|
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
-- Group Dekko Dept 1600 Mail to: 2505 Dekko Drive Garrett, IN 46738 Ship to: Dock 108 6928N 400E Kendallville, IN 46755 http://www.dekko.com From: Bryce Martin <BMartin@xxxxxxxxxxxx> To: Midrange Systems Technical Discussion <midrange-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: 01/14/2011 08:32 AM Subject: Re: Is the midrange really the right tool for the job here? WAS (Re: Hardware question) Sent by: midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx And I understand that aspect. But sometimes its good to take a step back, especially in a small shop that obviously has very small computing needs and evaluate if the applications plus hardware solution is currently the best fit. Maybe it is, maybe their applications and usage fits their business well enough to justify a midrange machine. I was just making the point that it seems that even a new 710 is grossly more that what they seem to need. Sometimes the short term pain of making a switch is worth the long term gains to better align the technology and the business. Just making some observations. Thanks Bryce Martin Programmer/Analyst I 570-546-4777 Scott Klement <midrange-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Sent by: midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx 01/13/2011 05:25 PM Please respond to Midrange Systems Technical Discussion <midrange-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx> To midrange-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx cc Subject Re: Is the midrange really the right tool for the job here? WAS (Re: Hardware question) Systems are sold by the applications that run on them. Not how much disk space they use! If I want a good ERP system, some of the choices might be designed for IBM i, so I run it there. Even if I don't have 10+ GB worth of data! On 1/13/2011 10:09 AM, Bryce Martin wrote:> *OFF TOPIC* so I made it a new topic....of
> But I have to ask... what could you possibly be doing on a midrange
> machine in today's world that only needs 9GB of storage? And does that
> workload REALLY constitute the money spent on the system? I mean, 9GB
> data today is nothing. So why a whole midrange system when it seems itcheaper
> will be highly underutilized? Could you/your customer switch to a
> solution for such a light work load? I LOVE the platform, but its not--
> really ideal cost/value for tiny word loads.
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
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
