Re: What's the latest thinking of the besttwo or threewebdevelopment languages/environ...

Walden is saying (I think) the Windows model is to have one
application/database per server, whereas the System I (or i5 or iSeries or
AS/400) model is to run many applications and databases on one box; and to
try not to force one model onto the other.

If you're designing an application that is so critical it cannot have
downtime, your model for System I is typically a second system with high
availablity software. The Windows model is load balancing front end
processor, multiple servers with replicated databases, distributed
application load, etc. The Windows model say mirror the database, don't
connect directly but rather through the load balancer/front end. Then you
can update a box without impacting the others.

In other words, partitioning a single physical box doesn't help you when
that box falls over. Same for the Windows side running virtual server
instances (VMWare or Virtual Server).

--
Loyd
On Fri, Aug 8, 2008 at 10:31 AM, Bob P. Roche <BRoche@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>wrote:

Even if I run the server on one machine and the DB on another, if the
system is down, crashes, for update or patch, the system is off line. I
understand what you mean, I could have multiple servers to handle bringing
one down, but that is just extra expense, although it is probably just the
model.
But if the as/400 is the server, it rarely needs patched, or crashes,
unlike windows (though they are getting better about crashing). As you
said that's just the model. Both have their advantages, but just because
its the chosen model doesn't make it right. Was it designed to act like
that, (like the McLaren was not designed to transport large items), or is
it just what people have to do to make it work.