Re: iSeries Disk Pricing

Yes, DB2/400 users need the disk arms. But, as far as I can see, IBM is also
trying to market the iSeries as a File Server for networks. One thing file
servers need is a large disk capacity. PC file servers all seem to have a small
number of high capacity disks, obviously the need for disk arms is less
important.

As far as my customers are concerned, using the iSeries as a file server is a
waste of expensive iSeries resources, when a PC file server with lots of GB can
do the job much more cheaply. They even reply to my concerns about reliability,
etc. with "We will buy 2 PC files file servers, If one breaks down, we will
plug in the other one. It's still the cheaper option"

An iSeries with lots of GB is a very expensive box, IMHO I think IBM is trying
to redress this imbalance.

Small businesses like mine find it very difficult to buy iSeries systems. Many
small businesses won't buy iSeries because of the price tag, it is cheaper to
install a small Windows network.  Any reduction in price is most welcome.

Somewhere, there needs to be a happy medium. A relatively inexpensive iSeries,
with high DASD capacity, but still enough disk arms to satisfy the needs of
OS/400 applications. Perhaps, there is a case for have two types of disk on the
iSeries - Low capacity, high number of arms for OS/400 applications, High
capacity, low number of arms for file serving. Perhaps this could be achieved
using user ASPs and few changes to OS/400 to allow IFS objects in a user ASP.

I agree with the point that if the client only uses OS/400 applications then
the extra sorage capacity will reduce the need to future upgrades. From the
client's point of view this is a good thing, from the BP's point of view it
isn't, it could mean reduced revenue. Perhaps the way to deal with this is to
push the iSeries as more than just a machine for running OS/400 apps, stressing
its capabilities as a file server, internet server, web server, domino server,
etc.

Syd Nicholson



Larry Bolhuis wrote:

> Andy,
>
>    IMHO You are spot on. Of all my customers I can't even think of 2 that
> use 17G drives for the exact reason you specify - Arm Count.  We deal almost
> exclusively in the 270-820 space and those machines just don't normally
> house databases large enough to be able to utilize 17G drives.  I was very
> sorry to see that IBM ignored the 8G units in this pricing action. If you
> consider that the 8G drives ALSO require twice the cage space, twice the
> controllers, and double the maintenance dollars for the same capacity they
> are a much MORE than double the cost of 17G units.  This all makes it more
> difficult to compete against the average Wintel and Lintel solutions because
> there disks are SOO much cheaper.
>
>    My fear at the end of the year when 8G units go away is that we'll sell a
> customer a system with enough arms that the capacity yield will have them
> set for years! This may even hamper the ability to sell upgrades.
>
>    My .02
>
>      - Larry
>