> jt: >I didn't intend to imply that Unix is MORE capable or better suited to >parallel processing. Just that it's more widely implemented on the box. I've implemented a fair number of large and small Unix-based business applications and I just don't see it. Maybe this type of multi-stream technology is out there in the scientific community, but it's definitely not there for our segment of the market. Technology such as Oracle Parallel Query can only do so much, and I don't see the business world using Unix systems as a parallel processing powerhouse. Not to the degree that one can really say "That's one area the *nix (and maybe PASE?) just kicks the crap out of OS/400". As a large retailer one of our persistent business concerns is concurrency because of our high volumes of transactional data. With every app we implement, Unix, NT, or AS/400, we find that parallel processing is not built in to the software or inherently a part of the underlying technology. Modifications to facilitate multiple streams of data loads, or to concurrently handle a single process have required major architecture changes from the database and up. I would say that the iSeries and Unix have similar capabilities for parallel processing, and similar pitfalls and limitations. Most of the work that I see on either platform equates to greater numbers of concurrent user connections or reduced contention among concurrent single-stream batch jobs. -Jim James P. Damato Manager - Technical Administration Dollar General Corporation <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org>
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.