×
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.
In my opinion the did a rather good job in virtualization,
also considering the storage part.
There is a lot of "think big" inside the concepts, but the system
engineer or architect also needs to think big, too. You can outperform
ESXi with a power box rather quickly when it comes to heavy load.
And i really mean heavy load on a 12+ core system creating 1Mio+ I/O.
There is some caveat in resiliency - IBM i does not break when you switch
off the storage and reactivate it. You just need to be patient. But compared
to some weirdness of ESXi managing their fibre channels or iSCSI
paths it does not confuse their multi paths - which we saw several times
in the last 10 years.
-h
Am 23.03.2020 um 16:05 schrieb Patrik Schindler <poc@xxxxxxxxxx>:
As said, I stand corrected. Thanks for that extensive explanation. Now even more I think that IBM didn't do a good job in proper virtualization of IBM i in the first place. But maybe it's only me and myself being very accustomed to the way ESXi handles storage stuff.
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
