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

["Nathan M. Andelin" <nandelin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> However, several SQLServers are much less expensive than
> several iSeries boxes, so it's much simpler and cheaper to throw
> hardware at the problem.

Multiple iSeries boxes?  Why not use just one?  Is 100% uptime, backed by
failover support a requirement?

Throw hardware at the problem?  One never really throws hardware at a
problem, do they?  Isn't hardware useless without some sort of clustering
software?  When the software and human costs of running a server farm are
tallied, is it really cheaper?

I'd suggest that running one iSeries server in most cases is cheaper and
more reliable than running two clustered SQL Servers.  And if I understand
clustering correctly, the secondary server remains inactive until the
primary fails, so it does nothing for performance or scalability.

Nathan M. Andelin
www.relational-data.com