Thread View: alt.comp.hardware
5 messages
5 total messages
Started by Louis
Wed, 11 Jun 2003 13:07
AIX versus SUN and Linux, best price performance ?
Author: Louis
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2003 13:07
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2003 13:07
20 lines
2509 bytes
2509 bytes
Hi, We have a IBM RS6000 F50 running AIX 4.3.3 with 3 CPU's and 9 mirrored disks and 1.5 GB internal memory. DBMS Basis 9.1 runs on it. This database can be compared with Oracle regarding performance. However it's not multi-threading. We are thinking of upgrading hardware. The F50 cannot handle the job anymore. The Basis DBMS runs on AIX, Linux and SUN. Our database will be around 60 GB and should be spreaded on multiple disks (at least 4). In total we need at least 10 disks (20-40 GB). We need 2-4 GB memory. The solution should be cheap but also reliable. So, we prefer cheap memory and cheap (instead of expensive IBM SSA disks) SCSI or even IDE disks. Please advise. Regards, Louis Banens
Re: AIX versus SUN and Linux, best price performance ?
Author: John Smith
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2003 21:51
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2003 21:51
26 lines
2718 bytes
2718 bytes
"Louis" <nospam@nospam.nl> schreef in bericht news:3ee728e8$0$49103$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl... > Hi, > > We have a IBM RS6000 F50 running AIX 4.3.3 with 3 CPU's and 9 mirrored disks > and 1.5 GB internal memory. DBMS Basis 9.1 runs on it. This database can be > compared with Oracle regarding performance. However it's not > multi-threading. > > We are thinking of upgrading hardware. The F50 cannot handle the job > anymore. The Basis DBMS runs on AIX, Linux and SUN. Our database will be > around 60 GB and should be spreaded on multiple disks (at least 4). In total > we need at least 10 disks (20-40 GB). We need 2-4 GB memory. > > The solution should be cheap but also reliable. So, we prefer cheap memory > and cheap (instead of expensive IBM SSA disks) SCSI or even IDE disks. > > Please advise. > Ga voor linux met een nas van network appliance, neem dan wel Gb netwerk voor je nas.
Re: AIX versus SUN and Linux, best price performance ?
Author: Arl� Mooldijk
Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 18:50
Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 18:50
33 lines
2518 bytes
2518 bytes
"Louis" <nospam@nospam.nl> wrote in message news:3ee728e8$0$49103$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl... > We have a IBM RS6000 F50 running AIX 4.3.3 with 3 CPU's and 9 mirrored disks > and 1.5 GB internal memory. DBMS Basis 9.1 runs on it. This database can be > compared with Oracle regarding performance. However it's not > multi-threading. > > We are thinking of upgrading hardware. The F50 cannot handle the job > anymore. The Basis DBMS runs on AIX, Linux and SUN. Our database will be > around 60 GB and should be spreaded on multiple disks (at least 4). In total > we need at least 10 disks (20-40 GB). We need 2-4 GB memory. Why do you need at least 10 disks? Disks have more storage space these days... > The solution should be cheap but also reliable. So, we prefer cheap memory > and cheap (instead of expensive IBM SSA disks) SCSI or even IDE disks. Linux is cheap. If it is a serious server then I'd recommend SCSI with a RAID5 controller for the database storage and a mirrored disk for OS. This means about 5 disks minimum (3 for RAID5 and 2 for OS). HotSwap if desirable (but very nice and handy when you can afford it; saves you downtime when a disk fails). HP/Compaq is a good choice for Intel based servers. The support of HP is very good (personal experience). Just my opinion though... With Kind Regards, Arl�
Re: AIX versus SUN and Linux, best price performance ?
Author: Louis
Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 23:39
Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 23:39
11 lines
1546 bytes
1546 bytes
"Arl� Mooldijk" <reply@to.newsgroup.please> wrote in message news:vehiruqfbif0d3@corp.supernews.com... <<Why do you need at least 10 disks? Disks have more storage space these <<days... Well, mainly to spread (I/O) the database over multiple disks. Regards, Louis Banens
Re: AIX versus SUN and Linux, best price performance ?
Author: Frank van de Pol
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 21:19
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 21:19
57 lines
3250 bytes
3250 bytes
Please don't use RAID-5 in database applications if high performance is one of your objectives. Better use RAID-10 (combination of mirroring and striping) at the expense of 50% diskspace for redundancy. Looking at the number of disks I suppose scsi is the way to go. Dell makes some pretty decent (and cheap) servers as well. Frank. Arl� Mooldijk wrote: > "Louis" <nospam@nospam.nl> wrote in message > news:3ee728e8$0$49103$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl... > > >>We have a IBM RS6000 F50 running AIX 4.3.3 with 3 CPU's and 9 mirrored > > disks > >>and 1.5 GB internal memory. DBMS Basis 9.1 runs on it. This database can > > be > >>compared with Oracle regarding performance. However it's not >>multi-threading. >> >>We are thinking of upgrading hardware. The F50 cannot handle the job >>anymore. The Basis DBMS runs on AIX, Linux and SUN. Our database will be >>around 60 GB and should be spreaded on multiple disks (at least 4). In > > total > >>we need at least 10 disks (20-40 GB). We need 2-4 GB memory. > > > Why do you need at least 10 disks? Disks have more storage space these > days... > > >>The solution should be cheap but also reliable. So, we prefer cheap memory >>and cheap (instead of expensive IBM SSA disks) SCSI or even IDE disks. > > > Linux is cheap. If it is a serious server then I'd recommend SCSI with a > RAID5 controller for the database storage and a mirrored disk for OS. This > means about 5 disks minimum (3 for RAID5 and 2 for OS). HotSwap if desirable > (but very nice and handy when you can afford it; saves you downtime when a > disk fails). HP/Compaq is a good choice for Intel based servers. The support > of HP is very good (personal experience). > > Just my opinion though... > > With Kind Regards, > Arl� > >
Thread Navigation
This is a paginated view of messages in the thread with full content displayed inline.
Messages are displayed in chronological order, with the original post highlighted in green.
Use pagination controls to navigate through all messages in large threads.
Back to All Threads