Re: p5 model 520 - overly complex and unreliable?

j3 wrote:
Dohhhh wrote:
In article <1151378362.136730.173230@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "j3"
<jeffrey_e_ross2@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
I have two p5 model 520 machines but find them fairly awful compared to
the older RS/6000 model 44P machines that I have. I wonder if anyone
out there has any similar or different opinion?

Any other opinions out there?

Well,
(LOTS OF STUFF SNIPPED) <<<<

Thanks, Peter. I'm glad to hear that someone is enjoying these
contraptions!
Have you come upon the equivalent of the old installation/service/user
guides? I found the Redbook, "IBM System p5 520 and 520Q Technical
Overview and Introduction", dated April 206, IBM Form Number
REDP-4137-00,

You're probably better off going to http://publib.boulder.ibm.com/infocenter/pseries/v5r3/index.jsp which is the (p5/pSeries "Info Center"...you'll find a wealth of information on everything - hardware and OS related - there.

which looked useful but the Ethernet ports as documented
don't match what is actually on the machine, so I wonder how much of
the rest of it is accurate. I had an Ethernet connection problem on
one LAN and saw that the port was flashing at a quarter of the rate of
the good port beside it, but can't find where this sort of thing is
documented. Basically I had to guess what was wrong and guess how to
fix it, which isn't my favourite strategy for problem resolution!
Jeffrey.


I believe the "integrated" ports are now 10/100/1000 capable. If you are connecting to a GB switch, leave the settings at the default (auto negotiate); if not, then (I've found/recommend) get the switch port and the respective ethernet port (on the system) set to the same capabilities (i.e., 100 full duplex or whatever the switch handles). As for the documentation of how the physical slots/connectors are labeled, see the above link...in general, p5 changed the labeling of the slots and ports (I believe because of their "advanced virtualization" capabilities)...I think if you look on the back of the system drawer, you'll see how the ports are labeled - it will probably now be T1 and T2 (along with HMC1 and HMC2) and the slots Cx (or something like that).

HTH some (the above link is REALLY the best place to get some of the answers you're looking for :-} ).

Peter
p.s. WRT OP's "overly complex" comment - I've found ANYTHING new appears "overly complex" at first...if you think the "520" is overly complex, then I guess you'd be best advised to stay away from the (p5 based) JS20 blade servers (and their variants) which is aimed at the SMB market :-P
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Opening Ports on Norton 2002
    ... > proceed to rubbish everyones opinion believing yours to be the only ... >> blocking the port and it's not some other problem. ... If by that you mean "here's my problem, anyone got an advice" then yes. ... Both of whom seem incapable of being civil. ...
    (comp.security.firewalls)
  • Re: Opening port 80&443 not only opens OWA but also Companyweb access?
    ... simple fact that it's easier to attract attention with port 80 open. ... but unless you're prepared to say that IIS is simply insecure ... Until then, yes, I say it is our OPINION and should not ...
    (microsoft.public.windows.server.sbs)
  • Re: Notifying user of open Internet access
    ... I believe the Port 139 was for Netbios shares, ... In my opinion, ... serious flaw in the whole computing market. ... I always use a NAT box, before putting a Windows box on the Internet. ...
    (alt.computer.security)
  • Re: "Professional" does not = "High End"
    ... >> It's an opinion, but I'm willing to retract taking back the second bit ... > I believe I did exactly that with regard to the port. ... > Your justification for ridicule was rationalization. ... Ridicule is an effective way to expose weak arguments. ...
    (rec.audio.opinion)
  • Re: Cat 2924
    ... Copyright 1986-2004 by cisco Systems, ... BOX in both H/W and S/W, compared to a C2924-XL Switch... ... FastEthernet0/1 failed front-end loopback test ... to make the port configuration "visible", you need to apply 2 commands ...
    (comp.dcom.sys.cisco)