This document provides a competitive comparison of WebSphere Application Server and Liberty Profile versus Tomcat, JBoss, and WebLogic. It notes that WebSphere leverages over 100 open source software packages, contributes to over 350 open source projects, and has over 3,000 developers involved in open source. Charts from Gartner show that IBM holds the number one position in middleware software for the past 12 years according to their analysis. Additional charts and graphs show performance comparisons between WebSphere and other application servers on different hardware architectures and over time.

1. © 2015 IBM Corporation
Session # AAI-5630
Competitive Comparison:
WebSphere Application
Server and Liberty Profile
vs.
Tomcat, JBoss and
WebLogic
Roman Kharkovski
IBM, Executive IT Specialist
kharkovski@us.ibm.com

2. Leverages 100+
OSS Packages
Leverages 100+
OSS Packages
Leverages 30
OSS Packages
Leverages 40+
OSS Packages
MQ
IBM contributes to 350+
OSS projects
More than 3000 IBM developers
involved in OSS projects
IBM leads 80+ OSS projects

3. Source: Gartner, Market Share Analysis: Enterprise Software Market Share, Worldwide. Published March , 2014
World-wide ranking based on 2013 total software revenue according to Gartner
2013
($B)
YTY
growth
rank share growth rank share growth rank share growth
BPM 2.49 5.6% # 1 28.6% 4% # 4 8% 0.2% # 27 0.1% 37.3%
ESB 2.56 4.4% # 1 29.2% 5.2% # 2 23.1% 0.7% # 16 0.4% 12.6%
MOM 1.43 6.1% # 1 66.7% 0.6% - - - # 10 0.2% 14.4%
MFT Suites 0.6 9.2% # 1 34.4% 9.1% - - - - - -
TP Monitors 1.85 -7.5% # 1 81.7% -9.2% # 2 10.8% -6.4% - - -
Appliances AIM 0.12 -6.5% # 1 59.5% 6.4% - - - - -
B2B 0.85 8.9% # 1 18.8% 12% - - - - - -
App Servers 4.84 9.7% # 2 29.1% 6.4% # 1 37.7% 2.9% # 5 2.4% 15.3%
Portals 1.8 2.6% # 2 26.9% 3.6% # 3 21.2% -4.7% # 7 1.7% 11.3%
Svc Governance 0.51 14.4% # 2 12.7% 6.9% # 1 12.8% -12% - -
Other AIM 4.47 7.1% # 6 2.4% 62.3% # 15 0.8% -0.4% # 28 0.2% 9.4%
According to Gartner, IBM holds #1 position in the
middleware software for the past 12 years

4. Gartner does not endorse any vendor, product or service depicted in its research publications, and does not advise technology users to select only those vendors
with the highest ratings. Gartner research publications consist of the opinions of Gartner's research organization and should not be construed as statements of fact.
Gartner disclaims all warranties, expressed or implied, with respect to this research, including any warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose
Magic Quadrant for On-Premises
Application Platforms
Daniel Sholler, Yefim V. Natis,
Massimo Pezzini, Kimihiko Iijima,
Jess Thompson, Ross Altman
June 27, 2013
This Magic Quadrant graphic was published by Gartner, Inc.
as part of a larger research note and should be evaluated in
the context of the entire URL
“New and composite on-
premises applications need a
complex array of runtime
technologies and development
capabilities.”
Source: Gartner (June 2013)
IBM named a leader in the Magic Quadrant for On-Premises
Application Platforms

6. What is new in Liberty Profile2H’2014
 Improved performance, security, etc.
 Auto Scaling
 Partial Java EE 7 (Servlet 3.1, WebSocket 1.0, Concurrency 1.0, JSON-P 1.0)
 Improved v2v and competitive Migration Toolkit
 Web-based SSO for applications with OpenID 2.0
 Support for CouchDB
 REST connector for non-Java clients
 Support for Enterprise Web Services (JSR 109 MR)
 A number of beta features (SIP, JMS 2.0, JAX-RS 2.0, JDBC 4.1, JPA 2.1,
Batch, WebRTC, bean validation 1.1, EJB 3.2 lite, Java 8 toleration, etc.)
 and more…
February2015
 WebSphere Application Server Liberty Profile v9 with Java EE7 (beta)
 Java SE 8
 Log collector and analytics (beta)
 Improved Admin Center (tagging, searching, monitoring, scalability, config)
 Improved developer tools (remote debugger, repository integration)
 SPNEGO (beta)
 No-charge Liberty Base for production (up to 2GB Java heap per organization)
 “2 for 1” licenses for 6 months on SoftLayer
 Improved support for BlueMix

7. WAS ND
JavaWeb/Mobile
(Servlet/JSP,OSGi)
FullJavaEE
(WS*,JMS,EJB,JTA,JCA,etc.)
Batch,SIP,SCA,
Kerberos,COBOL/z,etc.
Hundreds of servers
Thousands of concurrent users
Handful of servers
Hundreds of concurrent users
SystemsofRecordSystemsofEngagement
WASWAS Express
WAS Liberty beta
WebSphere Application Server: competitive positioning
JBossEAP
WebLogic
(Standard, Enterprise)
Tomcat
LibertyCore

8. Java servers from Developer point of view
IBM WAS
Liberty
8.5.5
IBM
WAS full
8.5.5
Tomcat
7.0.42
Jetty 9.0.6
GlassFish
4.0
WebLogic
12.1.2
WildFly
7.1.1
JBoss
EAP 6.1
Server start 1.7 " 12 " - 17 " 1.7 " 1.3 " 6.3 " 6 " 2 " 2 "
Server re-start 2.7 " 15 " - 28.3 " 3 " 2.3 " 8.3 " 18.3 " 3.7 " 4 "
Dynamic config Advanced Good Limited Limited Limited Good Limited Limited
App deploy 1.7 " 1.8 " - 6.3 " 4 " 3 " 1.7 " 5.7 " 0.8 " 1 "
RAM usage 143 MB 169 MB 103 MB 99 MB 423 MB 379 MB 204 MB 304 MB
Disk footprint 65 MB 1.4 GB 21 MB 8 MB 225 MB 588 MB 164 MB 131 MB
Disk space for 1
instance w/ test app
0.5 MB 40 MB 0.4 MB 0.4 MB 96 MB 8 MB 1.5 MB 1.2 MB
Dev. install 15 " 20 ' 8 " 5 " 25 " 10 ' 20 " 20 "
# of config files 1 100+ 7 32 9 20+ 20+ 20+
IDE Good Advanced Basic Basic Good Advanced Good Good
Configuration editor Advanced None None None None None None None
Admin GUI Basic Advanced Poor None Good Advanced Basic Basic
Ant, Maven, Jenkins Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
APIs provided
Web
Profile+
Java EE+ 6
JSP/
Servlet
JSP/
Servlet
Java EE 7 Java EE 6 Java EE 6 Java EE 6
Dev. License Free Free Free Free Free Free Free Free
Dev. Support Free Free $$$ $$$ $$$ $$$ n/a Free
http://bit.ly/1mOHvJy

9. Liberty
Core
Liberty
WAS
WAS &
ND
Apache
Tomcat 7.0.x
vFabric tc
Server 2.7
JBoss EAP
6.3
Java EE 6
Java EE 7 beta beta SOD
Java EE Web profile 7 in beta 7 in beta TomEE (2) (11)
Java SE 6 and 7 (JVM) 8 in beta 8 in beta 8 in SOD (1) (1) (1)
Servlet, JSP, JSF MyFaces JSF*
JDBC
Java Persistence API (JPA) OpenJPA (7)
Java Message Service (JMS) (6) 2.0 in beta ActiveMQ* (5) (9)
Java Transaction API (JTA) Geronimo* (7) (10)
Bean validation Bval* (7)
Java Management Extensions (JMX) (3) (7)
Java API for XML-Based Web Services (JAX-WS) (6) CXF* (7)
Context Dependency Injection (CDI) OpenWebBeans* (7)
Java API for RESTful Web Services (JAX-RS) CXF* (7)
OSGi Equinox* (7) WildFly
EJB lite TomEE OpenEJB (7)
EJB full beta 3.2 in beta (7)
WebSocket (7)
JSON Jersey(4) (7)
Oauth Oltu Amber* (7)
Concurrent API 3rd party* (7) (8)
Batch API beta beta 3rd party* Spring Batch (8)
JNDI (13) (13)
SAML (6) (6) PicketLink* (7)
WS-Notification (6) (6) 3rd party* (7)
WS-Transactions (6) (6) 3rd party* (7) (10)
WS-Policy (6) (6) CXF* (7)
WS-Trust (6) (6) CXF* (7)
WS-ReliableMessaging (6) (6) CXF* (7)
Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) (6) beta 3rd party* (7) (8)
Portlet API dev only dev only JetSpeed* (7) (8)
WS-Addressing (6) (6) CXF* (7)
RMI-IIOP (6) SOD 3rd party* (7)
Java Connector Architecture (JCA) (6) 1.7 in beta Geronimo* (7)
Java Authentication and Authorization Service (JAAS) (12) (7)
JACC and JASPIC beta beta Geronimo* (7)
Excellent
Good
Limited
Very limited
No support
http://bit.ly/RZASdt

10. WebSphere Application Server Migration Toolkit

11. WebSphere release-to-release performance increases due to
software and hardware improvements
EjOPS/core
As per SPEC Published Data as of 2/18/2015: http://www.spec.org/jEnterprise2010/results/jEnterprise2010.html
SPECjEnterprise2010 benchmark results
126.7
149.4
226.7
292.6 307.9
524.6
606
688
754
823
939
WAS
7.0.0.5 (8
core x86)
WAS
7.0.0.9 (8
core x86)
WAS
7.0.0.9 (8
core x86)
WAS 8.0
(8 core
x86)
WAS 8.0
(12 core
x86)
WAS 8.5
(12 core
x86)
WAS 8.5
(16 core
x86)
WAS
8.5.5.4 (28
core x86)
WAS 8.5
(16 core
Power 7)
WAS 8.5.5
(16 core
Power 7+)
WAS
8.5.5.2 (24
core Power
8 s824)
January
2010
April2014
SPEC and SPECjEnterprise 2010 are registered trademarks of the Standard Performance Evaluation Corporation. Results from www.spec.org as of 02/18/2015 IBM SPECjEnterprise results mentioned are 1013.40 EjOPS, 1194.80 EjOPS, 1813.37 EjOPS,
2341.12 EjOPS, 3694.35 EJOPS, 6295.46 EjOPS, 9696.43 EjOPS, 19282.14 EjoPS, 12,066.73 EjOPS, 13,161.07 EjOPS and 22,543.34 EjOPS published on Jan 2 2010, Feb 25 2010, Apr 27 2010, Jun 20 2011, Jun 17 2011, Apr 26 2012, Nov 14 2012,
Feb 18, 2015, Mar 6 2013, Apr 22 2013 and Apr 22, 2014 respectively

12. IBM is a world leader in enterprise performance
• WAS beats WebLogic by 31% and retains Industry leadership on per core
SPECjEnterprise2010 Benchmark results on latest Intel Haswell EP Processors
• WAS leads WebLogic both on per core and per processor performance on Haswell EP

13. IBM is a world leader in enterprise performance
• WAS 8.5.5.4 outperforms
WL 12.1.3 by 31% on per
core basis and retains
Industry leadership on
SPECjEnterprise2010
Benchmark results
published on latest Intel
Haswell EP Processors
• WAS leads on per
Processor performance as
well beating WL 12.1.3 on
the latest Intel Haswell EP
processors as per results
published on SPEC

14. Websphere Application Server on POWER8
• Exploit significant parallelism offered by
POWER8
• Exploit transactional memory
• Reduce virtualization overhead with PowerVM
• Exploit faster networking and storage
capabilities
• Improve security workload performance
• Exploit larger cache including L4 cache

15. WAS Exploitation of Different Hardware Architectures
(SPARC vs. Power)

16. IBM WebSphere 12 years of performance leadership
SPECjEnterprise2010
(1) SPEC and SPECjEnterprise2010 are registered trademarks of the Standard Performance Evaluation Corporation. Results from www.spec.org as of 04/04/2013 Oracle SUN SPARC T5-8 449 EjOPS/core SPECjEnterprise2010 (Oracle's WLS
best SPECjEnterprise2010 EjOPS/core result on SPARC). IBM Power730 823 EjOPS/core (World Record SPECjEnterprise2010 EJOPS/core result), (2) Results from www.spec.org as of 04/29/2012 Oracle SUN SPARC T4-4 313 EjOPS/core
SPECjEnterprise2010 (Oracle's WLS best SPECjEnterprise2010 EjOPS/core result on SPARC). IBM Power780 681 EjOPS/core (World Record SPECjEnterprise2010 EJOPS/core result), (3) Results from www.spec.org as of 11/14/2012 Oracle
SUN Fire X4170M3 519.39 EjOPS/core SPECjEnterprise2010 (Oracle's WLS best SPECjEnterprise2010 EjOPS/core result on Sandy Bridge). IBM WAS 8.5 System x3650 M4 Intel Sandy Bridge EjOPS/core (World Record SPECjEnterprise2010
EJOPS/core result) (4) Results from www.spec.org as of 04/29/2012 Oracle SUN Blade Server X6270 M2 452.285 EjOPS/core SPECjEnterprise2010). IBM Websphere HS 22 Blade 524.621 EjOPS/core.
EjOPS per processor core (i.e. transactions per core)
524
452
12 cores of Intel Westmere Xeon X5690 processor4
681
313
Oracle Sun SPARC T4-4 vs. IBM Power7 hardware2
606
519
16 cores of Intel Sandy Bridge Xeon E5-2690 processor3
 IBM held the most records in ECPerf
and was FIRST to publish
SPECj2001, SPECj2002, SPECj2004,
SPECjEnterprise2010
 WAS is 32% faster per core on latest
Intel Haswell at half the cost
compared to WebLogic1
 On latest Intel Haswell processors
WAS has the fastest per socker, per
core and biggest total EjOPS result
compared to WebLogic2
 WAS is 105% faster per core at almost
half the cost on Power7+ compared
to WebLogic on SPARC T53
939
457
Oracle Sun SPARC T5-8 vs. IBM Power7+ hardware1
Intel x64 Haswell (February 2015) 5
IBM: 688
Oracle: 522

17. SPECjEnterprise2010
Comparison of IBM vs. Oracle
performance JOPS per core starting
from 2011
W
LS
12c
on
T5-2
(Jan'14)
W
LS
12c
on
T5-8
(Sep'13)
W
LS
11g
on
T5-8
(M
ar'13)
W
LS
11g
on
Sun
x86
(Feb'12)
W
LS
11g
on
Sun
x86
(Jul'11)
W
LS
11g
on
T4-4
(Aug'11)
W
LS
11g
on
Dellx86
(Apr'11)
JOPS/core 532.30 457.14 448.61 519.39 452.29 313.32 298.67
WAS 8.5.5.2 on Power8 (Apr'14) 939.31 1.76 2.05 2.09 1.81 2.08 3.00 3.15
WAS 8.5.5 on Power7+ (Apr'13) 822.57 1.55 1.80 1.83 1.58 1.82 2.63 2.75
WAS 8.5 on x3650 x86 (Nov'12) 606.03 1.14 1.33 1.35 1.17 1.34 1.93 2.03
WAS 8.5 on Power7+ (Sep'12) 681.39 1.28 1.49 1.52 1.31 1.51 2.17 2.28
WAS 8.5 on HS22 blade x86 (Apr'12) 524.62 0.99 1.15 1.17 1.01 1.16 1.67 1.76
WAS 8.5 on HS22 blade x86 (Jul'11) 307.86 0.58 0.67 0.69 0.59 0.68 0.98 1.03
WAS 8.5 on HS22 blade x86 (Jun'11) 292.64 0.55 0.64 0.65 0.56 0.65 0.93 0.98
1 even result
>1 IBM advantage
<1 Oracle advantage
More recent results
Morerecent
Benchmark results
SPECjEnterprise2010
Comparison of IBM WAS ND vs. Oracle
WLS Enterprise: $ cost per JOPS
starting from 2011
W
LS
12c
on
T5-8
(Sep'13)
W
LS
11g
on
T5-8
(M
ar'13)
W
LS
11g
on
Sun
x86
(Feb'12)
W
LS
11g
on
Sun
x86
(Jul'11)
W
LS
11g
on
T4-4
(Aug'11)
W
LS
11g
on
Dellx86
(Apr'11)
$/JOPS $131 $153 $251 $200 $175 $245
WAS 8.5.5 on Power7+ (Apr'13) $81 1.62 1.90 3.11 2.47 2.16 3.03
WAS 8.5 on x3650 x86 (Nov'12) $111 1.18 1.38 2.26 1.80 1.57 2.21
WAS 8.5 on Power7+ (Sep'12) $223 0.59 0.69 1.13 0.90 0.78 1.10
WAS 8.5 on HS22 blade x86 (Apr'12) $244 0.54 0.63 1.03 0.82 0.72 1.00
WAS 8.5 on HS22 blade x86 (Jul'11) $168 0.78 0.91 1.50 1.19 1.04 1.46
WAS 8.5 on HS22 blade x86 (Jun'11) $108 1.21 1.42 2.33 1.85 1.62 2.27
Morerecent
More recent results
More details: http://whywebsphere.com/2013/10/11/ibm-still-delivers-more-performance-at-lower-cost-response-to-the-oracles-latest-misleading-performance-claims/

18. CloudFoundry based PaaS from IBM
Run Your Apps
The developer can chose any language runtime or
bring their own. Just upload your code and go.
DevOps
Development, testing, monitoring, deployment
and logging tools allow the developer to run the
entire application
APIs and Services
A catalog of open source, IBM and third party
APIs services allow a developer to stitch
together an application in minutes.
Cloud Integration
Build hybrid environments. Connect to on-
premises systems of record plus other public and
private clouds. Expose your own APIs to your
developers.
Extend SaaS Apps
Drop in SaaS App SDKs and extend to new use
cases (e.g,. Mobile, Analytics, Web)
IBM BlueMix

19. Easily deploy, manage and move enterprise applications
without change across Hybrid clouds
• New support for Docker and Chef with
Patterns for 10x faster deployments and
scaling, workload portability and access
to pre-built applications
• Enhanced security and performance for
data and application access across
hybrid environments
• New support for bring your own
hardware and enhanced support for off-
premises cloud environments to
seamlessly deploy and manage
enterprise applications without changes
PureApplication
Appliance SoftLayer BYOH
IBM Application Platform: PureApplication v2.1
19

20. IBM PureApplication System business value
9612 hrs
Deployment
Change Management
Security Management
Asset Management
Incident/capacity Mgmt
0
10000
5000
Do It Yourself PureApplication System Pre-integrated
Competitor
Coalition
Competitor
5815 hrs
153%More
4843 hrs
110%More
Labor Hours Spent*
2302 hrs
*Note: Coalition competitor used 9 competitor blades (144 cores). Pre-Integrated competitor used 18 pre-integrated nodes (288 cores). IBM PureApplication System used 3 nodes (96 cores). Each system has the
capacity to run 72 workloads where each workload can sustain a peak throughput of 1720 page elements per second.
The labor savings and assumptions herein are estimates based on a labor model that uses data obtained on the percentage of time customers spend on certain IT life cycle tasks. It is not a benchmark. As such,
actual customer results will vary based on customer applications, differences in stack deployed and other systems variations as well as actual configuration, applications, specific queries and other variables in a
production environment.
76%Savings
How does PureApplication System do this?
- pre-integrated management
- patterns of expertise

21. IBM Pattern Engine Virtual Application Builder
Drag assets onto the
canvas to define
application and
related resources
Define cross-component links and add
policies; respond to warning messages
to build well-formed applications
Specify configuration
details for components,
policies, and links
These patterns can run on-premise or on the IBM SoftLayer cloud

22. WAS deployment options
22
On-Premises Public IaaS Public PaaS
Do It Yourself
Business as usual
(can use with IBM
UrbanCode Deploy,
Chef, Puppet, etc.)
BYOL or pay by
the hour on
SoftLayer, Azure,
Amazon EC2
(can use with
IBM UrbanCode
Deploy, Chef,
Puppet)
Liberty Buildpack for
3rd party PaaS
(Cloud Foundry,
OpenShift)
PureApplication
System
PureApplication
System appliance,
or
PureApplication
Software (BYOH)
n/a
PureApp System on
the SoftLayer or 3rd
party cloud
BlueMix BlueMix Local n/a
BlueMix Shared, or
BlueMix Dedicated

23. Management options
Pros Cons
Manual editing of
files
• Easy to understand
• Best for development use
• Not reliable – user can make typos
and break configuration, leading to
costly outages
• Time consuming when managing
more than 1 server
• No auditing, limited security
• Not recommended for production
Administrative GUI
• Easy to understand
• Auditing and security provided
• Configuration consistency checks
• Some group operations supported
• Best for development use
• Often requires repetition of commands
to be applied to multiple servers
• Despite configuration consistency
checks and input validation, manual
keystrokes and mouse clicks may lead
to errors and downtime in production
• Not recommended for production
Command Line
Script
• Repeatable and predictable (no user input is
needed, no typos, no wrong mouse clicks)
• Can automate management of large
configurations by iterating over resource lists
(no need to manually repeat steps)
• Best for production use
• Can be difficult to learn and master
• High overhead for development use

24. Problem determination tools bundled with WAS
IBM Support Assistant (part of WAS) JBoss / Tomcat
Smart performance analyzer and advisor Not available
Dump analyzer - hang, crash, memory management Oracle JDK (optional $)
Garbage Collection and Memory Visualizer - memory usage and performance Need 3rd party ($)
Memory Analyzer – Troubleshoot memory leaks and excessive heap consumption Oracle JDK (optional $)
Health Center – Real time monitoring of running virtual machines Need 3rd party ($)
IBM Thread and Monitor Dump Analyzer for Java - analyzes Java heap dump Need 3rd party ($)
IBM Trace and Request Analyzer for WAS - Reads WAS and HTTP plug-in traces Not available
Web Server Plug-in Analyzer for WAS – Detects improper plug-in configurations Not available
Database Connection Pool Analyzer for WAS – Troubleshoot JDBC connection pools Not available
Log Analyzer - Correlate logs from different products, get fix recommendations Not available
Visual Configuration Explorer - Visually explores cross-product configurations Not available
Guided Troubleshooter - Guides you through solving problems Not available
IBM Port Scanning Tool - helps you find potential port conflicts Not available
Processor Time Analysis Tool for Linux - find Java threads that are excessively
consuming Linux processor resources
Need 3rd party ($)
And even better than that! …

25. WebSphere Runtime Performance Advisor
• The Performance and Diagnostic Advisor uses Performance Monitoring
Infrastructure (PMI) data to provide recommendations for performance tuning
• Running in the JVM of the application server, this advisor periodically checks
for inefficient settings, and issues recommendations as standard product
warning messages in the log file and GUI console
Sample output:
Increasing the Web Container thread pool Maximum
Size to 48 might improve performance:
-Average number of threads: 48
-Configured maximum pool size: 2
This alert has been issued 1 time(s) in a row.
The threshold will be updated to reduce the
overhead of the analysis.
Tomcat and JBoss do not offer comparable capabilities

26. WebSphere Console Command Assistance
Automatic capture of administrative actions and generation of scripts to be replayed later
• While administrator
performs actions in the
admin GUI (start, stop,
deploy, create, etc.) all his
actions are automatically
written as Jython
command script for WAS
• This script can be
customized and executed
multiple times thus saving
time to create complex
administrative actions and
reducing the learning
curve
Tomcat and JBoss do not offer comparable capabilities

27. How do Red Hat customers really use JBoss AS in
production?
• Vast majority of JBoss customers are not using clustering
• Must tolerate lower quality of services ($$$)
and
• Most JBoss customers purchase 3rd party management tools, monitoring tools,
configuration management tools, performance profilers, etc.
• 3rd party tools require license and support payments ($$$)
• 3rd party tools are not always in synch with the desired version of JBoss ($$$)
• 3rd party vendor viability poses risks ($$$)
and
• Most JBoss customers invest significant staff time to build home grown
scripting frameworks for JBoss management (a combination of shell scripting
and generation of JBoss XML files using XSLT, Java or other template
mechanism)
• Cost to develop, debug, maintain such scripts can be significant ($$$)
• New versions of JBoss (major or minor) are not 100% backwards compatible,
causing significant rework of home grown scripts and tools ($$$)
• WAS ND provides all needed administrative tools out of the box at no
extra cost
”One minute of system downtime can cost an organization anywhere from
$2,500 to $10,000 per minute. Using that metric, even 99.9 data availability
can cost a company $5 million a year” - The Standish Group

28. IBM Garbage Collection and Memory Visualizer (GCMV)
GCMV provides analysis and views of your applications verbose gc output. GCMV uses
a powerful statistical analysis engine which provides tuning recommendations in these
areas:
• Memory Leak Detection
• Detect Java heap exhaustion and memory leaks
• Detect "native" (malloc) heap exhaustion and memory leaks
• Optimizing garbage collection performance
• Analyze output from different gc modes (optthruput, optavgpause, gencon, balanced )
• Compare output from multiple logs – side by side
• Determine gc overhead, detect long or frequent gc cycles and causes
• Recommend settings to avoid long or frequent gc cycles
• Recommend optimum gc policy
• Fine tuning of Java heap size
• Determine peak and average memory usage
• Recommend Java heap settings
• Flexible user interface makes it possible to carry out further analysis of the data and
to "drill down" into the causes of trends and export of data into .csv or jpeg
Oracle Java Mission Control (JMC) is free for development use only.
JMC does provide data visualization, but it does not make tuning recommendations, nor
does it compare various run results side by side. This is a major usability issue.

30. IBM WebSphere Performance Tuning Toolkit (PTT)
PTT is designed to help users tune the performance of WAS using statistical
technology. The toolkit collects performance data and consolidates it into a
multidimensional data cube.
• Find potential performance problems
• PTT shows detailed status of system with easily understood charts and forms. Users can
analyze the performance data from various perspectives.
• PTT helps to find an error as soon as it occurs - monitor the servlet errors, transaction
rollback, transaction timeout, JDBC connection timeout, thread hung, etc.
• Accelerate performance tuning process
• User can tune many servers in one step in a centralized view by running tuning scripts
within the workbench, download or upload performance related settings manually or via
script
• Health Check
• PTT can detect the performance decline and take actions automatically based on
predefined rules. Rule engine detects the abnormal symptoms according to user defined
rules (with ability to create and edit existing rules)
• Operations to facilitate problems determination
• PTT can generate thread dump and heap dump for the JVM, enable trace settings,
extract the connection pool contents
• Report engine
• Online and offline analysis and reporting (generate, export and print report)
Those using WebLogic, JBoss and Tomcat must spend considerably more effort finding
all the right tuning variables. In these products the monitoring data is scattered across
multiple locations in the Admin GUIs or worse – only available for custom JMX
programs

32. IBM Monitoring and Diagnostic Tools for Java - Health
Center
Health Center is a diagnostic tool for monitoring the status of a running JVM. It uses a
small amount of processor time and memory, and can open some log and trace files for
analysis:
• Monitoring a running Java application or recorded activity for offline analysis
• Very low performance overhead allows to connect to and monitor a live Java application
(or replay recorded activity), such as CPU, environment, IO, gc, locking, threads,
memory, method tracing with timings, etc.
• Save data from a monitored Java application, then reload the saved data later on, without
making a live connection. You can load data from multiple files by loading one file, then
appending more files.
• Viewing the data collected
• Displays the data collected using different views (graphical and tabular)
• Triggering dumps
• Trigger the JVM to generate System Dumps, Heap Dumps, and Java Dumps
• Troubleshooting
• The first step in troubleshooting is to view the log files that are produced by the Health
Center client and agent. Then read the information provided for some of the common
problems that you might encounter.
• Performance hints
• The Health Center agent has little effect on performance. You can improve the
performance of the Health Center client by reducing the amount of data collected or
displayed.
• You can use the Health Center API to write your own code for manipulating Health
Center data

34. Documentation –
order of magnitude difference in quality
InfoCenter – world class, up to date
Redbooks – unique and comprehensive
developerWorks - implementation tips
ISA – electronic support search tool
3rd party – sites, blogs, etc.
User forums – self help
JBoss docs – limited and inconsistent, lags in time
JBoss wikis – lots of old confusing info
User forums – no longer monitored by developers

35. WAS ND – Intelligent Management
Intelligent
Routing and SLA
Enforcement
Application
Edition
Management
Better TCO through management efficiency and performance, Intelligent
Management delivers the ability to sense and respond quickly to changes
Up to
45%
less hardware
Source: Based on 60+ Operations Optimization Value Assessments done to date by IBM for real customers
Cost reductions are compared to traditional WAS ND deployment
Server Health
Management
SLA based
Dynamic
Clustering
Up to
90%
fewer outages
Up to
60%
less administration
Up to
45%
less software
Part of WAS ND V8.5.0+ and WAS for z
Added Liberty Profile (assisted lifecycle subset) in V8.5.5.1

36. Dynamic clustering
IBM WAS ND 8.5.5 JBoss EAP 6.3
New node is added
to a cell
If node meets the dynamic selection criteria, it
is automatically added to the dynamic cluster
as potential host for the JVM
Static cluster member must be manually
defined for each participating node and
manually added to the static cluster.
Vertical stacking
(VS)
If VS is allowed, JVM process definitions are
automatically created for each node
Cluster members must be manually created
and port conflict resolution must be manually
done for each new JVM
Cluster isolation
Dynamic cluster can belong to different
isolation groups and conflicts are
automatically resolved
Manual work is required to prevent conflicts
between JVMs that must be isolated from
each other
Workload increase
If workload increases for the application, new
members of dynamic cluster are started to
accommodate such increased workload
Manual start of cluster members is required to
accommodate increase in workload
Workload decrease
When workload drops off, members of
dynamic clusters may be stopped if CPU or
memory are required for other workloads.
Lazy application start can be configured
Manual stop of instances is required to free up
resources for other workloads. Application
must always be up and running to accept
workload
Critical load and
resource shortage
When overall workload is greater than the
system can handle, service policies are
enforced such that more important
applications get priority over less important
ones and SLA policies for response times are
met. SLAs can be defined based on a rule set
based on URI, time, user properties, IP, etc.
No provision for prioritization of workload, no
SLAs for applications. Typical solution is to
create duplication by using dedicated hosts
(physical or virtual) for each workload, which
increases admin complexity, hardware and
software cost
Server properties
Server template can be updated and changes
are reflected on all members of dynamic
cluster automatically
Properties must be updated on each member
of the static cluster manually

37. Intelligent routing - ODR capability (part of WAS ND)
WASND F5 + JBoss
SLA enforcement: prioritizes requests based on capacity and conditions Yes No
Support of dynamic clusters of application servers based on service policies Yes No
Application edition-aware routing and continuous availability during updates Yes No
CPU and heap overload protection Yes No
Dynamically adjusts server weights based upon server's load Yes Yes
Performs HTTP session re-balancing Yes No
Reacts to server starts and stops without retries Yes No
Static file serving and in-memory and disk page caching Yes* No
Records server load for analytics and chargeback Yes No
* - WASND ships with (1) Proxy Server and (2) DMZ Secure Proxy and (3) IBM HTTP Server

38. Intelligent routing - ODR capability (part of WAS ND)
WASND F5 +
JBoss
Automatic session cookie configuration recognition Yes No
Health policies for application servers resulting in automatic corrective actions Yes No
Node maintenance mode for OS and middleware updates Yes No
Server maintenance mode for live application problem determination Yes No
Manageable via health policies Yes No
Automatically adjusts retry interval on connect failures Yes ?
Very quickly routes around slow or hung servers Yes ?
Custom logging Yes F5 - ?
Custom error page handling Yes F5 - ?
Rule expression and custom routing (IP addresses, form data, etc.) Yes ?
SSL termination Yes Yes
Compression Yes Yes

39. The history of Red Hat and JBoss messaging
JBoss
AS v3
2002 2006
JBossMQ
JBoss
AS v5
JBoss Messaging
2009
JBoss
AS 6
HornetQ
2013
JBoss
XQ
ActiveMQ
Red Hat MRG2008
Apache Qpid
* - New Red Hat “strategic” messaging is described to be
a REWRITE and a combination of “best ideas” from
Apache Qpid + Red Hat HornetQ + Apache ActiveMQ
2015 NEW* ?
?

40. Platforms Support – Important Factor for J2EE server
WAS WebLogic JBoss EAP
X86 Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5, 6, 7   
Asianux 3 
Ubuntu 12, 14 
Mac OS X 10.6, 10.7, 10.8 Liberty Dev.
SuSe Linux Enterprise Server 10, 11, 12  
Windows 2008, 2012, Vista, 7, 8   2008, 2012
Solaris 10, 11   
RISC Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5, 6, 7  7
SuSe Linux Enterprise Server 8, 9 
AIX 6, 7  
IBM i 6, 7 
HP-UX 11 (Itanium)  
Inspur K-UX (Itanium) 
Solaris 10, 11 (SPARC)   
z/Series Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5, 6, 7 
SuSE Linux Enterprise Server 8, 9 
z/OS 

41. Migration issues with JBoss
• Upgrade path for JBoss is manual
• Manually copy configuration files and applications to new installation
• Backwards compatibility broken between JBoss v4.x, v5, v6
• JBoss EAP v4, v5 and v6 releases have been disruptive and changed many
properties and configuration files, scripting commands, etc.
• Automated migration for WAS
• Migration tool provided as part of WAS installation media
• J2EE 1.4 version of DayTrader successfully migrated from WAS 6.1 to 7 using
migration tool
• Backwards compatibility maintained for two prior releases
These issues result in increased administration costs when using
JBoss because of lost productivity related to unnecessary software
development.

43. WebSphere Application Server Migration Toolkit
• No Charge plugins for Eclipse and RAD
Rule sets for multiple source / destination
combinations (e.g. WLS->WAS, etc.):
(a) The tool scans Java source code, JSP files
and deployment descriptors and identifies the
changes required (allows for Java upgrade also).
(b) The tool scans server configuration files
(looking for Datasources, servers, JMS settings,
etc.) and generates appropriate Liberty or WAS
configuration.
In most cases the toolkit is capable of making the
application changes itself. After the “scan” and
“conversion” are done the toolkit generates report
on the results of the migration and any manual
migration tasks (if required).
• Free migration RedBook and
developerWorks articles on migration
• No Charge Migration Assessment Workshop
for qualified customers
Now easier then ever before to migrate your applications to WebSphere Application Server
(1) Liberty Profile or (2) WAS
v7, v8, v8.5, v8.5.5
WebSphere Migration Toolkit
(Eclipse and RAD plugins)
WAS
5.1 – 8.x
WebLogic
Oracle
OC4J
(OAS)
Tomcat
IBM migration tools and offerings: http://whywebsphere.com/?s=migration
(a) Java, JSP source and DDs
(b) Server configuration objects
JBoss
new

44. WebSphere Application Server Migration Toolkit
The Migration tool in action…
Analysis Type
Rule Categories
Rule
Result Options
Rule Results
Analysis
History
Analysis Results
Help Contents

45. WebSphere Application Server Migration Toolkit
and Tomcat plus Liberty Technology Preview plugins
From
To
Liberty
Config
Migration
Liberty Application
Migration
WAS
Config
Migration
WAS
Application Migration
JBoss 4.X – 5.x 
Liberty 8.5.5 or
CloudFoundry /
Bluemix
Java EE5 and prior
versions 
Liberty 8.5.5 or
CloudFoundry / Bluemix
4.X – 5.x 
7.0 - 8.5.5
Java EE5 and prior
versions 
7.0 – 8.5.5
Tomcat 7.X 
Liberty 8.5.5
6.0 or 7.0 
Liberty 8.5.5 or
CloudFoundry / Bluemix
N/A 6.0 or 7.0 
7.0 - 8.5.5
WebLogic 6.X – 11.x 
Liberty 8.5.5 or
CloudFoundry /
Bluemix
Java EE5 and prior
versions 
Liberty 8.5.5 or
CloudFoundry / Bluemix
6.X – 11.x 
7.0 - 8.5.5
Java EE5 and prior
versions 
7.0 – 8.5.5
OAS N/A Java EE5 and prior
versions 
Liberty 8.5.5 or
CloudFoundry / Bluemix
N/A Java EE5 and prior
versions 
7.0 – 8.5.5
WAS N/A 7.0 - 8.5.5 
Liberty 8.5.5 or
CloudFoundry / Bluemix
N/A 5.1 – 8.x 
7.0 - 8.5.5
Java (JDK) N/A 1.4, 5.0, 6.0 
6.0 or 7.0
N/A 1.4, 5.0, 6.0 
6.0 or 7.0

46. Liberty
IBM
WAS
IBM
WAS ND
Tomcat
(free)
Pivotal tc
Server
JBoss
EAP
Java EE 7 beta sod sod 2015
Java EE 6
Java EE 6 Web Profile TomEE JSP/Servlet
JDK 1.6 and 1.7 3rd party ($) 3rd party ($) RHEL only
Messaging provider 3rd party ($) RabbitMQ
Transaction management and recovery 3rd party ($)
Admin GUI
Admin scripting and APIs
Secure audit of administrative actions
SLA enforcement and monitoring for requests beta
Dynamic clustering and auto-scaling *
Application versioning
Automated health management policies and actions
WW production support (local language, local hours)
Troubleshooting and problem determination tools 3rd party ($)
EJB and JMS clustering and failover
HTTPSession failover
Dynamic configuration updates (avoid restarts)
Performance
Lightweight runtime, small footprint
Simple configuration files
Private cloud IPAS IPAS IPAS OpenShift
Public cloud BlueMix IPAS IPAS OpenShift
Free sw included (WLM, HTTPD, LDAP, DBMS) 3rd party ($) 3rd party ($)
Platform certifications (OS, HW, DBMS, Adapters) 3rd party ($) subset of x86
Excellent
Good
Limited
Very limited
No support
($) –additional cost or unsupported OSS project*-NDversiononly
sod = statement of direction

47. =

48. Cloud support?
Standards support and
programming model?
Monitoring and
diagnostic tools?Management and
administration?
High availability
and reliability?Performance and scalability?
User and administrative
security?
Minimize License and support cost (TCA)?
OS and DB support?
Documentation
and best
practices?
PaaS?
Minimize TCO
Time to market?

49. Average cost of downtime per industry
Industry segment Cost per Hour
(Millions)
Energy $ 2.8
Telecommunications $ 2.1
Manufacturing $ 1.6
Financial $ 1.5
Information Technology $ 1.4
Insurance $ 1.2
Retail $ 1.1
Pharmaceuticals $ 1.1
Banking $ 1.0
Consumer Products $ 0.8
Chemicals $ 0.7
Transportation $ 0.7
Sources: ITG Value Proposition for Siebel Enterprise Applications, Business case for IBM System z & Robert Frances Group
&*^$#@ ???
Zzzzzzz….

50. <10%• Software license &
subscription costs1
• Hardware and networking costs
• Downtime costs (planned and unplanned)
• Upgrades cost
• SLA penalties
• Deployment cost
• Operational support cost (day to day operations)
• Performance costs
• Cost of selection of the vendor software
• Requirements analysis cost
• Developer, admin and end-user training cost
• Application design and development costs
• Cost of integration with other systems
• Quality, user acceptance and other testing costs
• Application enhancements and bug fixes cost
• Replacement costs
• Cost of other risks (including security breaches)
90%
(1) Source: http://bit.ly/1yH5oKZ

51. Free like in beer
•NO CHARGE WebSphere Developer Tools for Eclipse
•NO CHARGE WAS for Developers & Liberty Profile
Available at no charge for the developer desktop/laptop – free license +
free support for those who have production licenses, and optional fee
based support for those who don’t
•NO CHARGE production runtime – Liberty Core for ISVs
ISV’s customers can run the app on Liberty Core free of charge without
support
•NO CHARGE production – Liberty for up to 1GB on BlueMix
Liberty instance for test or production running non-stop
•NO CHARGE production runtime – Liberty for up to 2 GB
Any number of instances, so long as sum total Java heap is <=2GB
•NO CHARGE RAD with WAS Tools Editions
Additional 3% on the cost of WAS provide unlimited supported licenses of
RAD and WAS Developer Tools for Eclipse, which can be used in support
of the purchased production servers
•LIMITED TIME OFFER - 2-for-1 - for the next 6 months
Customer can use as many licenses of WAS or Liberty on the IBM
SoftLayer for no charge as they have licenses of WAS on-prem

52. Flexible licensing options to suit customer needs
• For applications that have uneven workloads over the year the cost of WAS could be
minimized by purchasing “pay as you go” licenses for peak periods
• JBoss, tc Server do not have socket, or per user pricing
• tc Server, WebLogic and JBoss do not have On-Demand per day pricing
• Example 1: Consider Black Friday or Cyber Money with peak workloads being 10x
over any other peak in the year. With WAS you could buy licenses for that one week
(using daily charge on Power for hardware and software)! This is like 90% sale on
WAS! You don’t get that with IBM competitors
• Example 2: Consider retail chain with 100s of locations. WAS user based license for
Liberty Core or Express can be orders of magnitude less than JBoss or tc Server
See additional notes about these pricing options here: http://whywebsphere.com/2013/09/26/software-costs
Core
(PVU)
Socket 20 users
Unlimited
license
1 hour
(cloud)
1 day
(Power)
1 month
(PVU)
1 month
(socket)
1 year
(PVU)
WAS Liberty Core 28.25$ n/a 709$ BYOL 25.50$ 1.18$ n/a 11.40$
WAS Express 28.25$ n/a 709$ BYOL 25.42$ 1.18$ n/a 11.40$
WAS Base 57.00$ 14,500$ n/a 0.53$ 51.09$ 2.38$ 604$ 22.80$
WAS ND 214.00$ n/a n/a 1.11$ 191.67$ 8.90$ n/a 88.25$
Pay as you go
Contact
IBM
Perpetual licenses

53. 48 53 58
72
58
43 38
48
62
96
384
144
Example of the use of monthly term license
Workload distribution example over calendar year (hypothetical)
Servers are 2 sockets, 12 cores each
Numberofcores
JBoss subscription licenses: 384=16*24
JBoss 5 year cost = $1.44M
WAS perpetual licenses: 8 sockets
WAS monthly licenses: 336
IBM 5 year cost = $283K

54. WAS license + support cost over 5 and 10 years is lower
And it gets better…
See additional notes about these pricing options here: http://whywebsphere.com/2013/09/26/software-costs
Without required components With LDAP, JDK and HTTP
5 years 10 years 5 years 10 years
WAS JBoss EAP WAS JBoss EAP WAS JBoss EAP WAS JBoss EAP
4 1 4 50 x86 $61,560 $90,000 $95,760 $180,000 $61,560 $211,875 $95,760 $423,750
4 1 6 50 x86 $78,300 $90,000 $121,800 $180,000 $78,300 $253,125 $121,800 $506,250
4 1 8 50 x86 $78,300 $135,000 $121,800 $270,000 $78,300 $335,625 $121,800 $671,250
4 1 12 50 x86 $78,300 $180,000 $121,800 $360,000 $78,300 $468,750 $121,800 $937,500
4 1 16 50 x86 $78,300 $270,000 $121,800 $540,000 $78,300 $637,500 $121,800 $1,275,000
4 2 4 70 x86 $156,600 $135,000 $243,600 $270,000 $156,600 $335,625 $243,600 $671,250
4 2 6 70 x86 $156,600 $180,000 $243,600 $360,000 $156,600 $468,750 $243,600 $937,500
4 2 8 70 x86 $156,600 $270,000 $243,600 $540,000 $156,600 $637,500 $243,600 $1,275,000
4 2 10 70 x86 $156,600 $315,000 $243,600 $630,000 $156,600 $766,875 $243,600 $1,533,750
4 2 12 70 x86 $156,600 $360,000 $243,600 $720,000 $156,600 $890,625 $243,600 $1,781,250
4 2 14 70 x86 $156,600 $450,000 $243,600 $900,000 $156,600 $1,102,500 $243,600 $2,205,000
4 2 16 70 x86 $156,600 $495,000 $243,600 $990,000 $156,600 $1,226,250 $243,600 $2,452,500
4 2 18 70 x86 $156,600 $540,000 $243,600 $1,080,000 $156,600 $1,359,375 $243,600 $2,718,750
4 4 6 100 x86 $313,200 $360,000 $487,200 $720,000 $313,200 $890,625 $487,200 $1,781,250
4 4 8 100 x86 $313,200 $495,000 $487,200 $990,000 $313,200 $1,226,250 $487,200 $2,452,500
4 4 10 100 x86 $313,200 $585,000 $487,200 $1,170,000 $313,200 $1,479,375 $487,200 $2,958,750
4 4 12 100 x86 $313,200 $720,000 $487,200 $1,440,000 $313,200 $1,781,250 $487,200 $3,562,500
4 4 14 100 x86 $313,200 $855,000 $487,200 $1,710,000 $313,200 $2,116,875 $487,200 $4,233,750
4 4 16 100 x86 $313,200 $945,000 $487,200 $1,890,000 $313,200 $2,370,000 $487,200 $4,740,000
4 4 18 100 x86 $313,200 $1,080,000 $487,200 $2,160,000 $313,200 $2,671,875 $487,200 $5,343,750
CPUtype
#ofphysicalservers
#socketsperserver
#corespersocket
IBMPVUrating

55. License cost comparison of additional components for
App Server
WAS WAS ND JBoss EAP
Management and monitoring Included Included Included (in “managed” bundles)
JON configuration DBMS n/a n/a $6,900 / CPU / year (PostgreSQL)
Hardware for the JON database n/a n/a ~ $15,000 + support (3rd party)
Load Balancer Extra $ Included ~ $20,000 / device + support (3rd party)
Dynamic content caching proxy Extra $ Included $2,500 / 16 cores / year (JBoss EWS)
Page fragment & POJO caching Included Included ~ $1,000 / server / year (3rd party)
HTTPSession persistence DBMS Included Included $6,900 / CPU / year (PostgreSQL)
LDAP Included Included $9,000 / server / year (3rd party)
JDK Included Included OpenJDK is supported on RHEL
$5,000 / core (Oracle JDK)
Troubleshooting tools Included Included $?,000 / year (3rd party)
HTTP Server Included Included $2,500 / 16 cores / year (JBoss EWS)
App Server Hardware $X $X $X + 30% (due to lower performance)
But wait, it gets better yet ! …

56. Support policy for IBM vs. Red Hat
• Production
• all cores in production must be licensed
• Development
• MQ, WAS for Developers (including Liberty), JBoss A-MQ, JBoss EAP are free
for development environment
• See details here
• Non-production
• WAS, MQ, JBoss A-MQ, JBoss EAP must be licensed for non-production
• See details here
• Number of support contacts
• IBM: unlimited
• Red Hat: depends on the number of cores licensed: 2 contacts up to 32 cores,
4 contacts up to 64 cores, etc. up to 12 contacts for 192 cores (more details)

57. Forrester case study 1: The Total Economic Impact To IBM
WAS Migrating From An Open Source Environment
 Case study of a US
Government Agency
 Migration of the JBoss
production system to
WebSphere Application
Server yielded 44% three-
year risk-adjusted ROI
with payback period of 2
years

58. Forrester case study 2: The Total Economic Impact of
IBM WebSphere Application Server
• Case study of a US based Fortune 100
company
• Migration of the JBoss production system
to WebSphere Application Server yielded
42% ROI and payback of 1.4 years
• Primary benefits of migration
• Improved administration
• Greater application performance
• Higher application availability
• Reduced support costs
• Improved development
productivity

59. Oracle software licensing does not permit soft partitioning
Logical/soft
partition with
WAS ND on
2 cores
Logical/soft
partition without
WAS on 6 cores
WebSphere AS ND is licensed for 2 cores
License & support cost for 5 years= $47,880
WebLogic Server Enterprise is licensed for 8 cores.
License & support cost for 5 years = $210,000
VMware image with
WebLogic Server
Enterprise on 2 cores
VMware images without
WebLogic on 6 cores
(one still must pay for
these)
You pay Oracle for all CPUs on a server vs. CPUs that are assigned to the logical VM.
Oracle does not allow the use of soft partitioning as a means to determine or limit the number
of software licenses required for any given server.
Read detailed analysis here: http://bit.ly/OiqR3F
Example:
Based on publicly available information as of 6/11/2012 comparing Oracle WebLogic Server Enterprise Edition to IBM WebSphere Application Server Network
Deployment. Both include maintenance and support for 5 years. IBM: 70 Processor Value Units per core, Oracle: 0.5 processor multiplier, both are on an x86 server,
2 sockets, quad core each.

60. Virtualization and server partitioning support4
1 - Oracle does not certify nor supports 3rd party software hypervisors
2 - Oracle charges up to full capacity of the servers, regardless of the number of cores used, except for some hardware partitioning modes and some configurations of the OracleVM and Solaris
3 - Turbocharged cores are not supported for pricing on Power7
4 - Read more details here: http://whywebsphere.com/2012/02/16/ibm-and-oracle-software-licensing-and-support-in-virtualized-private-cloud-environments/
5 – Not all configurations of OracleVM and Solaris Containers are supported for sub-capacity pricing
Support1 Sub-capacity pricing2
IBM Oracle IBM Oracle
VMware Yes No Yes No
IBM z/VM Yes No Yes No
IBM PR/SM Yes No Yes No
IBM PowerVM LPAR Yes Yes Yes Yes/No3
Xen Yes No Yes No
Red Hat KVM Yes No Yes No
Hyper-V Yes Yes Yes No
Xen Yes No Yes No
Oracle VM Yes Yes Yes Yes/No5
Solaris containers Yes Yes Yes Yes/No5

61. Oracle charges more for backup and disaster recovery
• Both IBM and Oracle charge for the
main cluster and hot backup
• Oracle charges full license cost for
“Warm” backup servers
• IBM does not
• Oracle charges full license cost for
“Cold” backup servers in DR setup
• IBM does not
• Oracle charges for “Cold” backup
when failover is > 10 days
• IBM does not
Main cluster Warm backup Cold backup Disaster
Recovery
$
No Charge
$ $ $
$
$
$
Hot backup
Example: x86 server, 2 sockets, 8 cores total
IBM
License +
support
Oracle
License +
support
Main cluster WAS ND $191,520 WLS EE $210,000
Hot backup WAS ND $191,520 WLS EE $210,000
Warm backup WAS ND $0 WLS EE $210,000
Cold backup* WAS ND $0 WLS EE $210,000
Disaster recovery WAS ND $0 WLS EE $210,000
Total 5 year cost $383,040 $1,050,000
* - failover to cold backup for more than 10 days in a year
No Charge No Charge
List prices are used for cost comparisons. Actual environmental costs and performance characteristics will vary depending on individual client configurations and conditions.

62. Example: x86 servers, no virtualization, no backup
IBM
cores
License +
support
Oracle
cores
License +
support
WebSphere Application Server ND 12 $287,280 Oracle WebLogic Server Enterprise Edition 12 $315,000
WebSphere Edge Cache (included) 4 $0 Oracle Web Cache (Oracle Web Tier) 4 $21,000
WebSphere Edge WLM (included) 4 $0 3rd party load balancer (hw based) 4 $42,000
DB2 UDB (included) 4 $0 Oracle DB Enterprise (for session replication) 4 $199,500
IBM HTTP Server (included) 8 $0 Oracle HTTP Server (Oracle Web Tier) 8 $42,000
Tivoli Directory (included) 4 $0 Oracle Directory Services 4 $46,200
$287,280 $665,700
WAS ND vs. WLS Enterprise pricing (5 years)
IP Sprayers Caching
Servers
HTTP
servers
JEE servers
LDAP
servers
Oracle: $cost
IBM: $0
Session DB
servers
IBM: $0 IBM: $0
IBM: $cost
IBM: $0
IBM: $0
Oracle: $cost
Oracle: $cost
Oracle: $cost
Oracle: $cost
Oracle: $cost
List prices are used for cost comparisons. Actual environmental costs and performance characteristics will vary depending on individual client configurations and conditions.

63. IBM
#ofcores
License +
support
Oracle
Hotcluster
Warmbackup
DR
Coldbackup
Virtualization
#ofcores
License +
support
WebSphere Application Server ND 16 $383,040 Oracle WebLogic Server Enterprise Edition 16 8 8 8 14 54 $1,417,500
WebSphere Edge Cache (included) 4 $0 Oracle Web Cache (Oracle Web Tier) 4 2 2 2 4 14 $73,500
WebSphere Edge WLM (included) 4 $0 3rd party load balancer (hw based) 4 2 2 8 $84,000
DB2 UDB (included) 4 $0 Oracle DB Enterprise (for session replication) 4 0 2 2 3 11 $548,625
IBM HTTP Server (included) 4 $0 Oracle HTTP Server (Oracle Web Tier) 4 2 2 2 4 14 $73,500
Tivoli Directory (included) 4 $0 Oracle Directory Services 4 2 2 2 4 14 $161,700
$383,040 $2,358,825
Example of multi-failover and redundancy highlights
compounding effect of Oracle license terms
• Compounding effect of all the license terms and conditions that Oracle
imposes on customers results in large software license and support costs1
• Higher license costs2, higher support costs, cost of warm backup, cold backup,
DR, no support for virtualization, lower performance per core3
$383K $2.3M
1 - the cost comparison is done over 5 years assuming x86 servers with 70 PVU core rating for IBM and 0.5 core factor for Oracle
2 - List prices are used for cost comparisons. Actual environmental costs and performance characteristics will vary depending on individual client configurations and conditions.
3 - performance metrics derived from SPECjEnterprise2010 – see following charts for details
Example of license + support costs over 5 years:

65. Notices and Disclaimers
Copyright © 2015 by International Business Machines Corporation (IBM). No part of this document may be reproduced or transmitted in any form without
written permission from IBM.
U.S. Government Users Restricted Rights - Use, duplication or disclosure restricted by GSA ADP Schedule Contract with IBM.
Information in these presentations (including information relating to products that have not yet been announced by IBM) has been reviewed for accuracy as
of the date of initial publication and could include unintentional technical or typographical errors. IBM shall have no responsibility to update this information.
THIS DOCUMENT IS DISTRIBUTED "AS IS" WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY, EITHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED. IN NO EVENT SHALL IBM BE LIABLE FOR
ANY DAMAGE ARISING FROM THE USE OF THIS INFORMATION, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, LOSS OF DATA, BUSINESS INTERRUPTION,
LOSS OF PROFIT OR LOSS OF OPPORTUNITY. IBM products and services are warranted according to the terms and conditions of the agreements under
which they are provided.
Any statements regarding IBM's future direction, intent or product plans are subject to change or withdrawal without notice.
Performance data contained herein was generally obtained in a controlled, isolated environments. Customer examples are presented as illustrations of how
those customers have used IBM products and the results they may have achie ved. Actual performance, cost, savings or other results in other operating
environments may vary.
References in this document to IBM products, programs, or services does not imply that IBM intends to make such products, programs or services available
in all countries in which IBM operates or does business.
Workshops, sessions and associated materials may have been prepared by independent session speakers, and do not necessarily reflect the views of IBM.
All materials and discussions are provided for informational purposes only, and are neither intended to, nor shall constitute legal or other guidance or advice
to any individual participant or their specific situation.
It is the customer’s responsibility to insure its own compliance with legal requirements and to obtain advice of competent legal counsel as to the identification
and interpretation of any relevant laws and regulatory requirements that may affect the customer’s business and any actions the customer may need to take
to comply with such laws. IBM does not provide legal advice or represent or warrant that its services or products will ensure that the customer is in
compliance with any law.
Information concerning non-IBM products was obtained from the suppliers of those products, their published announcements or other publicly available
sources. IBM has not tested those products in connection with this publication and cannot confirm the accuracy of performance, compatibility or any other
claims related to non-IBM products. Questions on the capabilities of non-IBM products should be addressed to the suppliers of those products. IBM does not
warrant the quality of any third-party products, or the ability of any such third-party products to interoperate with IBM’s products. IBM EXPRESSLY
DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY
AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
The provision of the information contained herein is not intended to, and does not, grant any right or license under any IBM patents, copyrights, trademarks
or other intellectual property right.
• IBM, the IBM logo, ibm.com, Bluemix, Blueworks Live, CICS, Clearcase, DOORS®, Enterprise Document Management System™, Global Business
Services ®, Global Technology Services ®, Information on Demand, ILOG, Maximo®, MQIntegrator®, MQSeries®, Netcool®, OMEGAMON,
OpenPower, PureAnalytics™, PureApplication®, pureCluster™, PureCoverage®, PureData®, PureExperience®, PureFlex®, pureQuery®, pureScale®,
PureSystems®, QRadar®, Rational®, Rhapsody®, SoDA, SPSS, StoredIQ, Tivoli®, Trusteer®, urban{code}®, Watson, WebSphere®, Worklight®, X-
Force® and System z® Z/OS, are trademarks of International Business Machines Corporation, registered in many jurisdictions worldwide. Other product
and service names might be trademarks of IBM or other companies. A current list of IBM trademarks is available on the Web at "Copyright and
trademark information" at: www.ibm.com/legal/copytrade.shtml.

66. Backup charts
66

67. 67
TCO study: WAS ND 8.5 vs. JBoss EAP v6
Conclusion: JBoss is 35% more expensive
over 5 years compared to WAS ND
Source: Based on the study by Prolifics, December 2012
TCO Category IBM Red Hat
RedHat as
% of IBM
Hardware $ 2,060,934 $ 3,114,308 151%
Training $ 84,375 $ 171,998 204%
Software License $ 2,623,920 $ - 0%
Software Support $ 2,008,815 $ 1,821,316 91%
Application Management $ 759,492 $ 2,570,500 338%
Infrastructure Management $ 1,533,834 $ 2,301,566 150%
Risk and Downtime $ - $ 2,268,548 n/a
Total $ 9,071,370 $ 12,248,235 135%

68. 68
WAS 8.0 WLS 12c
Oracle 10g, 11g  
Microsoft SQL 2005, 2008  
Sybase 15.x  
DB2 9.x  
DB2 for iSeries 5.x, 6.x 
DB2 for z/OS 8.x, 9.x 
IBM WS II Advanced 8.x, 9.x 
IBM Informix DS 11.x 
IMS 8, 9 on z/OS 
CICS 2.x, 3.x on z/OS 
Apache Derby 10.5 
PointBase 5 
MySQL 5 No XA
“Why do I care?”
IBM offers more choices and
allow to pick the right product for
the right job, which often can
reduce the cost of computing
Database certifications

69. 69
“ ”
Before… … and after
Invention of “Autopilot”Airplane controls circa 1940
Home grown wsadmin scripts or
“human eyes and hands”
WAS ND
Intelligent
Management

70. 70
Applications can be upgraded or downgraded without incurring
outages or requiring additional hardware and license costs
Validation
Mode
Rollout
Policies
Concurrent
Activation
Application Edition Management
 Upgrade Applications without interruption to end users
 Concurrently run multiple editions of an application
– Automatically route users to a specific application
 Multiple editions can be activated for extended periods of time
 Rollout policies to switch from one edition to another without service loss
 Easily update OS or WebSphere without incurring down time
 Easy-to-use edition control center in admin console
 Full scripting support
StockTrading 1.0
StockTrading 2.0
StockTrading 3.0

71. 71
Sense and respond to problems before end users suffer an outage
Comprehensive
Health Policies
Customizable
Health Conditions
Customizable
Health Actions
71
Health Management
 Automatically detect and handle application health problems
– Without requiring administrator time, expertise, or
intervention
 Intelligently handle health issues in a way that will maintain
continuous availability
 Each health policy consists of a condition, one or
more actions, and a target set of processes
 Includes health policies for common application problems
 Customizable health conditions and health actions

72. 72
Helps mitigate common health problems before outages occur
Health Conditions
• Excessive request timeouts: % of timed out requests
• Excessive response time: average response time
• Excessive garbage collection: % of time spent in GCs
• Excessive memory: % of maximum JVM heap size
• Age-based: amount of time server has been running
• Memory leak: JVM heap size after garbage collection
• Storm drain: significant drop in response time
• Workload: total number of requests
 Health policies can be defined for common
server health conditions
 When a health policy's condition is true,
corrective action execute automatically
or require approval
– Notify administrator (send email or SNMP trap)
– Capture diagnostics (generate heap dump, java core)
– Restart server
 Excessive response time means you are
monitoring what matters most: your customer's
experience!
 Application server restarts are done in a way that
prevent outages and service policy violations
 Each health policy can be in supervise or
automatic mode. Supervise mode is like training
wheels to allow you to verify that a health policy
does what you want before
making it automatic.
Health Management – Health Policies

73. 73
 Easily allows an administrator to specify the relative importance of
applications and optionally a response time goal. WebSphere then
manages your applications according to this policy.
– Service policies are used to
define application service level
goals
– Allow workloads to be classified,
prioritized and intelligently routed
– Enables application performance
monitoring
– Resource adjustments are made
if needed to consistently achieve
service policies
73
Service Policies define the relative importance
and response time goals of application services;
defined in terms the end user result the
customer wishes to achieve
What is a Service Policy?

74. 74
Dynamic Clustering
 A Dynamic Cluster is a virtual cluster of
servers (JVMs) hosting the application
that lives on group of nodes
 What is dynamic about a dynamic
cluster?
– App server definitions are dynamically
created or deleted based upon the node
membership policy (e.g. Servers are
created/deleted if a node is added to
/removed from a node group)
– App server definitions are automatically
updated when the server template
associated with the dynamic cluster
is updated
– App servers are started / stopped
based upon current application
demand & service policies

75. 75
Improves business results by ensuring priority is given
to business critical applications
Intelligent Routing
 Requests prioritized and routed based upon administrator defined rules
– Flexible policy-based routing and control
 On Demand Router (ODR) is the focal point for Intelligent Routing
 A routing tier that’s aware of what’s happening on the application
server tier
– Application server utilization, request performance, etc…
 Route work to the application server that can do it best
 Provide preference for higher priority requests
 Integrates with Health Management and Dynamic Clustering

76. 76
Caching with WebSphere DynaCache
 Patented IBM technology
– used in IBM HTTP Server, EdgeServer
and WebSphere Application Server
 WebSphere DynaCache
– fragments of pages (Servlet, JSP,
Portlet, POJO)
– Reduces both load and response time
– Rule-based, time-based, and
programmatic
– techniques for invalidating cache entries
– Can control external caches (WS Edge
Server)
 Performance gains with:
– Static Fragments (header JSPs,
navigation bars, etc.)
– Dynamic Fragments/Pages
• stock quotes, search results, ads, levels
of service
• personalized pages using shared
information (e.g. MyNews)
 Administrator controls how fragments are
cached
– Define rules based on Servlet, URI,
request/session variables, etc.

77. 77
Application Server(s)
Static
HTML
cache
Dynamic
Page
Fragment
Cache
Dynamic
Page
Fragment
Cache*
Dynamic
Page
Fragment
Cache
Web
services
cache
Web
services
cache
Static
HTML
cache
WebSphere dynamic caches and cache replication
Edge Server(s) HTTP Server(s)
Caching helps to reduce the amount of hardware and software
licenses and thus helps drive down costs

78. 78
Java Batch (now part of Java EE 7)
 Lower TCO: Concurrent execution of batch & online transaction processing (OLTP) workloads
using shared business logic on a shared infrastructure; Higher throughput and lower resource
consumption on z/OS when collocated with data subsystems
 Enhanced Developer Productivity: Pre-integrated
application framework, Java batch programming
model and tools to manage batch life cycle
 Automation & Admin: Container managed services
for checkpoint and restart capabilities in addition to
reliable, highly available, secure and scalable
infrastructure. Integrated administration of OLTP
applications and batch jobs
 Enterprise batch: Parallel batch and
integration with external job schedulers is provided
 Packaging utility: Utility to package batch application that can be deployed using JEE runtime
 Ease of Access & Use: Integrated with WAS V8
Quickly develop and deploy batch applications and reduce
infrastructure costs

79. 79
7
9
OSGi Applications
 Modular deployment and management: Separate common
libraries from application archives; manage them centrally and
across many versions, concurrently
 Standards Based DI Framework: POJO development model,
with a container that manages injection of configuration, and
controls activation & deactivation, integrated with the server
 In-place update: Update applications modules without restarting the
application
 Java Standards Layering: Java standards such as transaction,
security, & persistence can be mixed into the componentized apps
as services
 SCA Integration: Components can be decorated as SCA
components to provide coarse grain SOA services
 NEW in V8.5: Support added for EJB Bundles, including metadata-
driven publication of OSGi Services
webA.jar
WEB-INF/classes/servletA.class
WEB-INF/web.xml
META-INF/MANIFEST.MF
webA.jar
WEB-INF/classes/servletA.class
WEB-INF/web.xml
META-INF/MANIFEST.MF
webA.jar
WEB-INF/classes/servletA.class
WEB-INF/web.xml
META-INF/MANIFEST.MF
Bundle Repository
webA.jar
WEB-INF/classes/servA.class
WEB-INF/web.xml
META-INF/MANIFEST.MF
logging f/w jar
persistence f/w jar
MVC f/w jar
Speed development, increase ease of use and reuse through the
modularity, dynamism, and versioning capabilities of OSGi applied
to web & enterprise applications

80. 80
Capitalizing on Intelligent App Server Management
Base Application Server
• Programming Model
• QoS
• Security
•Administration
Server
Server
Server
Server
Server
Server
Server
Server
Job Manager
• Control multiple endpoints
• Remote management
• Loose Coupling
Network Deployment Cell
•Administration
•Clustering
•Workload Management
WebSphere
Application Server
Server Server
Server
Server
Server
Server
Server
Admin
Agent
Admin
Agent
Admin
Agent
Deployment
Mgr
Deployment
Mgr
Read more details here: http://smarterquestions.org/2012/01/comparison-of-automation-tools-for-large-scale-websphere-weblogic-and-jboss-topologies
Low cost administration of massive remote or local installations

81. 81