×
The internal search function is temporarily non-functional. The current search engine is no longer viable and we are researching alternatives.
As a stop gap measure, we are using Google's custom search engine service.
If you know of an easy to use, open source, search engine ... please contact support@midrange.com.
I know this config was done using IBMs configuration tool, would it build a system that was not going to perform well?
Sure, the config tool can only tell if the config is valid.
I know this is a hard question to answer without a whole lot more information but, generally, wouldn't going from 23 arms to 10 > create a bottleneck at disk IO?
Not necessarily, the new disks and controllers are a heck of a lot
faster than the old. Search the archives, you're find a post from Rob
Berendt about his experience moving from 50+ (?) drives to 9(?) or
something equally outlandish.
It all depends on the hardware you're coming from and what you are going to.
Your BP should have been able to pull your PM/400 data from IBM to use
in sizing your new system.
http://www.ibm.com/eserver/iseries/support/estimator
If you'd like, Midrange Performance Group offers a "Second Opinion
Service (SOS)" whereby you install their performance tool, collect
some data and give you their opinion. Flat fee cost starting at
$1,500.
http://www.mpginc.com/sos.htm
HTH,
Charles
We are looking to upgrade our 520 and our business partner has proposed this config
2 CPUS 8300 CPW
32GB RAM
10 - 139.5GB disk drives
We currently run 1 CPU, 16GB RAM and 23 drives of various sizes.
This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2024 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact
[javascript protected email address].
Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.
midrange.com
