For their needs, they should have gone with the i5 or better, MVS, to
scale both ways all
on one box, not 3,000; how dumb but that's PC thinking.
Not necessarily... this way they can deploy, change, upgrade, and even
bring-down (intentionally or unintentionally <G>) only part of their
system.
It's funny. On the midrange-l list there's a conversation about RAID and
how we can blow a drive, and hot swap it w/out data loss and the users
aren't any the wiser. However, when we want RAIWS (Redundant Array of
Inexpensive Web Servers) we're told it's a dumb way to do things and we
should all have a single-point-of-failure system. If the System i never
crashes and has 100% uptime, why are the data replication companies
doing so well? <G>
-Walden
--
Walden H Leverich III
Tech Software
(516) 627-3800 x3051
WaldenL@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.TechSoftInc.com
Quiquid latine dictum sit altum viditur.
(Whatever is said in Latin seems profound.)
This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2024 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].
Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.
midrange.com
