Tek-Tips is the largest IT community on the Internet today!
Members share and learn making Tek-Tips Forums the best source of peer-reviewed technical information on the Internet!
-
Congratulations strongm on being selected by the Tek-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!
Looking at RS/6000 for large app. Any experiences would be helpful 1
- Thread starter Trapper
- Start date
There are three quality vendors of enterprise-wide<br>
UNIX platforms. In no particular order: Sun, IBM, <br>
and HP. You might rule out HP because they are a <br>
"printer" company (tho they would argue that). Sun<br>
and IBM make computers. Sun may need the business <br>
more than IBM, but Sun focuses on UNIX more than IBM<br>
does, in my experience. <br>
<br>
Sun is one of the backbone companies of the Web, so <br>
this is a good starting point. Most new applications<br>
are going to web/browser based interfaces. <br>
<br>
I recommend Sun. Their proprietary UNIX Operating<br>
Systems are named Sun Solaris and SunOS. <br>
UNIX platforms. In no particular order: Sun, IBM, <br>
and HP. You might rule out HP because they are a <br>
"printer" company (tho they would argue that). Sun<br>
and IBM make computers. Sun may need the business <br>
more than IBM, but Sun focuses on UNIX more than IBM<br>
does, in my experience. <br>
<br>
Sun is one of the backbone companies of the Web, so <br>
this is a good starting point. Most new applications<br>
are going to web/browser based interfaces. <br>
<br>
I recommend Sun. Their proprietary UNIX Operating<br>
Systems are named Sun Solaris and SunOS. <br>
-
1
- Thread starter
- #3
Thanks for your reply (the only one, so far). I am very aware of SUN and HP and IBM. I don't think of HP as a printer company altho they do that very well. I am concerned that HP is discontinuing their UNIX solution as it relates to the processor (RA-RISC) and, but not yet since it doesn't exist, will go to the IA-64 Merced Intel solution. Not sure I want to start with a discontinued processor line.<br>
<br>
SUN looks interesting but very expensive.<br>
IBM seems to have a serious entry in the UNIX arena and they claim their storage solution (SSA) to be far superior to any of the others.<br>
<br>
You didn't mention (oh, this is hard to say; COMPAQ) or more comfortably, Digital Alpha. This is a serious chip that only has done UNIX (Tru64) for a long time. Is there a problem with them that you know of? DH Brown gave it high marks in a comparative analysis recently.<br>
<br>
I also plan to review UNISYS. Altho, no longer strong in the UNIX field (they're retreating to Unixware) they have a very impressive new box called CMP - Cellular Multi Processing. This thing can run 4 op systems simultaneously with a completely shared memory model. No one's gone there yet. Two of the op sys's are UNIX and NT. This box scales up to 32 processors. But... it's new and not deployed widely yet.<br>
<br>
There's also Sequent. They've built serious machinery for a long time and 'do' Unix. Know anything about them?<br>
I suspect, the decision isn't going to be simple and easy.
<br>
SUN looks interesting but very expensive.<br>
IBM seems to have a serious entry in the UNIX arena and they claim their storage solution (SSA) to be far superior to any of the others.<br>
<br>
You didn't mention (oh, this is hard to say; COMPAQ) or more comfortably, Digital Alpha. This is a serious chip that only has done UNIX (Tru64) for a long time. Is there a problem with them that you know of? DH Brown gave it high marks in a comparative analysis recently.<br>
<br>
I also plan to review UNISYS. Altho, no longer strong in the UNIX field (they're retreating to Unixware) they have a very impressive new box called CMP - Cellular Multi Processing. This thing can run 4 op systems simultaneously with a completely shared memory model. No one's gone there yet. Two of the op sys's are UNIX and NT. This box scales up to 32 processors. But... it's new and not deployed widely yet.<br>
<br>
There's also Sequent. They've built serious machinery for a long time and 'do' Unix. Know anything about them?<br>
I suspect, the decision isn't going to be simple and easy.
Yes Trapper I agree there are other vendors. I suppose Prime and other guys get in the game. You can buy Microsoft Xenix, etc, etc, etc. <br>
<br>
But what do you want--a processor platform (RS/6000) or an O/S (UNIX) or a company? I guess you know at least as much as me about platforms. My colleagues and I favor the more "secure" or established companies, that aren't likely to drop out of a certain market. <br>
<br>
That UNISYS box sounds nifty, but hey I live near Detroit, <br>
and UNISYS to me is a brick building with a smokestack that<br>
says Burroughs!!<br>
<br>
What do you think?
<br>
But what do you want--a processor platform (RS/6000) or an O/S (UNIX) or a company? I guess you know at least as much as me about platforms. My colleagues and I favor the more "secure" or established companies, that aren't likely to drop out of a certain market. <br>
<br>
That UNISYS box sounds nifty, but hey I live near Detroit, <br>
and UNISYS to me is a brick building with a smokestack that<br>
says Burroughs!!<br>
<br>
What do you think?
- Thread starter
- #5
Well, there are other vendors but I don't think I'd include Prime, exactly.<br>
<br>
In ans to your question: I want a hardware platform on which I can run an Operating System that's supplied by a company that I can trust. As to 'secure', well that's in the eyes of the beholder. Having started in DP (that's Data Processing) in 1963 on IBM705 and GE415/425/435 I've seen a lot of stable and secure companies come and go. And I've employed a lot of 'questionable' hardware and software (esp. Burroughs) that brought my companies a lot of success and made them a lot of money. The last RFP I remember, IBM and Digital pulled out and admitted they could not fulfill our needs (that was because in 1980 we wanted to run datacomm to 300 different locations with a greeen screen connect to each. IBM had a thing called a cluster controller that was required and put the price way, way beyond our means and Burroughs Poll/Select with multi-drop lines was relatively cheap. It's still working today and still making that company a ton of money).<br>
<br>
RS/6000 wants us to employ SSA. Remember MicroChannel and OS/2? Is SSA going the same way? IBM said the world would flock to their door to get their hands on SSA. It never happened. SUN, Compaq, HP and others have good stories to tell with their solutions and they don't include SSA. I like the look and feel of SSA but I'm not so sure it will last much longer than OS/2 did. MCA was a real bomb.<br>
<br>
There's no perfect solution and I don't expect to find it. I'm simply looking for the experiences of other users. We visited FoxWoods (the biggest casino in the world, in CT) and found that they've had trouble with failing CPUs on their RS6K/SP boxes. But nonetheless they're still happy. We'll be visiting Fairchild (chip maker) who employ SUN platforms and see how they feel.<br>
<br>
If you want an inside tip keep your eye on Unisys CMP (Cellular Multi Processing). THis is very serious stuff and could be very important. Never lose sight of the fact that Sperry and Burroughs invented many of the technologies used by all manufacturers today (one good example is virtual memory -- they called it Dynamic Memory long before IBM even dreamt of using it but when IBM called it Virtual, well that's the name that stuck). It looks to me like there mainframe class engineers have pullled a coup on another one. See the Unisys Web page and search for CMP -- there's a white paper which gives a good overview.<br>
<br>
Thanks for your input. It's appreciated.
<br>
In ans to your question: I want a hardware platform on which I can run an Operating System that's supplied by a company that I can trust. As to 'secure', well that's in the eyes of the beholder. Having started in DP (that's Data Processing) in 1963 on IBM705 and GE415/425/435 I've seen a lot of stable and secure companies come and go. And I've employed a lot of 'questionable' hardware and software (esp. Burroughs) that brought my companies a lot of success and made them a lot of money. The last RFP I remember, IBM and Digital pulled out and admitted they could not fulfill our needs (that was because in 1980 we wanted to run datacomm to 300 different locations with a greeen screen connect to each. IBM had a thing called a cluster controller that was required and put the price way, way beyond our means and Burroughs Poll/Select with multi-drop lines was relatively cheap. It's still working today and still making that company a ton of money).<br>
<br>
RS/6000 wants us to employ SSA. Remember MicroChannel and OS/2? Is SSA going the same way? IBM said the world would flock to their door to get their hands on SSA. It never happened. SUN, Compaq, HP and others have good stories to tell with their solutions and they don't include SSA. I like the look and feel of SSA but I'm not so sure it will last much longer than OS/2 did. MCA was a real bomb.<br>
<br>
There's no perfect solution and I don't expect to find it. I'm simply looking for the experiences of other users. We visited FoxWoods (the biggest casino in the world, in CT) and found that they've had trouble with failing CPUs on their RS6K/SP boxes. But nonetheless they're still happy. We'll be visiting Fairchild (chip maker) who employ SUN platforms and see how they feel.<br>
<br>
If you want an inside tip keep your eye on Unisys CMP (Cellular Multi Processing). THis is very serious stuff and could be very important. Never lose sight of the fact that Sperry and Burroughs invented many of the technologies used by all manufacturers today (one good example is virtual memory -- they called it Dynamic Memory long before IBM even dreamt of using it but when IBM called it Virtual, well that's the name that stuck). It looks to me like there mainframe class engineers have pullled a coup on another one. See the Unisys Web page and search for CMP -- there's a white paper which gives a good overview.<br>
<br>
Thanks for your input. It's appreciated.
Trapper:<br>
We are a small shop that run 12 RS/6000's to provide all services from database (Oracle), Email (Netscape), Applications including Imaging and Cold storage. And, we started from scratch about four years ago when management decided to outsource all of our back office operations. <br>
<br>
Our server range in size from the 43P workstations to J30's, G40's and F50's We have had little problem with the hardware. The servers seem as fast and reliable as you may want to pay money for. It is the AIX operating system that I would really like to talk with about. <br>
<br>
From your previous comments, Trapper you sound like you may have had some experience with both OS/2 and the MicroChannel bus. Both of these products had very good points. The problem was that IBM's marketing people never supported them and they both lost out in the mass-market area. I liked OS/2. Especially when the only alternative was Win3.1 which in my experience was simply DOS with a GUI interface. Microsoft took back the rights to OS/2 and used it to produce NT. OS/2 and NT are very similar with one exception; Microsoft put much more money into its promotion. That SuperBowl game (was it in 95?) where Microsoft blitzed everyone with great halftime Windows show, that had a great effect on the uninitiated (read here Management). After that weekend, our small OS/2 shop turned 190 degrees and became a Windows shop. That was also when I decided to go into AIX.<br>
<br>
Like OS/2, IBM is not marketing AIX. To those that use SUN and HP UNIX, it is impossible to see what is not there. I tried to explain to people that I could create a mksyb backup tape and boot a virgin system from that tape. I can expand my file systems whenever I want. I need not try to figure out future space needs and allocate all disk area at once. I only need to allocate what I need to begin with and expand the size of my file systems as I need additional space. <br>
<br>
Installing and uninstalling devices like modems, console and workstations is nothing. This is all taken care by the ODM (Object Data Manager). Everything can be done at the command line. But, some of these actions aren't done every day and that is where SMIT comes in. <br>
<br>
SMIT is a UNIX front-end application. It presents screens that allow you to fill in the blanks. SMIT collects this information and translates it into a UNIX statement with all the necessary flags. I understand that HP now has something similar. <br>
<br>
So Trapper, if you talk with non-IBM people, you will not get the full picture. Even if you talk with IBM, you still may not get the full picture. You might start small like we did. Pick up a 43P or a laptop and play with the operating system. Once you work with it you will almost immediately begin the see big differences between AIX and straight UNIX. There are many advantages of using AIX that has been developed and improved over that past 5 years. Rather than go with another UNIX system that did not have the advantage of IBM Mainframe experience from the last 30 years.<br>
We are a small shop that run 12 RS/6000's to provide all services from database (Oracle), Email (Netscape), Applications including Imaging and Cold storage. And, we started from scratch about four years ago when management decided to outsource all of our back office operations. <br>
<br>
Our server range in size from the 43P workstations to J30's, G40's and F50's We have had little problem with the hardware. The servers seem as fast and reliable as you may want to pay money for. It is the AIX operating system that I would really like to talk with about. <br>
<br>
From your previous comments, Trapper you sound like you may have had some experience with both OS/2 and the MicroChannel bus. Both of these products had very good points. The problem was that IBM's marketing people never supported them and they both lost out in the mass-market area. I liked OS/2. Especially when the only alternative was Win3.1 which in my experience was simply DOS with a GUI interface. Microsoft took back the rights to OS/2 and used it to produce NT. OS/2 and NT are very similar with one exception; Microsoft put much more money into its promotion. That SuperBowl game (was it in 95?) where Microsoft blitzed everyone with great halftime Windows show, that had a great effect on the uninitiated (read here Management). After that weekend, our small OS/2 shop turned 190 degrees and became a Windows shop. That was also when I decided to go into AIX.<br>
<br>
Like OS/2, IBM is not marketing AIX. To those that use SUN and HP UNIX, it is impossible to see what is not there. I tried to explain to people that I could create a mksyb backup tape and boot a virgin system from that tape. I can expand my file systems whenever I want. I need not try to figure out future space needs and allocate all disk area at once. I only need to allocate what I need to begin with and expand the size of my file systems as I need additional space. <br>
<br>
Installing and uninstalling devices like modems, console and workstations is nothing. This is all taken care by the ODM (Object Data Manager). Everything can be done at the command line. But, some of these actions aren't done every day and that is where SMIT comes in. <br>
<br>
SMIT is a UNIX front-end application. It presents screens that allow you to fill in the blanks. SMIT collects this information and translates it into a UNIX statement with all the necessary flags. I understand that HP now has something similar. <br>
<br>
So Trapper, if you talk with non-IBM people, you will not get the full picture. Even if you talk with IBM, you still may not get the full picture. You might start small like we did. Pick up a 43P or a laptop and play with the operating system. Once you work with it you will almost immediately begin the see big differences between AIX and straight UNIX. There are many advantages of using AIX that has been developed and improved over that past 5 years. Rather than go with another UNIX system that did not have the advantage of IBM Mainframe experience from the last 30 years.<br>
Well if u r looking for RISC performance+ I would suggest the Compaq Alpha<br>with Linux or True64 Unix.....I like true 64 for ultimate performance...The Compaq/Alpha is also very reliable...plus u get the Digital classic folks for suppoprt<br>and the Compaq Custom Systems Division for Enterprise solutions can integrate load, test, and ship an entire enterprise system and guarantee its operation on the site.....<br> Compaq Custom Systems is the best enterprise integrator in the market today....<br>Don't want this to sound like an advertisement, but I have read about some of Custom Systems claims to fame and they r quite impressive...
Just my $.02 worth: I too have been in DP since 1973 and grew up on 370's and then IBM mid-range (GSD). I got hooked on AIX in 1990-91 and have never looked back (although now I have some Linux servers going).
Our application served the banking industry which is always 24x7 high transaction volume. Just a point... last week, due to a "stuck" port on a customer machine, we recommended a reboot to clear it (and it did). An uptime command prior to the reboot stated 671 days 8 hours 21 minutes which was the time since the PRIOR reboot.
Remember, these are 24x7 banking solutions. This has got to be worth something....
Our application served the banking industry which is always 24x7 high transaction volume. Just a point... last week, due to a "stuck" port on a customer machine, we recommended a reboot to clear it (and it did). An uptime command prior to the reboot stated 671 days 8 hours 21 minutes which was the time since the PRIOR reboot.
Remember, these are 24x7 banking solutions. This has got to be worth something....
IgorFranco
IS-IT--Management
I suggest u to go to:
( if u want to use your RISC with a DB, see tpc-c without cluster )
Here in my company we have HPs, SUNs (E10000 and etc) and IBM ( S85, S70, etc ... ).
If we want performance and stability we use IBM with SHARK or Symetrics(EMC), and SAN (Storage Area Network). SSA is no longer the best choise for storage and scalability, but the price is better.
What i can tell u is that i am satisfied with IBM ( AIX, architecture and support ) ...
Best Regards
Igor
Brazil
( if u want to use your RISC with a DB, see tpc-c without cluster )
Here in my company we have HPs, SUNs (E10000 and etc) and IBM ( S85, S70, etc ... ).
If we want performance and stability we use IBM with SHARK or Symetrics(EMC), and SAN (Storage Area Network). SSA is no longer the best choise for storage and scalability, but the price is better.
What i can tell u is that i am satisfied with IBM ( AIX, architecture and support ) ...
Best Regards
Igor
Brazil
Guest_imported
New member
- Jan 1, 1970
- 0
IBM makes the most cost-effective and scalable high-end servers. Talk to all of the big 3 vendors (IBM, HP, Sun) and compare bang for the buck. Make them produce TPC numbers. Make them include cost of service contracts.
My experience is that the strengths of the three are:
IBM: powerful, cheap, easy-to-manage, great support
HP: very reliable hardware, great support, not cheap
Sun: powerful, not cheap, hard-to-manage, unfriendly support
I'm sure other peoples' opinions will vary.
My experience is that the strengths of the three are:
IBM: powerful, cheap, easy-to-manage, great support
HP: very reliable hardware, great support, not cheap
Sun: powerful, not cheap, hard-to-manage, unfriendly support
I'm sure other peoples' opinions will vary.
- Status