RE: iSeries vs. Unix vs. SQL Server vs. Oracle

>Multiple iSeries boxes?  Why not use just one?  Is 100% uptime, backed by
>failover support a requirement?

I made an assumption, perhaps a bad one, that near-100% uptime is a
requirement. In this day of self-service web apps I assume that a company
isn't willing to take machines offline for the many hours needed to do OS
upgrades on the iSeries. Having read David's second e-mail with some
background on his company this may indeed not be a requirement.

>I'd suggest that running one iSeries server in most cases is cheaper and
>more reliable than running two clustered SQL Servers.  

I would say that is a big "depends." How skilled are the iSeries folks? how
skilled are the PC folks? How large is the iSeries and SQLServer? What are
you including in the cost, hardware? Support? Operations? Cost to acquire
talent?

>And if I understand clustering correctly, the secondary server remains 
>inactive until the primary fails, so it does nothing for performance or
scalability.

Depends on whether you're running an active-active cluster or an
active-passive cluster. In the former case both machines are up, running and
usable, in the latter case you only use one at a time.

-Walden

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

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

-----Original Message-----
From: Nathan M. Andelin [mailto:nandelin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Monday, August 04, 2003 1:33 PM
To: midrange-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: iSeries vs. Unix vs. SQL Server vs. Oracle


> However, several SQLServers are much less expensive than
> several iSeries boxes, so it's much simpler and cheaper to throw
> hardware at the problem.

Multiple iSeries boxes?  Why not use just one?  Is 100% uptime, backed by
failover support a requirement?

Throw hardware at the problem?  One never really throws hardware at a
problem, do they?  Isn't hardware useless without some sort of clustering
software?  When the software and human costs of running a server farm are
tallied, is it really cheaper?

I'd suggest that running one iSeries server in most cases is cheaper and
more reliable than running two clustered SQL Servers.  And if I understand
clustering correctly, the secondary server remains inactive until the
primary fails, so it does nothing for performance or scalability.

Nathan M. Andelin
www.relational-data.com


_______________________________________________
This is the Midrange Systems Technical Discussion (MIDRANGE-L) mailing list
To post a message email: MIDRANGE-L@xxxxxxxxxxxx
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options,
visit: http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/midrange-l
or email: MIDRANGE-L-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives
at http://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l.