RE: Bare-bones high-availability system

>From: Jan Megannon [mailto:jmegannon@intekom.co.za] 
>Am I explaining myself correctly?

If I understand you're saying to buy your primary machine as an enterprise
machine with the needed batch and interactive power then buy a second
"standard" machine w the necessary batch, but no (paid for) interactive.
Then, should you need the DR power, you enable the interactive, (much like
CUD) and pay for the power as you need it. Right?

>As far as I can see, IBM should not lose
Sure they would. Those that are now paying for a "full" system for their DR
boxes are going to spend a lot less and those that don't have DR boxes now
are unlikely to buy them anyway.

-Walden

------------
Walden H Leverich III
President
Tech Software
(516) 627-3800 x11
(208) 692-3308 eFax
WaldenL@TechSoftInc.com
http://www.TechSoftInc.com 

Quiquid latine dictum sit altum viditur.
(Whatever is said in Latin seems profound.)
 

-----Original Message-----
From: Jan Megannon [mailto:jmegannon@intekom.co.za] 
Sent: Monday, January 27, 2003 5:38 PM
To: Midrange Systems Technical Discussion
Subject: Bare-bones high-availability system


Hi,

With the announcement of the new systems and the way they are packaged, 
is there a way of configuring the following? Or may it just be 
considered a 'nice-to-have'?

The Standard Edition comes with zero interactive (but enough to run a 
console)
The Enterprise Edition, on certain models, comes with dormant processors 
for CUoD.

It would be quite nifty to be able to purchase a machine for 
high-availability with a product such as *noMAX (or MIMIX, Vision or 
Data Mirror). This would be a Standard Edition machine. The replication 
occurs in batch.

The system will have been configured with sufficient interactive 
processors, which will also be dormant. These will then be activated in 
the case of a disaster, as this will be when you require interactive 
power on the DR system, serving as CUoD processors.

Is there a place for such an animal? Am I explaining myself correctly? 
As far as I can see, IBM should not lose: they will move some more 
machines and have the maintenance on these in any case.

What do the genii think?

Cheers.

Jan.

_______________________________________________
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/mailman/listinfo.cgi/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.