Re: Large volume file move

Fewer moving parts.
Fewer connections.
Simpler disaster recovery.
Know how your backup works.
Hardware price is NOT that much cheaper, IF it even is on Windows.
Less rack space, less cooling, less power.

I get it best of breed works much of the time. But I've seen one IBM i system become one IBM i plus 5 windows plus 20 Linux plus switches and extra admins and complicated firewall rules and load balancers and CRAP!!! That guy quit! Today they are slowly moving back to One IBM i with a single Linux hosting publicly accessible images. Only one other nearly unused Linux box to move back to IBM i.

It works. It's reliable. It's predicable. It's ONE machine to update with patches. It's ONE machine to know how it works. When it IPLs everything starts, nobody has to go to a dozen other boxes to restart services or reboot them etc.

And if it DOES have an issue it calls home about a power supply or drive or ... and that's built in, no additional monitoring software from a third party is required.

IBM i for when you like to sleep at night.

Just a few random thoughts.

- Larry "DrFranken" Bolhuis

www.Frankeni.com
www.iDevCloud.com - Personal Development IBM i timeshare service.
www.iInTheCloud.com - Commercial IBM i Cloud Hosting.

On 9/25/2018 3:52 PM, Rob Berendt wrote:

I know that Richard is coming off as highly sarcastic but I too have to
wonder why the big push to move this stuff to IBM i. We've done file
serving from IBM i. Normally Windows beats IBM i in file serving hands
down. Even on older hardware you could be using the same drives and all
but stick in an IPCS card in there and load Windows on it and it would
smoke file serving from the predecessors of IBM i.
IBM i has touted newer versions have caught up some but they still have a
way to go.
General policy here is that IBM i is not to be used as a file server
unless there's a really compelling reason to do so, such as CPYTOIMPF type
stuff.


Rob Berendt