I was participating in a discussion in LinkedIn about RPG Open Access and using RPG as a language to implement modern UI's. Someone threw the old My IBM i based machine is less expensive and more reliable than a Windows Server Farm (i.e. Server farm's are bad).
It is time to look closely at your IBM i or OS/400 based machines and their cost and availability. We live in a global economy today where 24 x 7 x 365 is a fact and necessity, not something we talk about that we might want someday.
Well the sad fact is that IBM has never delivered true 24 x 7 x 365 capabilities with its IBM i operating system and the embedded DB2 database bundled with the machine. If you need to make change like adding a field to an existing database table you must shutdown all subsystems or applications that might open the file so that DB2 can get an exclusive lock on the file to be modified. If the file is of any significant size adding the field and reloading the file can take several hours during which time your system must be unavailable.
Even with the best 3rd party data replication software you still have this downtime. In fact with replication software running for disaster recovery you will experience at least 45 minutes of downtime when you lose a machine before you are operational and with most software its more like 8 hours.
Someone claimed that you can apply maintenance or update programs on IBM i but not on Windows without shutting down a machine. Well, if you are running ILE service programs on iSeries or IBM i you have to shut down too.
Quite frankly, Windows, Linux, and Unix server farms have proven themselves in the largest imaginable high availability situations where an IBM i machine cannot begin to compete.
Is IBM i a good OS? It was! It has not been kept current nor has it been modernized by IBM to meet current requirements. Same goes for the IBM i version of DB2. There are 3rd party databases particularly in the UNIX Linux world that can continue running while you make file changes like adding a field or reformatting a field. With databases like Computer Associate's DATACOM/DB you have been able to add or remove fields, or even extend the size of a field without shutting down you applications since the mid 1980's. You still can't do that with any version of DB2.
Bottom line, its time to look objectively at IBM i based machines and compare it to Windows, Linux, and Unix.
Today it probably makes a lot more sense to run multiple machines than a single iSeries or IBM i. It is probably a lot more cost effective too.
This blog is about the IBM's IBM i operating system and the need to modernize. The articles in this blog are my opinion based on my experience.
Follow by Email
The question I have had all these years is why, why did IBM mgmt not invest in the software side of the i, why don't they invest in it now? Was a determination made that SLS is inherently insecure or is not scalable? After Glenn Henry left, was Rochester dominated by hardware engineers and had no advocates preaching the power of software? ( I don't think Dr. Frank walks on water. ) Is the IBM i OS code so loaded up with cruft after 30 years of code changes that a major rewrite of the OS code is necessary before anything major is added? Palmisano was bragging in the papers a few weeks ago that IBM is better than HP because IBM does not skimp on R&D. I am kind of doubtful, but he has numbers to back up his claim. Why does IBM invest in its technology, but neglects the i?
ReplyDelete