In addition to the general purpose (GP) engines on the mainframe, you can also add specialty engines.  Specialty engines, as the name implies, are intended to provide very specific processing capabilities in contrast to the generalized processing capabilities of the general purpose engines.

There are four main types of specialty engines: IFLs, zIIPs, zAAPs, and ICFs.

IFL stands for Integrated Facility for Linux. With an IFL, you can run either native zLinux or zLinux under zVM.  You could also run them in a GP engine, but adding a GP tends to raise your overall software costs on a mainframe, whereas running them in an IFL does not.  For that reason, adding IFLs is an effective strategy for reducing the total cost of ownership (TCO) on a mainframe.

zIIP engines support certain DB2 functions.  A zIIP then becomes a way of offloading some workload from the GP engines – another effective strategy for TCO.

zAAP engines support Java.  Like the zIIP, the zAAP allows certain workloads to be offloaded from the GP engines.  (Note: Some zAAP functionality is now available in the zIIP, so you may hear the phrase “zAAP on zIIP.”   It’s possible that a zIIP may handle both your zIIP and zAAP eligible workloads.

ICF stands for Integrated Coupling Facility.  ICFs run something called CFCC (Coupling Facility Control Code) and are used in what is known as a parallel sysplex environment.  Think of the ICF as a key element in a design that requires data sharing.

There are two noteworthy things at work here:

1. As you increase the number and speed of GP engines, the “rated capacity” on your mainframe increases, resulting in higher software costs.  For that reason, using specialty engines (which don’t count toward “rated capacity” ) to offload the GP engines may help you reduce your GP capacity requirements.   For example, suppose my aggregate workload would require four GP engines – but, if I offload some of that workload to specialty engines, then perhaps I only need three GP engines.  That ultimately translates into software savings.

2. Note also that the specialty engines are (to a great extent) intended for DB2, Java, and Linux workloads.  You cannot run zOS or zVSE in a specialty engine.  You can run zVM in an IFL, but it’s there to provide virtualization capability for zLinux (RedHat or SUSE).  The strengths of the mainframe (resiliency, reliability, I/O bandwidth, to name a few) can be matched to new workloads – not just to the traditional mainframe operating systems.

Management, scientific and technical consulting services

http://www.cnbc.com/id/34767708?slide=11

Some of us are naturally negative in our outlooks.  I believe we’re just wired that way.  I have told people, in years past, that I have a superpower – the ability to see why a project is going to fail.  It’s a gift, like a sixth sense.

Some of the very best technicians I know are like this – they can take in all the intricacies of a complicated, risky plan in a heartbeat and then tell you why you’re doomed.  It’s like something out of Blink.

That can be a helpful skill to have.  People start coming to you to let you “look over” things and to get your feedback.  When it comes to “adding value,” there’s nothing quite as spectacular as helping the team dodge a bullet.

But if all I ever did was go around telling people why things were going to fail, I wouldn’t be a very fun guy to be around.  Agreed?  I’d be like a bomb-sniffing dog who never turns it off to go play frisbee.

So, some of us are just that way – our mind is just always tuned into “what’s wrong” mode.  Your brain gets stuck in this loop:

1. That’s not true.
2. That’s not right.
3. I disagree.
4. This is a waste.

And you know what?  You might even be right about everything.  Seriously.  But you will never be able to access the creative, innovative part of your brain if your stuck in “what’s wrong” mode.

So, when you read my (silly) penguin problem, did you immediately go into “what’s wrong” mode?  If so, do you want to learn how to get out of it?  We’ll consider this problem in a future post.

Now, go play frisbee.

If I were to ask this question in a (hypothetical) class, I think the responses would play out as follows:

1. There would be some who would say 50 miles. They might be somewhat puzzled by certain aspects of the question, but, after all, a word problem is a word problem.

2. There would be some who would ridicule the question, citing it as evidence that I don’t know what I’m talking about when it comes to penguins. Penguins don’t live at the north pole, they would say. And even if they did live there, they can’t fly. And even if they could fly, they certainly couldn’t fly at 100 MPH.

3. There would be some who would ask how the penguin got to the north pole, in what was it flying as it traveled south, and, just in general, what’s going on here? There must be more to this than meets the eye, they would say.

Now, all of this sounds sort of silly, I suppose. In fact, I’ve intentionally made it sort of silly.

But behind the silliness, there’s an issue that interests me. One of my goals as a teacher is to help others develop their creative thought processes. I’m searching for the essence of innovation. What has to happen to the mind to enable it to see new possibilities? Can it be done? And, if so, can it be done for everyone? Let me phrase it this way:

“Is there a process for triggering innovative thinking? And, if so, are some people more receptive to the process than others?”

I developed my penguin question as a kind of filter. Without taking anything away from those who offered answer #1 or #2, it’s those who offered answer #3 that seem to have that spark, that willingness to not be driven to just get the right answer, to not be bound by preconceived notions, but rather to ask the right questions and entertain new possibilities.

I’m just having some fun with this. But I really am interested in the thought processes that lead to innovation.

How would you respond to this question? Think about it.