Re: SQL Server: 99.9 percent uptime guaranteed !?

The issue of NT stability is real but it is overblown.  There are plenty of
NT customers who have servers with very nice uptime numbers.  You have to
realize what the makeup of those NT downtime numbers to get an appreciation
for the issues.  NT instability (as well as any other system) comes from a
number of factors:

1.) Device drivers, device issues.  These are not directly the fault of NT
but they have a major impact.  Why do you think you will never see (at
least for a while) off-the-shelf hardware under the covers of an AS/400?
Why can the IPCS potentially provide a more stable NT environment than an
outboard server?  Control of the hardware and the interfaces.  This is a
classic example of live by the sword, die by the sword.  The AS/400 has
expensive components.  But very rarely does a hardware hiccup cause the
whole system to go belly-up.  An NT server has inexpensive components but
these are a source for system down time.  If a vendor provides a system
that more has control over these components......or if the driver/hardware
market stabilizes and provides better quality.  The results are somewhat
predictable.

2.) Multiple applications.  Run one application on a NT server you will
most likely get great results.  Run two.  Maybe the same.  Run 23?  These
applications will walk all over one another and possibly cause you
problems.  What's the best way to clear an application or system problem in
an NT environment?  What's the best way to clear a problem on an AS/400?
Normally they are different solutions aren't they?  Another example of
dying with what you live by.  Architecturally, NT is intended to be a
multiple server solution and it can do this quite well.  Architecturally,
the AS/400 is intended to be a single server solution.

3.) OS maturity.  NT 3.0 was, from a stabilty perspective, an absolute joke
if not criminal.  NT 4.0 cleaned a lot of that up.  Rember the early days
of V3R1?  We maintained uptime numbers of 100% during those days.  Why?  We
stayed at V2R3 for almost 6 months longer than planned.  That's why NT 5.0,
2000, NM(next millenium), or whatever it's called with it's 35 million
lines of code are being constantly delayed.  Well, one of the reasons any
way.

4.) Customer practices.  It's amazing how many people nickel and dime
themselves in the PC server commodity market.  Disk controller decisions
decided by tens of dollars?  Unprotected disk farms to save a couple of
hundred?  This card just came to market yesterday and I'm installing it
into my production server this weekend?  Some of those customers who have
abysmal stablity are sleeping in the bed they made.

5.) etc.

The AS/400 has world class uptime numbers.  Actually, they have the best
single server numbers (beating Tandem) in the real world.  Can NT compete
against these?  Can you get 99.9 in a single server environment?  You bet.
If you want the best uptime the AS/400 will most likely always provide it.

BTW, if I extend my systems numbers over the years uptime exceeds 99.99%
and many of the systems have 100%.

There are plenty of other issues and factors to consider when selecting a
server and OS.  It all depends on your requirements, beliefs, and bias.
Just be careful when throwing around FUD (fear, uncertainty, doubt) against
NT=CP (NT = computing paradise).  They both can have irrational tenet's.
Although I believe the NT=CP is massively ahead of the game and deserves
every inch of FUD....:-)

Sorry if this comes across as rah-rah for the AS/400 - I happen to be an
AS/400 advocate.




boothm@ibm.net on 12/04/98 09:44:18 PM

Please respond to MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com

To:   MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com
cc:    (bcc: Mike Crump/IS/Ball-Foster)

Subject:  Re: SQL Server: 99.9 percent uptime guaranteed !?




Just guesssing here, but I'd guess the AS/400 advantage then would be
price.

By the time the other package was delivered and running with the specs you
suggest the cost would no longer be drastically lower.


In <8204430704121998/A41811/TIMONE/11CC21EB0400*@MHS>, on 12/04/98
   at 02:43 AM, Don Schenck <schencd%AM_LZCH%VASELL@mr.mops.wl.com> said:


>I found it interesting. Consider this: WHAT IF (a BIG "what if", but
>"what if" nonetheless) ... WHAT IF a combination of NT Server and a
>relatively inexpensive server DID -- in fact -- give the same uptime as
>an AS/400? What would THEN be the argument IN FAVOR of the AS/400??

>Peace,

>-- Don Schenck
>www.SchenckTech.com

--
-----------------------------------------------------------
boothm@ibm.net
Booth Martin
-----------------------------------------------------------

+---
| This is the Midrange System Mailing List!
| To submit a new message, send your mail to MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com.
| To subscribe to this list send email to MIDRANGE-L-SUB@midrange.com.
| To unsubscribe from this list send email to
MIDRANGE-L-UNSUB@midrange.com.
| Questions should be directed to the list owner/operator:
david@midrange.com
+---






+---
| This is the Midrange System Mailing List!
| To submit a new message, send your mail to MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com.
| To subscribe to this list send email to MIDRANGE-L-SUB@midrange.com.
| To unsubscribe from this list send email to MIDRANGE-L-UNSUB@midrange.com.
| Questions should be directed to the list owner/operator: david@midrange.com
+---