NT vs AS400

[Portal39@xxxxxxx]

Long  thread  million different  replies and views. 

With such great love/hate differences -huge  deltas- 
one  wonders how much is truth, 
how much is emotions, 
how much is comfort zone talk, 
or  just BS and Opinion. 

From: "Walden H. Leverich" <WaldenL@TechSoftInc.com> 
To: "'MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com'" <MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com> 
Subject: RE: NT vs AS/400 
Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2001 10:24:35 -0400 
MIME-Version: 1.0 
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) 
Content-Type: text/plain; 
        charset="iso-8859-1" 
Sender: owner-midrange-l@midrange.com 
Reply-To: MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com 
X-List-Name: Midrange Systems Mailing List (MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com) 

OK, time to enter the fray...

For the most part I don't buy the additional people argument. In all
likelihood you already have PCs in your environment. Once you have PCs,
additional PCs are a nit. Also, earlier in this thread it was suggested that
you could run W2K on a iSeries. Bullsh*t! You can run W2K on a PC (xSeries?)
stuck in an iSeries, but guess what, that is still a PC! You'll still need
the PC folk to manage it. Do you think you can manage Active Directory and
group policies from a green screen?

As for reIPLs... Let's assume, arguendo, that you do need to reboot W2K
boxes more often. So what. If I have one AS/400 and I have to reIPL it
(crash, PTFs, OS Upgrades, hardware upgrades, etc.) I'm dead in the water.
However, if I have a farm of x W2K boxes and I have to reboot one, so what.
I have x-1 others to handle the load -- from the users point of view that is
ZERO downtime.

Finally, as to the connection time, IBM needs to fix the job initiation
overhead of connecting to the as/400 as a DB server from ODBC/OLEDB. I can
get into SQLServer, run a quick query and get back out in the time it takes
the AS/400 to authenticate the connection. I don't care how fast an AS/400
you put in the picture as long as you allow me to put an equivalent
SQLServer in the equation. Job initiation (even w/prestarts) is just to
heavy on the as/400. This has never historically been a problem since the
"typical" user logged on in the morning, did stuff all day, and logged of at
the end of the day. However, in the stateless world of the web connections
are made and dropped all day long. 

-Walden

-----Original Message-----
From: End of the Trail [mailto:endofthetrail@skyenet.net]
Sent: Friday, June 01, 2001 7:52 AM
To: MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com
Subject: Re: NT vs AS/400


Now let talk cost and reliablity.  How cost do you bounce your server and
often does the 400 need to be ReIPL?  How much did you have to add to your
staff when PC's were added?

-----Original Message-----
From: David Bulog <d2ba@xtra.co.nz>
To: MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com <MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com>
Date: Friday, June 01, 2001 5:53 AM
Subject: Re: NT vs AS/400


>My Compaq Proliant Server quad PPRO 200mhz,512 meg ram
>Windows2000 AS, SQL Server 2000 leaves my AS/400 Model500,2625 Ethernet
Card
>V3R7 128meg ram in the dust for database connections over TCP/IP
>
>Dave Bulog
>MCP
>----- Original Message -----
>From: Chuck Lewis <clewis@iquest.net>
>To: <MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com>
>Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2001 12:13 PM
>Subject: Re: NT vs AS/400
>
>
>> THAT's what I was looking for John, thanks :-)
>>
>> Chuck
>>
>> I think that may be
>http://www-1.ibm.com/servers/eserver/iseries/conslt/dhb.htm
>>
>> It's a  "b"   not a "d"     on the end.
>>
>> John Carr
>>
>> +---