Re: iSeries Disk Pricing

["Paul Raulerson" <praulerson@xxxxxxxxxx>]

If it is IDE, I believe it. If it is Ultra-Wide SCSI-3, I doubt it. Real 
seriously.
The IBM drives I references are perhaps 2X the price of the drives on the open 
market.
But they also come with that nice 3 year 4hour 7X24 warranty too...

----- Original Message -----
From: "Don" <dr2@cssas400.com>
To: <midrange-l@midrange.com>
Sent: Wednesday, May 01, 2002 8:08 AM
Subject: Re: iSeries Disk Pricing


>
>
> I just picked up a 120gig drive for my server for just over $230....oh
> well...
>
> ------
>
> On Wed, 1 May 2002, Paul Raulerson wrote:
>
> > The AIX disks are not that much cheaper, if at all. I just paid IBM over 
>$1200 for
> > 18g drives in a  B50 AIX box.
> >
> > -Paul
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Larry Bolhuis" <lbolhuis@arbsol.com>
> > To: <midrange-l@midrange.com>
> > Sent: Wednesday, May 01, 2002 6:23 AM
> > Subject: Re: iSeries Disk Pricing
> >
> >
> > > Andy,
> > >
> > >    IMHO You are spot on. Of all my customers I can't even think of 2 that
> > > use 17G drives for the exact reason you specify - Arm Count.  We deal 
>almost
> > > exclusively in the 270-820 space and those machines just don't normally
> > > house databases large enough to be able to utilize 17G drives.  I was very
> > > sorry to see that IBM ignored the 8G units in this pricing action. If you
> > > consider that the 8G drives ALSO require twice the cage space, twice the
> > > controllers, and double the maintenance dollars for the same capacity they
> > > are a much MORE than double the cost of 17G units.  This all makes it more
> > > difficult to compete against the average Wintel and Lintel solutions 
>because
> > > there disks are SOO much cheaper.
> > >
> > >    My fear at the end of the year when 8G units go away is that we'll 
>sell a
> > > customer a system with enough arms that the capacity yield will have them
> > > set for years! This may even hamper the ability to sell upgrades.
> > >
> > >    My .02
> > >
> > >      - Larry
> > >
> > > Andy Nolen-Parkhouse wrote:
> > >
> > > > Friends,
> > > >
> > > > While it is good news that IBM is significantly reducing the price of
> > > > their disk drives, for many workloads there may well be no change.  This
> > > > announcement prices the 17 GB drives at exactly the old price of the 8
> > > > GB drives ($1,400).  For those who require raw capacity, this represents
> > > > a significant savings.
> > > >
> > > > For those of us who have routinely sized DB2-based transaction systems,
> > > > frequently we end up configuring excess storage capacity in order to
> > > > obtain an appropriate number of disk arms to ensure adequate
> > > > performance.  This general rule applied for me in most systems using 8
> > > > GB drives.  I needed the arms more than the capacity.  Because the 17 GB
> > > > drives seem to have roughly the same rotational speed and seek times as
> > > > the 8 GB drives, it stands to reason that a number of systems will
> > > > require exactly the same number of drives at exactly the same price.
> > > > There will be a significant increase in the amount of excess storage
> > > > using the 17 GB drives, but the end result could well be no cost
> > > > reduction.
> > > >
> > > > I'd welcome comment on this, but I think my reasoning is sound.  Some
> > > > systems would be better served by reducing the cost of 8 GB drives
> > > > rather than discontinuing them.
> > > >
> > > > I would prefer to be wrong because I'm trying to focus on the good news
> > > > of the announcement, and there is a lot.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Larry Bolhuis           | IBM Certified Solutions Expert
> > > Vice President          |     iSeries Technology V5 R1
> > > Arbor Solutions, Inc.   |     e-business for AS/400 V4 R2
> > > (616) 451-2500          | IBM Certified Specialist  AS/400
> > > (616) 451-2571 -fax     |     RPG IV Developer
> > > lbolhuis@arbsol.com     |     System Administrator for OS/400 V4 R4
> > > www.arbsol.com          |     Professional Network Administrator
> > >                          |       Network/Multiple Systems
> > >                          |     Client Access
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > 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-L-request@midrange.com
> > > Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives
> > > at http://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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-L-request@midrange.com
> > Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives
> > at http://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l.
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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-L-request@midrange.com
> Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives
> at http://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l.
>
>