RE: subject: iSeries Legends

On Wed, 25 Jun 2003, Joe Pluta wrote:

> > A lot more that three, however they are not that expensive. How
> > much do you
> > think an iSeries w/512GGB of memory and 58 Terabyes of storage
> > would cost --
> > if you could get one. And what level of support would you expect
> > to have for
> > it? 0.5FTE? I don't think so.
>
> More noncontextual numbers.  Can you have one file across those 58
> terabytes, Walden?  If not, then it's just a big offline storage system and
> not really part of the operating system, and IBM has those measuring in
> PETABYTES.

>From http://www.sgi.com/software/xfs/techinfo.html describing XFS, the
filesystem used on SGI's IRIX machines (and now part of linux):

Max. File Size
    Designed to scale to 9 million TB with current hardware supporting
scalability to 8000 TB on IRIX.  Linux-64, 2 TB Max File Size.

So XFS hits a hardware limit before ever reaching its own scalability
limit.  Granted on linux it is more limited.

Max. File System Size
    Designed to scale to 18 million TB with current hardware supporting
scalability to 8000 TB on IRIX. Linux-64, 500 file systems of 2 TB each.

Again somewhat limited on linux.  IRIX is SGI's version of unix and their
flagship product (in addition to their spectacular hardware) so it isn't
surprising that XFS it most powerful on IRIX.

> On the other hand, I know for a fact you can have files of multiple
> gigabytes on the iSeries, and up to 144GB on one machine.
>
> Lies, damned lies and statistics.

Cough cough.

> > ities of MS's desktop
> > OS's (95, 98, ME, W2KWorkstation, XP) with their server OS's
> > (W2KServer and
> > W2K3). Windows 2003 and Windows XP have as much in common as
> > OS/400 V5R2 and
> > CPF R7 -- are they similar, sure. Are they comperable, no!
>
> I love this argument.  "Trust me, it's not the same as the crap we USED to
> put out!"  That's heartening!
>
> Again, we can go round and round, but since YOU'RE the one playing catch up,
> YOU'RE the one who has to supply the proof, Walden.  Sorry, but them's the
> rules.

Interestingly there may be some substance to the idea that MS products can
do big work.  In the Top 500 Supercomputers list at
http://www.top500.org/list/2003/06/ what appears to be a windows machine
is listed 50th.  Installed at Cornell Theory Center, you have to wonder
what they were thinking.  Another windows entry shows up at 57th spot
installed at Seoul National University.  There could be more, since the OS
used isn't always specified and many on the list use Intel or AMD chips.
While there are many pSeries and xSeries on the list, there isn't a single
iSeries.  That isn't surprising given what the iSeries is used for.  And a
machine on the list isn't necessarily stable, either.  But the machine has
to be capable.

Even so, I can't imagine any MS product being stable or reliable or
needed.  But Joe is right, you do need to look at the whole package.
These examples show that there are points where other OSes mop the floor
with OS/400.  But is that true all around?  Well that's up to you, the
gentle reader, to decide.  For me, sometimes it is and sometimes it isn't.

James Rich