RE: 100% uptime (was iSeries vs. Unix et al)

Sorry, that was way old.  I meant to delete it, not send it :-)

Scott  

-----Original Message-----
date: Fri, 28 Jul 2006 11:24:22 -0500
from: "Ingvaldson, Scott" <SIngvaldson@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
subject: 100% uptime (was iSeries vs. Unix et al)

We currently have a sign posted on the Data Center door that reads
"Number of days since last unscheduled IPL - 102, Previous Record 307"
This sign refers to our Sysplexed 390 Mainframe.  We have an Unscheduled
System Outage email that is supposed to be sent out with every outage
that affects any user.  I see an average of at least one of these a day
from the Network group, Proxy, E-mail, firewall, etc.  Usually there is
not even an attempt at PD, it states that the system was blue-screened
or locked up and a reboot fixed it.

I have had to send out exactly one of these notices, due to one user who
was unable to receive a request through MQ series(on a Saturday,) this
scheduled outage had been communicated to the user's manager who did not
forward it to his group.

I have been with my current company about four years, during which the
only AS/400 downtime was due to an IPL that would not complete due to a
bad PTF that was set to apply.  We were able to IPL to the A side and
run normally until the next weekend when we scheduled an IPL to fix the
problem.

I have been fighting anti-iSeries attitudes the whole time that I've
worked here, but I'm finally making some headway.  For the last two
years the plan was to migrate out Content Manager application to our
mainframe, but it was finally decided (as we rolled out CM to a new
group of users) that the MF licensing costs were just too high.  Not to
mention that our MF is stressed now and an upgrade would put it into a
higher tier, meaning higher costs for all software on the system.
Meanwhile we were able to consolidate a 620(P30) and a 720(P20) into one
new 810(P10)  You should have seen the looks on mgmt faces when they
found that we could "upgrade" to a system with lower maintenance costs.

-----Original Message-----
From: Nathan M. Andelin [mailto:nandelin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Monday, August 04, 2003 1:33 PM
To: midrange-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: iSeries vs. Unix vs. SQL Server vs. Oracle
 
Multiple iSeries boxes?  Why not use just one?  Is 100% uptime, backed
by failover support a requirement?

I'd suggest that running one iSeries server in most cases is cheaper and
more reliable than running two clustered SQL Servers.  And if I
understand clustering correctly, the secondary server remains inactive
until the primary fails, so it does nothing for performance or
scalability.

Nathan M. Andelin
www.relational-data.com
--
 


DISCLAIMER:
This message and accompanying documents are covered by the Electronic 
Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510-2521, and contains information 
intended for the specified individual(s) only. This information is 
confidential. If you are not the intended recipient or an agent responsible for 
delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have 
received this document in error and that any review, dissemination, copying, or 
the taking of any action based on the contents of this information is strictly 
prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us 
immediately by e-mail, and delete the original message.