|
I have been reticent to pipe in on this discussion, because we resell MIMIX. A little history is in order. Lakeview (MIMIX), Vision and Data Mirror were the three primary firms to deliver replication functions before remote journaling (RJ) was introduced in V4R2. Besides capturing the information on the "source" system, they had to handle transporting it to the "target" system and then applying it. The transporting of the information from system "A" to system "B" was a big deal. Remote journaling was introduced in V4R2 in preparation for the introduction of Clustering in V4R4. If any vendor tries to tell you that it was introduced 'for them", this is not true. Both Itera and *NOMAX came along after remote journaling. The first three vendors also adopted it. In 99.9% of the time, RJ is a superior solution. Primarily because it is "self healing". That is to say that if the connection between the two system fails for whatever reason (communications line fails, power, remote system itself fails), RJ puts itself back in synch. This is huge. Not by making a totally new copy, but by incrementally making whatever changes got missed. Even IBM's cross site mirroring through IASPs (not my favorite topic) does not do that, it creates a whole new copy. Consequently, RJ is typically considerably faster. The advantage that both Itera and *NOMAX got was that IBM delivered the transportation mechanism essentially "free" to them through RJ. The first three vendors got onto that bandwagon because it was a better solution. (Faster, automatic, supported by IBM, not them). MIMIX in their "heavy" or full blown version offers some features that none of the other vendors do: Yes, it includes using their own transportation system, as opposed to RJ, which is a so what. RJ is almost always superior. They allow replication by key. That it to say if you want a system on the east coast with all of the east coast data, another system on the west coast with their local data, and then a consolidation system in Chicago with all of it you can. This is something that most customers do not want. They offer bidirectional replication. Process data on each system and transport it back from both system "A" to system "B", and vice-versa simultaneously on the same files. (This is not free with the full version of the package, you need to pay them to write software to avoid and handle data collisions.) This is all neat stuff, but if you don't need it, don't pay for it, and get Lakeview's lite version of the product, which is priced competitively with their new competitors. SOAPBOX(*ON) Lakeview offers something that none of their competitors offers. Their product is developed in Rochester. Many of the Lakeview developers worked for IBM. They know the internals of the system, but moreover they know the people that write the software personally. When their is a problem, besides having their own access to support, they have a personal relationship with many of the developers. This is a huge competitive advantage that no one else in this marketplace can match. We have experienced situations when journaling failed, the customer perceived that it was the replication partner's fault. In situations like this, Lakeview can respond much more crisply. SOAPBOX(*OFF) Al Al Barsa, Jr. Barsa Consulting Group, LLC 400>390 "i" comes before "p", "x" and "z" e gads Our system's had more names than Elizabeth Taylor! 914-251-1234 914-251-9406 fax http://www.barsaconsulting.com http://www.taatool.com http://www.as400connection.com Jan Megannon <jan@xxxxxxxxxxxx > To Sent by: Midrange Systems Technical midrange-l-bounce Discussion s@xxxxxxxxxxxx <midrange-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx> cc 02/13/2006 09:25 Subject AM Re: MIMIX/TURNOVER Please respond to Midrange Systems Technical Discussion <midrange-l@midra nge.com> Has anyone looked at *noMAX? They also have a brilliant product. Can do replication between libraries, between partitions or between systems. Redirection is also there. Their management interfaces and admin interfaces are excellent. Manage on exception. They have an on-line demo and excellent support. Note: I am neither a vendor nor a BP of theirs. Jan Megannon. rob@xxxxxxxxx wrote: > Guy's shop sounds somewhat similar. You know, I need an extra half hour a > day's work like my puppy needs pants. iTera (a competitor of Mimix) > claims to not have so much manual labor, or stuff that quits replicating. > Their price is better than full blown Mimix. Hence why Mimix came out > with Mimix Lite. iTera can quote numerous customers that have switched to > them (granted, I suspect a bulk of them were from full blown Mimix because > of the maintenance bill). Try and get Mimix to quote one customer that > switched from iTera to them. We're strongly looking at a HA solution this > year. And it's between the two of them. The BP has put the full court > press on to get the boss to lean towards Mimix. > > Rob Berendt -- This is the Midrange Systems Technical Discussion (MIDRANGE-L) mailing list To post a message email: MIDRANGE-L@xxxxxxxxxxxx To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options, visit: http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/midrange-l or email: MIDRANGE-L-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives at http://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l.
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2024 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact [javascript protected email address].
Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.
midrange.com
