Hear, Hear!!

Ralph Daugherty <rdjfc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 8/9/2008 11:52 >>>
And if any of multiple servers goes down for same reason, you are in
better shape to continue operations because why?

because you have redundancy for multiple servers? why is that easier /
better than redundancy for one server?

there is no balance, there is only multiple points of failure, often
with a mix of more fragile OS'es when Windows is involved.

rd


Walden H. Leverich wrote:
One the advantages of having an as/400 is that you only need one box.

True. But you need to balance that against the fact that one of the
disadvantages of having an as/400 is you only have one box. Upgrading?
Patching? Crashed? You're entire enterprise is offline. Smart?

Windows is not powerful enough to support a
database and application server on one box.

Whether you could or not (you could do some crazy things with a 64-way
machine w/2TB of memory) that's not the Windows model. Like it or not,
it's not the model. You can rant about it all you want, it's not the
model. Am I getting through? It's not the model. Complaining about the
fact that you wouldn't do it all on one machine (note I said "wouldn't"
not "couldn't") is like having a McLaren-Mercedes F1 racer and
complaining you can't use it to pick up a plant at Home Depot, it's
simply not the model!

-Walden

--
Walden H Leverich III
Tech Software
(516) 627-3800 x3051
WaldenL@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.TechSoftInc.com ( http://www.techsoftinc.com/ )

Quiquid latine dictum sit altum viditur.
(Whatever is said in Latin seems profound.)



This thread ...

Replies:

Follow On AppleNews
Return to Archive home page | Return to MIDRANGE.COM home page

This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2019 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].