Re: Is the midrange really the right tool for the job here? WAS (Re: Hardware question)

I'm not saying that they absolutely shouldn't make the switch, but it
seems that if there ever was the possibility to make the case for a
customer to evaluate whether the IBM midrange platform is the right
platform, this would be one to look at.

By all means, there is a lot to consider, I agree with that. The 9GB of
space makes no difference to me, its not about that. The 9GB is the flag
that says their new machine is going to be grossly underutilized and that
maybe, just maybe, another solution that costs less could be a fit for
them. Obviously the amount of variables are huge, and I'm not saying they
*should* move off the platform. I'm just saying that this is a case where
they should at least reevaluate their technology and business alignments.
That is all I'm saying. If the IBM i is the best fit, GREAT! If not,
then they need to have the vison and backbone to make the switch. I know
nothing about their business, and I'm making to recommondations one way or
the other. Just suggesting an evaluation.

Whew, I really stirred up the nest on this one.

I agree that the IBM i affords lots of great stuff for its customers. The
technology is second to none. But its doesn't fit every situation,
nothing does.


Thanks
Bryce Martin
Programmer/Analyst I
570-546-4777



rob@xxxxxxxxx
Sent by: midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx
01/14/2011 09:04 AM
Please respond to
Midrange Systems Technical Discussion <midrange-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx>


To
Midrange Systems Technical Discussion <midrange-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
cc

Subject
Re: Is the midrange really the right tool for the job here? WAS (Re:
Hardware question)






Is the ROI better on the i versus a comparable PC solution? Keeping in
mind that Peachtree accounting is not a full fledged ERP. Their current
ERP system is probably paid for and they just pay maintenance on it.
A comparable PC may be less than an i, even if you do not want to use a pc

you bought at Best Buy on a Black Friday special.

Let's keep in mind some historical perspective. Would you have
recommended a 700MB S/36 to run this 25 years ago? Is a 420GB power 7
less than that 700MB S/36?

Are you saying that a business class PC server with mirrored or raided
drives should not be used because they only require 9GB machine and they'd

have as much unused space on that as they would on the comparable i?

Should they eat up a lot of disk space to justify a machine that runs
software that works fine for them? Would that even be a valid argument
because a decent PC server can have lots of disk space also?

I realize that those of us who used to run on disk tight machines a few
decades ago may gag at the thought of running a machine at 30% or less of
capacity. But with the increased size of disk drives you're are going to
see that - if you use the new lower prices and capacity to give you things

like disk arms, raid or mirrored protection and so on. And I sure do not
recommend running older 10Krpm 35GB drives versus newer 15Krpm drives just

to drive down your free space.

System ASP . . . . . . : 6348 G
% system ASP used . . : 59.9211
Keep in mind just the following is just "overhead" stuff from PRTDSKINF
*SYS on my machine:
% of Size in
Description Disk 1,000,000 bytes
QSYS .12 7636.53
Other IBM libraries .60 37921.32
Licensed Internal Code .49 31374.66
Temporary space 1.34 85144.77
System internal objects .14 9024.98
Objects not in a library .00 36.50

That's 171GB in overhead. And I IPL every other month, with a RCLSTG. I
delete all spool files over 90 days old. And various other things.
The above doesn't include:
User libraries
User directories
Folders and documents
Unused space

Rob Berendt