Re: Interesting Assertions on W2K Stability

Joe,
Why not learn W2K and SQL Server as well as keep your existing OS/400 and
dev skillset -a W2K box may be better for a customer under certain
circumstances.
If one IBM cans the AS/400 or if MS splits you have hedged your bets.

cheers Dave:)



----- Original Message -----
From: "Joe Pluta" <joepluta@PlutaBrothers.com>
To: <midrange-l@midrange.com>
Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2001 8:47 AM
Subject: Interesting Assertions on W2K Stability


> > Maybe 99.99%, that would be almost an hour. That I'd buy. Of course I
have
> > no problem getting that from a cluster of W2K machines either.
>
> I suppose you're right, especially if you have the expertise.  It should
be
> no problem keeping your down time to under an hour if you know how to
> administer the machine.  Like, say, Microsoft should.
>
> Oh wait.  How many times was MSN down this year?  For how long?  They may
> have managed 90% uptime (that'd be 88 hours downtime), but not 99%, and
> certainly not 99.99%.  I go by what I see, and it I haven't seen that
> clustered MS servers are particularly reliable.
>
> And if your argument is that Microsoft is not running W2K clusters
(because
> I have no idea what MS is running - other than the work they outsource to
> AS/400's), then my question is "Why not?".
>
> Joe
>
> _______________________________________________
> This is the Midrange Systems Technical Discussion (MIDRANGE-L) mailing
list
> To post a message email: MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options,
> visit: http://lists.midrange.com/cgi-bin/listinfo/midrange-l
> or email: MIDRANGE-L-request@midrange.com
> Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives
> at http://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l.
>