Re: RH or Linux VS AIX
From: Collin McCreath (mccreatc_at_ATT.NET)
Date: 01/25/05
- Previous message: Darryl Ousterhout: "Re: RH or SuSe Linux VS AIX"
- Maybe in reply to: Barnhart, Troy: "Re: RH or Linux VS AIX"
- Next in thread: Bill Verzal: "Re: RH or Linux VS AIX"
- Reply: Bill Verzal: "Re: RH or Linux VS AIX"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 21:54:24 +0000 To: aix-l@Princeton.EDU
If you are running mission critical systems you would not want to be on the LInux platform as the performance and scalability is simply not there, YET. If you are running large databases, then I strongly suggest that you go with AIX. It will be a long time before LINUX will be equal to AIX.
Regards,
Collin
-------------- Original message ----------------------
From: "Barnhart, Troy" <TBarnhart@RCRH.ORG>
> It is a hard decision... 2-5 years ago - AIX would have been an easy choice.
>
> These last two years, we've been transitioning (where we are able, as we are a
> Hospital)
> from pSeries/AIX to xSeries/RedHat. (including a move to SAN, 4-FastT's, & 3584
> w/ TSM.)
>
> It took a bit of research and trial-n-error, but we're really happy with the
> overall
> performance improvements. In a comparison of a p660 and a x440 (both 4-cpu /
> 8GB) -
> I'd be hard-pressed to pay approximately $50,000 more for the pSeries.
>
> Also, I haven't worked much with LPAR, but our VMWare (redhat core, i think?) on
> an x440
> has been very impressive.
>
> Now, If you're a huge number-cruncher shop, I'm sure in the minutiae one could
> prefer AIX.
>
> With Redhat - I can duplicate mksysb w/ CBMR & TSM. kudzu is damn close to
> cfgmgr. We've
> ran into an equal amount of difficulty of "hot-swaps" between RH and AIX.
>
> Our support experiences have been better for Redhat from IBM & Redhat than for
> AIX from IBM.
> (Our local IBM sales/service reps take really good care of us. With Redhat we
> have no problems
> getting a TopGun or a developer. Whereas with AIX, we have to run the
> helpdesk-intern gauntlet.)
>
> It took a lot for us to convince our DBA in regards to reliability of AIX and
> the
> capabilities of SAN versus JBOD. But, he's seen noticable improvements in his
> needs.
>
> We will be looking at a RedHat-cluster versus AIX-HACMP in the coming year...
> So, I can't
> compare much that way.
>
> There is a learning curve, but we're pretty satisfied overall...
>
> Regards,
> Troy
>
> Troy Barnhart, Sr. Systems Programmer,
> tbarnhart@rcrh.org
> Rapid City Regional Hospital,
> Rapid City, South Dakota, 57701
> ph: 605-719-8068 / fax: 605-719-4206
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Patrick B. O'Brien [mailto:pobrien@DOIT.NV.GOV]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2005 11:00 AM
> To: aix-l@Princeton.EDU
> Subject: RH or SuSe Linux VS AIX
>
>
> Someone is trying to tell me RH or SuSe Linux is just as good as AIX; so
> why pay IBM's costs?
>
> I prefer IBM for the following, but what else am I not thinking of?
>
> IBM Support is second to none,
> No kernel or patch updates which can be daily if using RH and SuSe,
> Better admin tools such as mksysb, cfgmgr and hot PCI Tasks,
> Better CPU performance.
>
> What else?
>
>
> TIA!
- Previous message: Darryl Ousterhout: "Re: RH or SuSe Linux VS AIX"
- Maybe in reply to: Barnhart, Troy: "Re: RH or Linux VS AIX"
- Next in thread: Bill Verzal: "Re: RH or Linux VS AIX"
- Reply: Bill Verzal: "Re: RH or Linux VS AIX"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
