RE: iSeries vs. Unix vs. SQL Server vs. Oracle

["Joe Pluta" <joepluta@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> From: Walden H. Leverich III
> 
> >You don't need to cluster an iSeries for reliability; that's the
point.
> >You may cluster them for HA, but that's a different issue.
> 
> OK, I think we're splitting hairs here, but yes, it's reliable w/o
> clustering, but it won't always be available w/o clustering -- to the
user
> it's the same thing.

Actually, no, I don't think I'm splitting hairs.  I think there's a very
real difference in business requirements between HA and normal, reliable
operations.  A single-machine solution like the iSeries has a
disadvantage in HA environments, simply because it's a single point of
failure.  Let's face it, machines do need downtime, and so if you're
looking at HA statistics, a single iSeries is probably going to achieve
a less perfect uptime record than, say, 10 redundant SQL servers.

However, in less stringent environments where you can schedule downtime
for maintenance, PTFs, full system backups and the like, a single
iSeries may outperform several PC-based servers, to the point where the
hardware price point is pretty even, and now you're talking support
staff costs (at which point the iSeries to my knowledge beats any other
platform).

So, in reality, HA vs. "reliable" is a significant business requirement
point.

Joe