "so-called zIIP and zAAP" -- not "so-called", they *ARE* called that; more. This is reporting?
Anyway: zPrime is clearly against the intent of specialty engines, and is destructive to the mainframe customer in the long term.
What do you think the marginal cost of a z10 is? Of a book? You know a CPU is nil, if it doesn’t require a new book. So what part of “value for money received” isn’t clear?
We cannot have it both ways: enjoy and appreciate the quality of IBM service and support and expect to pay Intel prices. Folks who think zPrime is a good idea need to grow up.
Greybeard, Please explain what you mean by "destructive to the mainframe customer in the long term." Just curious. thanks
Seems to me zPrime is NOT against the intent of specialty engines...the intent was to offload work from the CP and that is just want zPrime seems to do! Methinks Geybeard works for IBM.
It's pretty simple:
zPrime = less money for IBM. Less money for IBM = less profit. Less profit = less support, service, development (RAS and more). Less of those = what we mainframe folks have been complaining about with PC support for 25 years. Yes, it's already definitely not your father's IBM (I've learned to recognize a Pinoy accent after the first few words, alas), but it's still better than the script reading eejits you get from most companies, and once you have an APAR number, you actually get a fix before you die (despite most of us being closer to the grave than most PC admins!).
So: do you want the mainframe degraded to being just a big, expensive PC? Or do you like mainframe RAS?
InterestedBystander: No, I don't work for IBM. The intent of specialty engines was to offload *specific kinds* of work, to improve the ROI of the mainframe. Specifically Java and database work. Otherwise folks were saying "We can't afford to stay on z because we need more MIPS for <Java | DB2 | IMS> and that's going to raise our costs for unrelated software too high". Yes, WLC pricing is supposed to fix that, but not all vendors do it (and not all IBM products). Given that the instruction set is the same (minus one), how would zAAP/zIIP make any sense for IBM otherwise?? What did you think IBM's goal was here?
Bizarre that a mainframe "user" is so concerned about IBM's profits. IBM seems to be doing just fine.
And why does the argument always come back to the PC. Have you heard about UNIX or Linux or Windows Servers? Lots of companies are able to reliably run their businesses just fine with these operating systems on real servers.
"If we don't bow to the IBM god and pay IBM top dollar then we will have no other platform to turn to run our business." Hmmm.
Ultimately if IBM don't respond to what is clearly a need in the mainframe space to lower costs - hence all the interest in zPrime - then use of the mainframe will fade.
In other words, if the mainframe fades it is more likely due to the high cost of mainframe computing vs. other enterprise platforms than IBM moving to an inferior support model because they aren't making enough money.
In an open market, customers will go where they can get the best value for money. What isn't emphasized here is that customers who have custom mainframe workloads don't have any choice - they can only run these applications on an IBM mainframe. They couldn't run them on a "PC" even if they wanted to. So they have to pay whatever price IBM wants to charge and it appears not even NEON will get in the way of IBM's total control over the mainframe market.
John,
So here's where it hews to the bone: if you think IBM is "overpriced", then you're pro zPrime. Sure, they have a de facto monopoly; so does Microsoft with Windows/Office. That's life. If you don't want to pay it, migrate off. Companies have done it; some have even succeeded. Meanwhile, a few thousand companies happily *aren't* migrating. BTW, you're of course right about things other than PCs per se: I should have said "distributed systems" rather than "PCs".
Again, the raison d'etre for specialty engines is to address some of the perceived high cost of System z computing. It's IBM's game, they get to set the rules. You get to play by the rules or play elsewhere. Cheating -- violating the rules -- isn't an option real companies should consider.
In fact, if you're going to consider zPrime, why not just hack the microcode to enable spare processors, or the license keys for CA products so you can run them on unlicensed systems? What, you wouldn't do that, because it's wrong? Then how is zPrime any less so?
Greybeard - what specific rules are you referring to, that you claim zPrime is breaking? Interested in solid facts only please.
MFnerd: I'd answer your question with, "The stated purpose of zAAPs and zIIPs, from announce to now". It couldn't be much clearer.
If you mean, "Is there possibly a flaw in the way the licensing has been written such that it might not be a technical violation of the license?", then IANAL, but that's not the real point. I'm not Mr. Crunchy-Granola-Love-Peace-Coexist, but there is such a thing as clear intent (and there have even been court cases where this mattered, I believe). That's the key here to me.
Let me put it this way: When you go in a restaurant, do you clean out the bowl of sugar packets to save a few cents? When you go to Costco, do you chow down on several of each sample as a free lunch? When you stay in a hotel, do you take home the towels? When you mail a package, do you short the postage, knowing that they're unlikely to catch it?
These are petty versions of the same thing -- going against the clear intent, "the rules" -- even though you'll likely get away with them (and yes, I realize they're all slightly different degrees of dishonesty, but violating the intent for $nnK is surely *less* acceptable, not *more* so).
I’m not sure why this is difficult to understand. You can say, "I don't care, **** IBM", but that's different, and is an acknowledgment that you're willing to cheat.
OK greybeard, for the sake of argument I’ll agree that this is IBM’s game, they call the shots and if you want to use a mainframe you need to play by their rules or use something else. Breaking the rules is unfair.
However, what I think is really unfair is the clear price difference in running COBOL/CICS/IMS/Batch workloads on a CP vs. running a Java or DB2 or Linux workload on a SP – that is basically the exact same hardware. For competitive runtime environments, IBM lowers its price since they need to be competitively priced vs. distributed servers which can also run Java, database or Linux workloads. However, for more traditional applications, they charge out the wazoo knowing that customers can’t run the applications anywhere else. We all know how hard it is to move a complex COBOL/CICS/IMS/Batch workload to any other platform so basically customers have to run those apps on an IBM mainframe and pay whatever IBM decides is the right price – knowing full well that the customer is stuck and couldn’t move even if they wanted to.
It is like taking your midsize Ford car to an airport parking lot and the charge is $10 a day to park. But then the next week you bring your midsize GM car to the same parking lot and they tell you the rate is $50 a day for GM cars, even though they are the same size as Ford cars. You argue that the price is unfair and you’ll take your car to another parking lot. The attendant tells you that no other parking lot will accept GM cars (but all will accept Fords and other brands of cars), so if you want to park at the airport there is only place to park and you need to pay whatever they decide they want to charge.
Now to me, that is not fair. We need some competition in this market to keep IBM honest.
Hm. I see where you're coming from, but really don't see cheating as an acceptable alternative. In your scenario, would it be right to pry the GM badges off your car, glue on Ford badges, and insist that it was a Ford?
Actually, I see a more appropriate metaphor as: you buy a Honda car and find out that you must buy Honda parts for it. There are a few aftermarket parts available (tape drives, for example -- hey, that's what I need, a 3420 in my car!), but most parts are Honda-only, and you feel they are overpriced. But you're stuck with the Honda.
How is that Honda's fault? It's even pretty close to reality: some time ago I replaced BOTH front rotors on a GM van for $150 including labor (yeah, a while ago); a week later, a friend had to replace a single rotor on a Japanese car, and the part alone was more than $150. So next time maybe he'll buy GM.
Barriers to exit are what keep vendors of all types (software, hardware, and non-computer) in business, unless they're selling a commodity (milk, eggs, gasoline [no matter what the ads try to make us think]). Does that make it OK to cheat them? I don't think so.
As for "keeping IBM honest" -- feel free to invest several $B to create a z clone. The others (Amdahl, Hitachi, and others) quit, despite (at least some of them) having access to IBM IP. Why? Does *that* make it OK to cheat? I still don't think so.
Many companies consider the IBM mainframe hardware and software stack very expensive. IBM has tried to occasionally reduce pricing by new methods for charging, such as use, and by introducing specialty engines. Again, let's assume that IBM controls the mainframe environment. They certainly have the last word on what happens.
In the past 30 years, I have seen other attempts to cut into IBM’s mainframe business. When Amdahl started building compatible hardware, the OS was included in IBM’s hardware price. IBM’s response was to unbundle the system software and charge for it separately. Ultimately, the plug-compatible mainframe vendors have fallen by the wayside, perhaps helped by proprietary IBM improvements, high re-engineering costs for 64-bit, and the fact that there isn’t enough money in it.
zPrime is the latest attempt to use hardware/software to reduce mainframe costs. From what I’ve seen, there is no legal reason that prevents customers from buying the Neon product. Some customers will gain in the short term.
The net effect of zPrime on IBM will be that revenue targets may be missed this year. They will either adjust contracts or change how price is done. IBM is a public company and they will find a way to restore their profits to their former state. As a shareholder of IBM, I would expect them to preserve revenues, and even look for way to reduce their costs and increase profitability.
However, as Neon can rightfully point out, customers have an obligation to manage their own IT costs. If zPrime helps them reduce mainframe costs in the short term, they should do it. As a shareholder of such a company, I would expect it of them.
If ensuring that IBM gets their revenue without undue interference, I would suggest that Greybeard stops tuning all of his z/OS systems now. This will certainly raise your IBM bill. But wait – IBM encourages us to tune and to use resources efficiently! There is a conundrum here.
Some companies with recently negotiated multi-year deals will save money. IBM will respond. zPrime is simply a pothole in IBM’s revenue road.
The z/OS ecosystem is vast. One must look well beyond IBM and Neon to see the full impact of this on people, business, and emotions.
Many ISVs (the "good guys") invested tens of thousands of man hours, redirecting their most capable programming resources (their Top Guns), to develop zIIP-enabled enclave SRB execution infrastructures for their products. In some cases, this undertaking took years to complete.
Their reward? Happy customers saving lots of money who now prefer the good guys' products because their competitors (the "bad guys") were too lazy or incompetent to successfully implement such a daring feat of software engineering.
This is a highly desirable outcome. Every young school child wants good guys to win and bad guys to lose. It's part of his/her innate desire to see justice and fairness in the world. Most adults feel this way too. But, obviously not all...
Enter zPrime. Neon rewards the lazy, incompetent bad guys by erasing their competitive disadvantage while simultaneously giving them a huge advantage of tens of thousands of man hours of development "catch up" time on the good guys.
With zPrime, the good guys lose and the bad guys win. The children are disillusioned. Some even cry. An unjust, unfair outcome like this can't be good for anyone connected with the z/OS ecosystem.
But, have no fear. (I don't..)
I predict someone (perhaps IBM) will shortly learn to accurately measure and record to SMF the amount of work "unexpectedly" being redirected to zIIP/zAAP by zPrime. Once quantified, IBM and the entire ISV community can begin to charge CP prices, for those wrongly-redirected cycles, with each software contract renewal opportunity. Some (perhaps IBM) could even charge punitive double or triple time for this "unexpected" work. In that case, running zPrime could become a serious liability to the bottom line.
And when the transition to new Ts&Cs is complete, the good guys will prevail once again and the children can feel good knowing there is justice and fairness in the world...
Respectfully, I might suggest that Neon just changed the rules of the game. There are no good or bad guys here. Neon spent development time as well. As an analogy, I see little difference between the story of a truck stuck under a bridge where powerful equipment has arrived on-site to lift the bridge, when a young boy suggests to let the air out of the tires to fix the problem.
Nobody including IBM saw zPrime coming. I think the opposition to zPrime is driven by the change to the status quo. No laws appear broken - Neon just won the first round. Customers must decide whether the benefits of zPrime are a short term win or a long term strategy. As for penalties, this is a legal area that may or may not end well in court. The term Restraint of Trade comes to mind.
That being said, I am confident that IBM will work to restore their revenue balance. The children are safe and happy regardless.
On the other hand, if you read the blogs on the Neon site, Neon could be seen as making the mainframe a more cost-effective environment. It may very well be in IBM's best interest to applaud Neon's innovation to keep more applications on the mainframe. They could do this while still restoring their bottom line.
LuckyMFer, I agree with your thinking.
There are no 'good' or 'bad' guys here. Simply, two companies competing to effectively respond to customer demands for services and products. It is the way a demand-driven economy works without government coercion and interference. I don't believe either company is operating with malice or in an illegal manner. Neither can afford to do that. It's part of the evolution of the computing market.
Let's look at a few market facts here. IBM is a for-profit company offering products in a highly competitive market. Yes, there are some jobs that the mainframe alone can handle but IBM must still compete aggressively to be successful in the market. The IBM Mainframe team is and has been working to lower the cost of computing using their processors. Let's look at what they have done since System z was introduced - every year they increase functionality and power, reduce energy consumption, decrease footprint, introduce new families (BC and EC) and have been adding specialty engines. IBM has in the past and continues today to offer guidance, direction and consulting to their customers in how to gain maximum advantage from and utilization of their mainframes. Yes, they haven't always been as effective or as aggressive as they might in making these service known but they are getting better at it.
The IBM team has to offer a product able to compete head-to-head on a price-performance basis that customers will buy while they (IBM) still has sufficient revenue to cover all costs including R&D. and make a profit.
The competition has been focusing on the high cost of mainframe computing - some of which even provide relatively accurate and substantive comparisons. Many recent competitive wins have focused on the high cost of mainframe software, which is precisely where zPrime comes in - it completely trashes that argument by dramatically dropping the licensing costs. IBM and mainframe consulting firms have published the existing cost advantage of a mainframe over a distributed processor on a per application basis when all costs are fairly allocated. IBM has an interest in making these even better.
Now, IBM isn't dumb, they too have been trying to manage down the cost of mainframe computing. Most of the attention and effort has been focused on the hardware (see above). BUT, IBM would be foolish not to try to help clients to get more from their hardware at lower cost. I would bet that has been the topic of many long and emphatic talks between SWG and STG. I would also bet that IBM has a long term strategy to lower the software costs - the specialty processors and migration of specific applications off the CP are evidence of this thinking as is the on-going evolution and expansion in SWG offerings..
IBM software has been enjoying healthy margins, these feed and support a lot of their efforts. In a real-world competitive market - fat margins attract attention and competition. IBM knows this and had to know they wouldn't enjoy those margins forever., Any responsible company had to be anticipating and thinking of ways to manage the inevitable erosion of their margins. I think that Neon Software showing up with zPrime simply accelerated the process. They caught the software team by surprise and IBM is trying to regain its balance.
IBM has too much at risk to 'heavy-foot' their customers and competition. They will roll-out new solutions and services to replace and supplement their revenue stream. IBM cannot just 'roll-over' and surrender IP or perceived legal barriers without suffering future legal complications and consequences that would weaken contractual agreements. I believe they are walking a line to protect the integrity of their contract and IP, while recognizing that in realistic, practical terms Neon Software has an unassailable position, and one that, in the longer run strengthens the advantages of mainframe over distributed computing.
Perhaps I'm flogging a deceased equine here, but it's still key to me that the specialty processors were sold with a clear expectation -- and limitation -- as to how they'd be used. Here's another analogy: manufacturers sell goods cheap (or even give them away) as promotions. For example, that tube of toothpaste you got at the dentist's office last cleaning was donated or sold cheap by Crest. This occurs on a MUCH larger scale than your dentist's office, including promotions for stadium events, college admissions, and so forth. There are entire companies dedicated to brokering these deals.
If you were to somehow (cough, cough) acquire a truckload of these goods at the cheapo price the company was willing to sell them to you for, thinking they were for a promotion, and then turned around and sold them as retail, you would be not only be doing something very similar to what zPrime lets z customers do, but you'd actually be breaking the law.
Perhaps the z Ts&Cs don't make it a clear violation of the law, but it's still the same thing. Justifying it by saying "z is too expensive" and "IBM is making too much money" and "I owe it to my stockholders to save money" is sophistry. Again, why not hack the microcode? Why not hack the CPUID protection on CA products (no, I'm not picking on CA, just using an example that needs no explanation!)?
MF-Observer, I agree with your overall point, but still (obviously) don't think using zPrime is ethically defensible. It is possible that accelerating the curve of reduced cost of z computing is good for z overall; I'm certainly willing to entertain that possibility, although as my earlier posts suggest, my guess is to the contrary. But my Magic 8 Ball says "Cloudy, ask again later".
This is an interesting discussion, and it's good to see folks willing/able to have it without resorting to epithets or ad hominem attacks! (OK, now I've jinxed it...)
OK greybeard, how does this work with your interpretation? If I take my (for example) CICS/COBOL/DB2 application that's eating 2,000 MIPS under z/OS and use DRDA to move the DB2 part of the workload to z/Linux via Hipersockets. No license violation. No question of intent because IBM isn't saying that you can't use an IBM product for its stated purpose. Yet the result is the same - a large part of that 2,000 MIPS workload will now be running on an IFL engine for comparative chump change. Same result as using zPrime. And I'm not cheating, either. But I am draining $ from IBM's pockets.
For the IMS example, there are IMS emulation capabilities that also allow the movement of the database workload to an IFL engine. In fact, I'm about to start working on a similar implementation with Datacom DB, moving the database workload to (in this case) Oracle on an IFL.
I'm afraid I'm having a hard time seeing the difference in practical terms, if you replace zIIP/zAAP with IFL.
donestas, the difference is that in the one case you're playing by the rules, and in one case you aren't. How is that tricky to understand? IBM has their own reasons for pushing Linux. And if you move the workload off z entirely, it's out of their bailiwick. No, they won't like it, but they can't do anything about it. Using zIIP/zAAP for "regular" workload violates the intent and *maybe* even the Ts&Cs (that part is still open for interpretation, and I expect a court will do so at some point). So IBM *can* at least complain, and maybe do something about it.
greybeard said
"but it's still key to me that the specialty processors were sold with a clear expectation -- and limitation -- as to how they'd be used."
Where do you find this stated?
hsalediscountjewelry
lovediscountjewelry
paulover
15vincecarter15
paul925
paul1837
MBT have a positive effect on the entire body.MBT Shoes improves posture and gait,activates the whole body,and reduces stress on joint and back.The MBT Kisumu White Sandals For Men or Women features waxed leather upper for easy care and durability.The Vibram Five Fingers seem to have a special attraction to geeks,for whom claims of efficiency and scientific research resonate especially well.MBT Baridi are made to provide the wearer good comfort and support by utilizing an innovative technology found in the heel and sole.Walking shoes MBT Fora blue and black is a great shoe for those who seek more color in their lives.MBT Kimondo have a positive effect in improving posture and gait,reducing stress on the knees and hips,and even help with joint,ligament and tendon injuries.
Thank you for sharing such good experience.I also like to write such things in own blog. Our Tonino Lamborghini replica watches are very good!
Market is flooded UGG Boots on Sale with different types UGG Classic Short Boots of leather UGG Classic Tall Boots bags and wallets UGG Argyle Knit Boots. When it comes to UGG Bailey Button Boots choosing a leather bags UGG Classic Cardy Boots or wallet, UGG Baby Coach Leather bags Kids UGG Boots and wallets are Timberland Shoes something that Shoes Timberland you can rely Vibram Five Fingers on. Coach leather bags Vibram FiveFingers and wallets a have Discount Vibram Five Fingers been in the Discount Vibram FiveFingers market since Discount Vibram 1940s. These leather bags Prada Shoes have made a distinguished Gucci Shoes in the market. Not only Coach Bags in terms of quality these leather Coach New Style Bags are popular for both Coach New Style Bags and elegance. Before you go to purchase a leather prada Bags, make up your Gucci Bags which kind of Chanel Bags you want to go for Louis Vuitton Bags. Since these wallets are Jimmy Choo Bags in different colors, Tous Bags and design MBT Shoes you are a MBT Shoes on sale confused as to which MBT Sandals to buy MBT Shoes Outlet. Here are a MBT Sandals on Sale tips to MBT Outlet choose which for MBT Men’s Shoes who are fond of carrying MBT Women’s Shoes all the time, going for a Outlet MBT leather bag also. Ray Ban Sunglasses or bag suits Oakley Sunglasses. Here are lots of Chanel Jewelry first of all Chanel Jewelry Outlet if you are Jewelry Outlet kind of Tiffany Jewelry outlet who carry more Tiffany Jewelry cards than Chanel Jewelry Online, go for the Jewelry Online Outlet which have more credit Cartier Jewelry compartments.
mason0507
Nike air max are completely favorite with people today of all age groups. The style and good quality consistent with the taste of most people today. A series of shoes nike air max 90 in 1987, As we all know, this year, nike air max shoes to the 20th anniversary in the birth of a classic, nike air max 90 are double and outstanding achievements in soda order to do something to celebrate commendable 90 Nike shoes, nike air max 180 shoes are favorite, the corporation has a long way in which the average consumer a good reason to buy Nike shoes.
These are the pair of shoes, and feel MBT Shoes better than the base. The result is promoting metabolism, burn calories,salama mbt,legs MBT Tembea Mink and Cheap Anti Shoes back. Negative heel helps you align the spine of the first project zhuzhu cheap mbt On MBT Chili Sale manner, while MBT Shoes Reviews maintaining the second rock Womens MBT Shoes strength .Make sure that you adjust the MBT Sport Sneakers mens MBT Shoes size is correct and you want to go to a local authorized dealer, is installed correctly.
<p>I just love this coach bags in red.This is the kind of bags that I think represents coach outlet perfectly. It’s classy, sexy, feminine, but it’s really the most useful shoulde.coach outlet store online. You could fit a baby in here if you really want to. It’s true the Patchwork was a huge hit, and maybe the first one for Coach on that level, but by no means does that mean that those coach wallets are suddenly out of fashion. For more information, welcome to coach handbags.</p>
When asked about the reasons for luxury goods price adjustment, gina that, chanel bags periodic price hikes are inevitable every year, prices of luxury goods every year to raise the threshold through the chanel online. Last month, however, is a relatively large price adjustments in the industry believe that the main reason for chanel handbags is the larger euro.December 31, 2009, and renminbi to buy European luxury goods cheaper prices. Therefore, chanel handbags 2010 though the world price adjustment across the board,thus narrowing the difference brought about by chanel 2.55 bags rate.
In the louis vuitton bags fashion show Scarlett Johansson carried a LV Monogram Denim Neo Cabby MM Handbag. The LV handbags matched her outfit perfectly and showed all her charm. Designed as a town bag, The louis vuitton outlet is both supple and b. To get a real “used” effect, it is bleached and stonewashed, giving it a distinctive and “vintage” look. The golden brass pieces shines on the louis vuitton wallet. With the side strap, its size is also adjustable. From LV.
Are you searching for coach outlet from aperture store? Accept you begin no one in your round? You don’t anguish because now it is not charge to go to the coach outlet store online for accepting a abatement coach handbags. You can alcohol a cup of coffee, There are so abundant styles of handbags, and you can accept any one appearance you like.If you accept begin a coach wallets shop,And all coach handbags outlet are fabricated of top superior of leather.