I agree, once again. I just favor a 2-tier as opposed to a 3-tier. Doesn't seem to be that much of a difference, in a way. (Only a 150% increase in tiers...;-) But each added tier, in my blue-sky estimate, quadruples problems and increases admin/support costs "x" dollars. My preference would be a 1-tier system, but I don't see OS/400 on the desktop, anytime soon... I would also agree that "there will be a higher rather than lower percentage of 400's being used as pure server machines (as opposed to all-in-one processors) as time goes on, and this, in my mind, is the best use of the machine." But I think this is a trend that has been going on, for a while, as green-screen customers leave the platform, Domino and pure Webserver customers join the ranks. I don't know whether there are many, if any, *new* green-screen accounts coming to OS/400 (but am doubtful). One reason I'd like to see some e3000 customers get converted to iSeries. But as far as security, I'm just not sure the 400 can maintain a level of security and, at the same time, provide unattended access to secured data. jt | -----Original Message----- | From: firstname.lastname@example.org | [mailto:email@example.com]On Behalf Of Joe Pluta | Sent: Saturday, December 15, 2001 10:39 PM | To: firstname.lastname@example.org | Subject: RE: Re:Where are all of the /400's going. | | | > From: jt | > | > But these days, especially in the area of a pure | > batch processing, CPW is A WHOLE LOT cheaper than it was when n-tier was | > accepted as the CW... | | And that's my point. In fact, that's always been the point. Let | a machine | do whatever it is the machine is best at. The 400 is best at database | processing. The workstation is best at UI. Let them each do | what they are | best at. Separate the layers of your application so that each can be | deployed where the best fit is. This is why I think interconnectivity is | the key to future application design. | | You know, both the AS/400 and the workstation are already n-tier machines. | The AS/400 has a multitude of subprocessors (which is the reason it runs | rings around other servers). But even your workstation uses a distributed | architecture. Your graphics card has an onboard chip is basically another | CPU. Your network card has a processor, so does your SCSI interface. | | The idea of using each machine to its best potential is hardly | new, and the | trend is increasing. I may be totally offbase here, but I am willing to | wager that there will be a higher rather than lower percentage of 400's | being used as pure server machines (as opposed to all-in-one | processors) as | time goes on, and this, in my mind, is the best use of the machine. | | Joe Pluta | www.plutabrothers.com | | _______________________________________________ | 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-Lemail@example.com | 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.
Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.