Future Mainframe

8/9/2019 Future Mainframe

1/19

The future of the mainframe

Gary Barnett

October 2005


2/19

THE FUTURE OF THE MA INFRAME

1

Ovum 2006. Unauthorised reproduction prohibited

The future of the mainframe

I n 1 9 9 1 t h e t e c h n o lo g y w r i t e r St e w a r t A l so p w r o t e , I p r e d ic t t h a t

t h e l a st m a i n f r am e w i l l b e u n p l u g g e d o n 1 5 M a r ch 1 9 9 6 . H o w e v e r ,

d e s p it e t h e p r e d i c t i o n s o f cl i e n t- s e r v e r g u r u s t h r o u g h o u t t h e

1 9 9 0 s t h e m a i n fr a m e d i d n t d i sa p p ea r . I n 2 0 0 4 , t h e I B M

m a i n f r am e c el e b r at e d i t s 4 0 t h b i r t h d a y , a n d i n Ju l y 2 0 0 5 I B M

u n v e i l e d i t s l a t e st o f f e r i n g , t h e z 9 , t h e r e s u l t o f o v e r $ 1 b i l l io n o f

i n v e s t m e n t i n R& D . T h e m a i n f r a m e is n t g o i n g t o d i sa p p e a r a t a n y

t i m e in t h e n e x t d e c a d e at l e a st . H o w e v e r , t h e m a i n f r a m e e n v i r o n m e n t i s s et t o c h a n g e si g n i f i c a n t l y o v e r t h e n e x t f i v e y e a r s ,

w i t h t h e n u m b e r o f s m a l l m a i n f r a m e s s ee i n g a s ig n i f i ca n t d e c l in e ,

w h i l e t h e n u m b e r o f l a r g e r m a i n f r am e s g r o w s s lo w l y , b u t s t e ad i l y .

T h i s r e p o r t p r e s e n t s o u r p r e d i c t io n s f o r t h e m a i n f r a m e ; in w h i c h

w e f o r e ca st t h a t o v e r t h e n e x t f i v e y ea r s t h e n u m b e r o f i n d i v i d u al

m a c h i n e s w i l l f a l l , b u t t h e t o t a l n u m b e r o f d e p l o y e d MI PS w i l l

c o n t i n u e t o r i s e.

Key messages

The mainframe is alive and well as a platform for verylarge workloads

The mainframe is alive and well at the high end. IBM is keeping the

promises that it made in its mainframe charter and continues to deliver

steady improvements in price/performance. At the very high end (in the

more than 2,000 MIPS category) IBMs new mainframe, the z9, has done

a lot to secure the future of the zSeries.

Mainframe price/ performance continues to improve

but not at the same pace as x86

The z9 delivers a huge improvement in total cost of ownership, providing

nearly double the performance for a similar price. However, IBMs

challenge is that, while it is steadily delivering price/performance

improvements in the order of 1520% a year, x86 (Intel and AMD)

price/performance improvements are running at almost double that pace.

Despite the improvements, the cost viability of themainframe at the lower end is threatened

The dramatic and continued improvements in the price and performance of

non-mainframe technologies mean that the alternatives are becoming


3/19


2


increasingly attractive. IBM will find it increasingly difficult to justify thehuge price differential between a 1,000-MIPS mainframe and the

equivalent computing power delivered on an x86. IBM needs to address

this urgently, as the vast majority of mainframes belong in the sub-1,000

MIPS category.

Migration is an excellent option for some

Migration away from the mainframe will be an excellent opportunity for a

significant number of small mainframe users. But it wont be the cure-all

approach that some migration enthusiasts claim. Migration needs to be

considered as part of an overall approach to legacy modernisation and

renewal many large companies will do a range of things, migrating some

applications, replacing some, and leaving others where they are. The goal

is to ensure that you deliver the functionality that the business needs

today, are capable of delivering the changes that the business will ask for

tomorrow, and are able to do so while keeping cost and risk at bay.

Drag and drop migration technology is available today,and it works

Several companies offer migration technology that makes it possible to

take mainframe applications off the mainframe and move them to another

platform. Companies like Micro Focus and Sun offer middleware thatnatively emulates the mainframe environment, making it possible to

perform the migration without having to undertake a complete rewrite.

Rip and rewrite is a high-risk, low-reward approach

There are two approaches to the often talked about rip and replace

approach. Both involve effectively switching one application off and

replacing it with another. However, the way in which you choose to

replace the old application has a huge impact on risk. If you opt to

replace an old application with an off-the-shelf alternative then the risks

that you encounter will be relatively well bounded. However, if you elect to

completely rewrite your old application the risk profile changes

dramatically. We would regard rip and rewrite as a last resort when it

comes to legacy renewal Weve seen far too many projects of this nature

flounder to regard it as an obvious choice.

Application replacement w ill drive many migrations atthe low end

At the lower end of the spectrum, we expect many of the migrations that

occur to be driven by the acquisition of new applications. In some cases

the new application will be a ported version from the same application

that runs on the legacy platform. Here migration will be driven by


4/19


3


independent software vendors and their desire to lower the total cost ofacquiring their solution. In other cases, migration will be driven by the

selection of a brand new application that runs on a lower-cost hardware

platform.

Messages for users

Dont panic!

The mainframe is fit and well

There is no crisis (although with ongoing budget pressure it may feel like

that at times). The mainframe is not going to disappear any time soon, nor

is IBMs commitment to it.

The skills crisis is a decade away

The skills crisis that some commentators claim will bring the world of

Cobol to a halt is at least a decade away, so there is no need for urgent

action. However, employers need to consider the changing needs of a

developer population that is undoubtedly getting older.

You have plenty of choices

You have choices, and the smart suppliers will be the ones that can help

you take different approaches. Beware of the supplier that only talks about

migration as opposed to legacy renewal.

Do the analysis carefully

You need to begin by being absolutely clear about why you need to look

at legacy renewal and migration in particular. Are you looking for cost

savings? Do you need more flexibility? What would the impact of migration

be to the migrated applications and the applications that stay where

they are?

Take a systematic approach

We strongly advise our clients to take a methodical and systematic

approach It should start with a clear statement of needs, and then be

followed by a detailed analysis of the alternatives. When examining the

potential cost benefits, it is essential that you look at all the costs that

each option will incur.


5/19


4


Messages for vendors

Focus on choice: one size fits all wont work

There is no single answer to the question of legacy renewal and

modernisation. If you can only address one element (if youre a code

analysis specialist or a migration specialist) then dont pretend that you

have the answer because you dont. Its ok to play in a niche, but if you

do so you need to be very careful that you develop the right partnerships

to ensure that you can offer clients a range of options and help them to

choose the most appropriate. If youre only going to tell your clients to

migrate then both you and they are likely to be disappointed.

Create a broader legacy renew al process to help clientsselect an approach

Ultimately the doing it question is relatively easy to answer the hardest

task is determining what the it should be. Vendors that have a

methodology or process to help in this initial phase will benefit in two ways

firstly theyll become part of the clients internal process, and secondly

theyll be in a great position to bid for the doing it component.

We would encourage vendors to go further and promote a standard

approach to legacy renewal and modernisation.

Mainframe application vendors need to take on thechallenge of mainframe pricing

One of the biggest motivators among end-user organisations for migration

is the licensing cost of mainframe software. Application vendors have to

play a role in protecting their mainframe revenues over the long term by

embracing more flexible licensing models. At a minimum, vendors need to

support sub-capacity pricing; ideally, they should support licence scale-up

and down on demand.

Mainframe application vendors need to broaden theirplatform support

If youre a mainframe application vendor you should be looking at ways to

broaden your platform support. If you currently have a large and loyal

mainframe-based installed base then it wont make any sense to desert it,

but you should look at the cost of porting your application so that it runs

on non-mainframe platforms as well. One approach is certainly a drag and

drop migration, using middleware to natively emulate the mainframe

environment on non-mainframe platforms. This allows you to continue

developing your mainframe code without having to dramatically re-tool

and re-skill. A second option might be to make a move to Linux this


6/19


5


would allow you to continue selling for the mainframe (using themainframes Linux support), as well as the wide range of hardware

platforms on which Linux runs.

Messages for IBM

This is happening now, do something

The number of enquiries that were getting from our clients about the

viability of the mainframe platform, mainframe migration and the future of

Cobol has grown significantly in the past twelve months. Our clients, and

yours, need to know what their options are.

Currently, the choice that many see is, stay with IBM on the mainframe,

or move to non-IBM hardware. Plainly this doesnt make sense IBM has

a wide range of non-mainframe hardware offerings in the form of pSeries,

iSeries and xSeries. Surely if people are going to move off the mainframe

platform and a growing number will it makes sense for IBM to help

them move to one of its non-mainframe platforms rather than to a

competitors?

In essence were saying, make sure that as many of the defections as

possible are to other IBM technologies and not to a competitors.

Talk about the mainframe charter more

Over the past 18 months there have been a host of minor announcements,

and some fairly major ones, that all contribute to IBMs delivery on the

promises set out in the mainframe charter.

In isolation these announcements often seem fairly insignificant to

customers and analysts, but taken as a whole they can be used to

demonstrate the significant progress (and investment) that IBM is making.

Give your clients options and explain the differencesbetween them

IBM is finding it increasingly difficult to explain the differences between the

mainframe and its non-mainframe hardware portfolio. The traditional

differences (reliability, availability, scalability and security) are being

eroded very quickly. For most sub-1,000 MIPS deployments the quality-of-

service differentiation simply no longer applies.

IBM needs to develop a clear approach to determining which platform suits

a particular client given their situation. IBM must accept that mainframe

wont always be the right answer.


7/19


6


Support your ISVs by helping them port/ migrate

IBM has been doing a great job of persuading ISVs to adopt a more

sensible and long-term view of software pricing, but IBM is still only part of

the way there.

IBM needs to help ISVs in two ways:

it should provide assistance to help them support more flexible pricing

models

it should be willing to help ISVs migrate their applications.

Once again, the message here is that if IBM doesnt, then someone else

will.

Putting the mainframe in context

Many legacy applications and systems are IT assets that have a particular

combination of attributes: they manage resources that are crucial to the

operation of the business, and they are seen as inflexible or brittle in the

face of technological and business change.

Increasing numbers of large businesses (and these are the ones which

tend to host legacy systems) are looking to make significant adjustments

to their IT portfolios in order to align IT expenditure and operations with

business priorities. It is clear from this that if these grand ITtransformation projects fail to properly address legacy applications and

systems, they themselves may well fail to deliver value.

Analysis

In general terms, the mainframe is fit and well. Brand-new mainframe

MIPS shipments (as opposed to replacement MIPS) continue to grow by

around 15% a year, and the number of lines of Cobol code in production

continues to grow by between 3% and 5%. The mainframe isnt going to

disappear tomorrow; indeed, we expect mainframes to be in production

well into the next decade at least.

While the number of deployed MIPS is set to grow, the number of

deployed mainframes will decline. Essentially, at the high-end, mainframes

are getting bigger while at the low-end a significant number of smaller

mainframes will be switched off.

Over the next five years smaller mainframes will come under intense

pressure from x86-based (Intel and AMD) platforms as their

price/performance improvements out-pace the mainframes by a significant

margin. The price/performance gap is still widening, despite the excellent

progress that IBM has made with the mainframe.


8/19


7


Mainframes run the w orld

Despite the excitement that has surrounded the Web and new

programming models like Java and J2EE (as well as Microsofts .NET),

older, less trendy technologies account for the vast bulk of computer

processing today.

For example, Cobol remains the most widely deployed programming

language in big business, accounting for 75% of all computer transactions

and it is not going to go away. Cobol is pervasive in the financial sector

(accounting for 90% of all financial transactions), in defence, as well as

within established manufacturing and insurance sectors. We estimate that

there are over 200 billion lines of Cobol in production today, and thisnumber continues to grow by between three and five percent a year.

IBM and the mainframe

IBM is the leading mainframe vendor, with over 70% market share.

Therefore, while this report covers the global mainframe market it is

largely dominated by IBM.

IBM is committed to its mainframe technology: the recent release

of the z9 (IBMs latest generation of the zSeries platform)

demonstrated the fact that IBM is committed to supporting its existing

clients and sees a long-term future in the platform. IBM has invested

well over $1 billion in developing the z9, and has committed to

continue investing heavily in mainframe R&D.

IBM is improving the economics of the p latform: IBMs mainframe

charter represents a commitment on IBMs part to its mainframe using

clients. To drive down the total cost of the mainframe platform (that is,

the cost of the hardware, software and administration) and to make it

a first-class citizen in the (comparatively) new world of distributed

computing.

Concerns about the mainframe

In spite of IBMs pretty impressive record of keeping the promises it madewhen it launched the mainframe charter, there are still serious concerns

among our mainframe-using clients about the viability of the mainframe.

Price

The cost of mainframe hardware is still very high; in many cases

Intel/AMD-based hardware is ten-times less expensive.


9/19


8


Cost of integration

Although much has been done to make it easier to integrate mainframe-

based applications with distributed applications, the integration of these

two worlds is perceived by many as costly and complex.

This perception would be partially addressed if IBM and other vendors in

the mainframe integration space did a better job of explaining their

capabilities today. However, even with the significant improvements of

mainframe connectivity and in the platform itself (the latest release of

CICS, for example, allows Cobol applications to publish and consume web

services) the integration of legacy applications is still expensive and

difficult.

Cobol skills

There is growing concern among our client base about the availability of

Cobol skills. We do not believe that there will be an acute shortage of skills

in the short term, because the fall in the number of Cobol developers will

be offset by a comparable reduction in the amount of Cobol development

that takes place. Over the longer term, we do see a shortfall in Cobol skills

in the 20152020 timeframe as the older generation of Cobol developers

(in the 4555 age range) leaves the workforce.

Viable alternatives to the mainframe are emerging

The price/performance advantage of non-mainframe platforms has

traditionally been offset by the other virtues of the mainframe, particularly

in terms of quality of service (reliability, availability, scalability and

security), as well as manageability. Typical mainframe utilisation levels are

more than double the typical utilisation level of an AMD or Intel-based

machine, thanks to the mainframes support for virtualisation.

However, things are changing rapidly. The reliability of non-mainframe

platforms is closing on the mainframe, and technologies that used to be

the preserve of the mainframe (notably virtualisation) are now crossing

over to the world of Intel and AMD.

The mainframe and the CIO agenda

While the CIO may use different words, every CIOs agenda boils down to

three things: cost, innovation and risk, as shown in Figure 1.


10/19


9


Figure 1 Cost, innova tion and risk

Cost

RiskInnovation

Source: Ovum

Ultimately, the CIO wants to support greater innovation, whilst lowering

both cost and risk.

The cost/ innovation/ risk equation embodies a dilemma

However, this equation contains a built- in dilemma in that any

improvement in one of the three factors is likely to have an adverse

impact on the remaining two.

Cost: how do you lower cost without reducing the number of things

you can do or by cutting corners and exposing yourself to higher

levels of risk?

Risk: how can you reduce risk without spending more or doing less?

Innovation: how can you increase the rate at which you innovate

without spending more money or putting up with higher levels of risk?

The most successful IT decisions address all three issues at once

We use these three factors as a tool in helping CIOs to develop a strategy

and make key decisions. CIOs need to identify initiatives that bring

benefits in each of the three factors, while ensuring that one attribute isnt

over-stressed at the expense of the others.

We also use this approach when talking to vendors about their offerings

if a salesperson cannot explain how the product will help to address at

least one, but preferably all three, of these issues, then its going to be a

tough sell.


11/19


10


Cost will never come off the agenda

Cost will never cease to be a key priority for IT managers. While the

painful cost reduction targets of 2001/2002 may be behind us, every CIO

that we speak to talks about continued downward pressure on core IT

spend. Many are now reporting that there is new money flowing into IT

but this new investment is, more often than not, tied to very specific

business programmes and goals.

With cost still taking a high priority, the question then becomes, how do I

lower costs to free-up resources to support innovation? Essentially, the

task is to fund the innovation budget by saving costs elsewhere.

The key to this lies in understanding your current cost base, and the

contribution that your key expenses make to the business.

CIOs have to adjust their spending patterns

We have developed a simple approach to investment prioritisation that we

regularly use with clients.

The basic premise of our approach can be summarised as follows:

the goal should be to target expenditure and investment at activities

that differentiate the business and to lower the cost of those activities

that while they may be essential dont deliver competitiveadvantage.

We dont pretend that this is rocket science or that its a particularly new

idea, but we do use it as a framework when looking at how our clients

need to develop and validate strategy.

We classify the activities (and the applications, processes and systems

that support each class of activity) that a business undertakes according to

three broad types:

utility activities necessary for the business to function, but that do

not differentiate the business from its competitors

process/assembly activities where the offer or product that thebusiness sells is created

delivery the point at which the offer or product is

presented/exposed to clients and partners.

Each class of activity has a different set of priorities:

utility lower cost, simplify and stabilise

assembly manage cost, integrate and modernise

delivery invest, integrate and enhance.


12/19


11


When we map existing expenditure against these categories, we frequentlyfind that the investment and spending patterns that are currently in play

are the polar opposite of these goals, as shown in Figure 2.

Figure 2 IT spending is biased tow ards non-differentiating functions

Utility

Assembly

Delivery

Differentiation

Utility

Assembly

Delivery

Spend

Source: Ovum

Although the balance varies according to the individual client and the

sector that the client operates in, around 60% of IT budget is spent on

delivering and maintaining utility activities, with the assembly and delivery

categories left to fight over the remaining 40%. Once we look at spendingpatterns, we notice that the greatest proportion of IT spend is frequently

directed at those activities that differentiate the company the least. Part of

the process of legacy renewal and modernisation is the modification of this

balance so that, ideally, the bulk of IT spend is directed at differentiating

activities.

What we want to do is find a way of lowering the costs associated with

those utility activities in order to release resources so that they can be

invested in activities and processes that do differentiate the company from

its competition.

What do CIOs think about the mainframe?

Many of our CIO clients make the same criticisms of the mainframe today.

They say:

it is expensive

it is inflexible

it is hard to integrate with the rest of the IT system.

Of course, many of them have good things to say about the mainframe as

well the mainframe is still regarded as the most reliable and secure

computing platform there is. However, increasingly, the cost and lack of


13/19


12


flexibility outweigh the demonstrable reliability, availability, scalability andsecurity attributed that the mainframe boasts.

Interestingly, very few of our CIO clients believe that the mainframe is

going to die or disappear at any time in the foreseeable future, but the

key challenges remain.

How do you lower the cost of running legacy applications?

How do you make it easier and less expensive to modify and enhance

legacy applications?

How do you make it easier and less expensive to integrate legacy

applications with the rest of the IT system?

There isnt a simple solution to these challenges nor is it likely to be the

same for any two clients. Legacy renewal and modernisation combines a

set of techniques and approaches, which if combined and applied

properly will deliver lower cost, greater flexibility and increased

integration.

Migration forms part of an overall approach to legacyrenewal

Migration away from the mainframe addresses the issue of hardware cost.

However, bear in mind that hardware costs represent a relatively small

proportion of the cost of owning software. Even if you do migrate anapplication away from the mainframe you still need to maintain it and

integrate it.

Mainframe migration is not an end in itself, it is one approach to the larger

challenge of legacy renewal. We define legacy systems thus:

legacy systems are those that are designed and built in such a way

that they significantly resist any modifications and evolutions which are

required to support business change and/or those systems that rely on

technology that is no longer cost effective.

The goal of legacy renewal is to change legacy applications so that they

become:

easier to integrate

easier to change

less expensive to run.

Migration is firmly focused on the last of these (cost), although it is true

that in some cases a migration will make integration and enhancement

easier as well.

We list four broad categories of legacy modernisation:

access/extension


14/19


13


integration

re-engineering

platform migration.

In Figure 3, we give an overview of each approach, and its benefits.

It is important to note that, in practice, any legacy renewal or

modernisation initiative is likely to combine two or more of these

approaches.


15/19


14


Figure 3 Legacy renewal technology categories in overview

Access/

Extension

Integration Re-

engineering

Platform

Migration

Description Middleware

servers used for

creating newuser interfaces

for applications

on client-serveror web

platforms.

Includes

terminalemulation

Sophisticated

middleware that

enables peer-to-peer

relationships

between legacysystems and

other platforms.

System

metadata isexposed to

programmersthrough

advanced tools

Analysis/

development

tools andassociated

middleware,

which helpusers re-factor,

re-code and re-

host elements

of legacyapplications

Tools and

middleware that

support themigration of

legacy code

from themainframe to

another

platform

withoutrequiring the

Cobol code tobe significantly

rewritten

Maturity Mature Established Mature butevolving

Mature butevolving

Benefits A quick way to

extend accessto new

platforms and

users

Sophisticated

offeringscapable of

enabling

evolution oflegacy systems

in line withmodernarchitectural

approaches &

initiatives

The only way to

deal with somelegacy systems,

particularly

where lack ofskills is the

main issue orwhere vendorsare burning

platforms

Often delivers

rapid costsavings as a

result of the

transition to alower-cost

hardwareplatform

Can make it

easier to extend

and integrateapplications

once moved

Drawbacks Often based onproprietary,

inflexible

technology.Integration is

simplistic andfocused on thelegacy system

acting as a

server

Analysis anddesign, and a

long-term

evolution planare important

but not alwayseasy to justify.Skills may be

an issue

Can becomplex,

expensive and

risky. Systemsthat are still

evolvingpresentparticular

problems

Cost can varyconsiderably

depending on

the originalapplication.

Can be difficult

to migratepartial

workloads

because ofinter-application

dependencies

Source: Ovum


16/19


15


The mainframe population 20052010Over the next five years the number of individual mainframes will decline

by around one third. However, the total number of deployed mainframe

MIPS will rise by at least 10% annually over the same period.

The decline in the number of mainframes will be driven by a number of

factors:

mainframe consolidation smaller mainframes being consolidated onto

a smaller number of large machines

application replacement mainframes being switched off as

applications are replaced with non-mainframe alternatives drag and drop migrations where existing mainframe applications are

moved, intact, to a non-mainframe platform.

The vast majority of this decline will come from small mainframes (sub-

100 MIPS machines). Indeed, we expect the number of larger mainframes

(those supporting workloads of 1,000 MIPS and over) to grow.

The mainframe today

Arguably, the mainframe is in better shape today than it has been for

several years. IBMs recently launched z9 mainframe delivers more or less

double the performance of its predecessor for broadly the same price. IBMis pushing the use of the mainframe for non-traditional workloads (notably

Linux and Java) and is winning converts.

Weve divided mainframes into different classes in terms of their size (as

measured in MIPS):

0100 MIPS tiny

101500 MIPS small

5011,000 MIPS medium

1,0014,000 MIPS larger

4,001+ MIPS super-sized.

We estimate that the distribution of deployed mainframes in 2005,

according to these classes, is as follows:

more than 4,000 MIPS 3%

1,0014,000 MIPS 8%

5011,000 MIPS 26%

101 500 MIPS 30%

less than 100 MIPS 34%.

In other words, we believe that the vast majority of deployed mainframes

belong in the sub-1,000 MIPS class.


17/19


16


The small mainframe is an endangered species

We believe that the small mainframe (sub-500 MIPS) is an endangered

species. We expect the number of mainframes in the tiny and small

categories to decline significantly over the next five years.

The number of normal-sized mainframes is also set to decline at an albeit

smaller rate.

By contrast, we believe that the number of larger mainframes (in the large

and super-sized classes) will grow slowly over the same period. By 2010,

we believe the distribution of mainframes according to our classification

will be:

more than 4,000 MIPS 5%

1,0014,000 MIPS 13%

5011,000 MIPS 31%

101500 MIPS 28%

less than 100 MIPS 23%.

Forecast mainframe population

Our estimates for the number of mainframes in production over the period

20052010 are shown in Figure 4.

Figure 4 Mainframe population 20052010

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

More than 4,000

MIPS 498 503 510 521 534 544

1,0014,000 MIPS 1,185 1,220 1,257 1,294 1,327 1,353

5011,000 MIPS 4,025 3,905 3,768 3,617 3,436 3,265

101500 MIPS 4,633 4,309 3,964 3,607 3,247 2,922

Less than 100MIPS 5,319 4,787 4,189 3,561 2,937 2,350

Total 15,660 14,724 13,688 12,600 11,481 10,434

Source: Ovum

Mainframe migration

The mainframe migration market will grow gradually over the forecast

period, peaking in 2009 before beginning to fall off.


18/19


17


Although the mainframe migration market will never represent amultibillion-dollar revenue opportunity, it should be viewed as a subset of

the much larger legacy renewal/modernisation market.

Figure 5 gives a breakdown of mainframe migrations by type.

Figure 5 Breakdown of migrations by type

Number of off mainframe migrations by platform

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

>1000 3 5 8 10 16 20

501 - 1000 mips 16 24 27 30 36 34

101 - 500 mips 104 146 155 161 180 162

< 100 mips 173 239 269 283 312 294Total 295 414 460 483 544 510

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

> 1000 2 3 4 4 5 5

501 - 1000 mips 4 6 7 8 9 9

101 - 500 mips 89 97 86 89 90 81

< 100 mips 216 239 269 283 280 264

Total 310 346 366 383 385 359

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

>1000 5 6 7 9 11 15501 - 1000 mips 62 91 102 113 136 129

101 - 500 mips 104 81 103 107 90 81

< 100 mips 43 53 60 63 31 29

Total 213 231 273 292 268 254

Number of replacements/rewrites

Number of "upward" migrations

Source: Ovum


19/19


18

Ovum 2006 Unauthorised reproduction prohibited

Client re-use disclaimer This is a verbatim reproduction of independent material that has

previously been published by Ovum within the last 6 months

Ovum operates under an Independence Charter. For full details please

see www.ovum.com/about/charter.asp

Neither Ovum nor the analysts were paid by the client to write any part

of the material

Ovum may have been paid by the client for the right to re-use the

material

Ovum may have a deal with the client to supply research or

consultancy. However, no other relationship exists between the 2

companies (e.g. shareholdings, loans, non-executive directorships etc)

Ovum does not endorse companies or their products

While we take every care to ensure the accuracy of the information

contained in this material, the facts estimates and opinions stated are

based on information and sources which, while we believe them to be

reliable, are not guaranteed. In particular, it should not be relied upon

as the sole source of reference in relation to the subject matter. No

liability can be accepted by Ovum Limited, its directors or employees

for any loss occasioned to any person or entity acting or failing to actas a result of anything contained in or omitted from the content of this

material, or our conclusions as stated

This material is the copyright of Ovum Europe Ltd.

Documents

Future Mainframe