Re: What is the best platform for Informix 7.x?
In article <33bbe71d.24655512@gate.idg.no>, Nils Myklebust <Nils.Myklebust@idg.no> writes >Michael Silver <michael.silver@telequestcorp.com> wrote: > >:What is the best platform for Informix Online? We currently run on HP-UX >:10.01, and have a ton problems. HP has problems with shared memory, aging, >:and processor affinity. Sun has been recommended since Informix >:development is done on Sun, and then ported over to other platforms (so I >:am told). Speed is also a big issue. Which platform is the fastest, and >:most stable? >: >:Any help would be greatly appreciated. >: >:...Thanks... >:...Michael... > > >I would like some comments on the following which may also give some >indications to an answer: > >In the early days we used Altos machines. >Then we switched to PC's with Interactive Unix and now SCO Unix. > >We have reasently made an offer for our application to a large >customer. We got offers for machines from Sun, Dell and Compaq. > >The Sun was an Ultra Enterprice 3000 with 1 CPU and alternate with 4. >The Compaq was a Pro Liant 6000 with 4 CPU >The Dell was a PowerEdge 6100 with 4 CPU > >All had the same memory, disk (7 x 4GB drives), tape, network and >other configurations. > >The Compaq was cheapest. >The Dell was slightly more expensive. >The Sun with 1 CPU was on the order of 1.7 times the Compaq price. >With 4 CPU's the price was well over double of the Compaq. > >Extra disks, memory, tapedrives and so on are substantially cheaper >for the Compaq/Dell than for Sun (allways using components from the >manufacturer). > >According to TCP-C test (for what they are worth) this Sun machine >have about the same performance (with 4 CPU's) as the Compaq. >The Compaq have about the same server type facilities with ECC memory, >hot swap disks, server monitoring, options for redundant >powersupplies, RAID and so on. The Compaq/Dell + SCO Unix support is >as good as from Sun, but at a lower price. > >We have been using PC type servers with SCO Unix for a long time with >no significant problems (we have over years with a number of servers >at several customer sites never had to restore any database from a >backup). New releases are somewhat later on SCO than on Sun, but not >by too much. > I main problem with SCO we found was that it was not stable. We had 5 SCO boxes and used to have crashes at least once every 2 weeks. Try doing something simle like filling up the root partition and see how long it stays up for. We never managed > 2 hours..., we'd come back in in the morning and Yes XXX rebooted again last night.. Also it is much harder to add new hardware to a PC than to a Sun box due to the poor machine architecture (640K limit, no standard bus, no standard way for the OS to indentify new hardware). It's less SCO as the hardware arhitecture.... >There is one advantage to the Sun machine that it can be expanded >more, and you can get larger machines. >If that is not an issue is there any reason at all to buy a Sun? >If there is, is it good enough to warant the price difference? > >From what I know the HP and IBM solutions aren't any better pricewise, >and have no other significant advantages. >An additional advantage with PC servers is that the low price have >made all my customers update the hardware and database engine at the >same time. That makes for a simple update senario. > >Compaq have also announced 8 processor machines and the prices are >still falling. Are the Unix server market in for some significant >changes? > Probably not, have you tried a Sun Ultrasparc 2 1 170Mhz processor (or 2 170Mhz) processors? We found this to be much faster than any PC we came across, inluding 200 Mhz Pentiums. > >Nils.Myklebust@idg.no >NM Data AS, P.O.Box 9090 Gronland, N-0133 Oslo, Norway >My opinions are those of my company >The Informix FAQ is at http://www.iiug.org -- David Williams