I think that one overlooked factor is that, sometimes, you just want to have
(as far as it is possible), the lowest number of different vendors. If you
have any problem with your system and it ends up being rack/PDU related, you
can expect a lot of cross-finger pointing between the different providers.
On the other hand, as the article shows, it seems that the savings can
be significant. Maybe it is an option between a higher initial cost, and
easier setup (IBM) or a little more hassle (different vendors/providers
involved, more study in determining which rack you require, customizing,
etc) and lower costs (at least in the short/medium term).
IBM Certified Systems Expert — eServer i5 iSeries
On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 8:54 AM, jmmckee <jmmckee@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Saw this article about racks. It detailed the costs of IBM racks and
mentioned another company's rack. I was wondering if the article glossed
over any detail that might have justified the higher cost of an IBM rack.
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,
or email: MIDRANGE-L-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives