Re: Attempting to Logically breaking down this comparison

[Bryce Martin <BMartin@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Your analysis is correct.  The amount of horsepower you need is determined 
by the code each job is running.  Is Lansa written in .Net or Java or 
something else?

The IBM i operating system is the best system I've ever seen at running 
100% because of its great job handling.  Windows does not have great job 
handling.  Plus, windows programs have a tendancy to use much more ram per 
application because of more moving parts (GUI, DLL Hell, etc).  Plus, I 
think that you are likely to find more ram per cpu cyles in an IBM i 
machine then you would a windows box.  How much ram down your windows box 
have compared to your IBM i?

IBM i is a true enterprise level machine.  That is it.  Not much less.  A 
windows server can be run on some very low end commodity hardware that can 
make it seem even worse.

Just my observations after 3.5 years on this platform.


Thanks
Bryce Martin
Programmer/Analyst I
570-546-4777



"Don Cavaiani" <dcavaiani@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 
Sent by: midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx
09/27/2010 06:30 PM
Please respond to
Midrange Systems Technical Discussion <midrange-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx>


To
<midrange-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
cc

Subject
Attempting to Logically breaking down this comparison






Here is what our IBM server is running at right now  - 280 active jobs
at less than 6% capacity (However, when we do a lot of E-Procurement and
Lansa for the Web Browser applications, we DO need more horsepower). One
of our Microsoft servers may be running a total of 30 jobs (called
processes) - at the most at one time. When the Microsoft server hits 100
% capacity, you can pretty much expect to have to reboot it, but the IBM
i server is DESIGNED to run at 100% capacity, 24/7.