RE: IFS Performance

[Evan Harris <spanner@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi James

my perspective on the consolidation issue is that it is as much about 
reducing head count and [therefore] on-going costs rather than being solely 
concerned with up front capital costs. Viewed from this perspective an 
iSeries would still be a better solution than an additional linux box as 
the linux box is likely to need an additional administrator (in most 
cases), as well as all the additional power, asset tracking etc etc. and 
all the other overheads of just having a different box.

Server sprawl as manifested by Windows servers is what consolidation is 
aimed at slowing/preventing/eliminating (take your pick). In your example 
(i.e. using Linux) you have swapped one OS for another and retained the 
problem.

I will grant you that Linux may make having additional servers more 
manageable as compared to NT and also that just consolidating for the sake 
of it is not the answer to this or any particular problem, I'm just 
pointing out that raw performance is not the sole driver behind the 
consolidation push.

Regards
Evan Harris


> While a dedicated iSeries may well perform better, I don't really think 
> that is the point.  The reason for putting the files on the iSeries in the 
> first place is consolidation.  But if doing so ruins performance then 
> consolidation is not the answer.  If the iSeries purports to solve 
> problems by cosolidating machines, it had better perform well when doing 
> so!  I am certainly not going to spend many thousands more to get a big 
> enough iSeries to handle the additional load of this one task when I can 
> spend a few hundred and get a linux box that will run circles around it.
>
> James Rich