Re: How many companies are buying new AS400's - None.? They are buying new System i5 solutions.

The original architecture of the System i family was designed and built as a multi-user _database_ system; aimed at commercial workloads. The management of disk, memory, and CPU are in tune with that original design. Even with /slower/ CPUs, the AS/400 was able to surpass the amount of OLTP work on many other servers; much like the zSeries does -- many technologies that are included beyond just fast spinning drives and high Mhz that get lots of work done. The work is divided across jobs that can be pooled in separate subsystems across which memory allocations & restrictions can be applied. The system work management allows easy configuration of priorities, and viewing of all jobs [in a subsystem]; integrated, not a purchased option. The disk & memory make up the 'single level storage' such that when reading or writing from/to disk the work is all done in memory; the programmers and programs do not [need to] know the difference -- the system 'storage management' handles the details. A lot of I/O gets done on special I/O processors which relieve the system from managing that work with its own CPU and memory.
There is no extra RDBMS to buy since it is included in the operating system; i.e. DB2 for i5/OS. Transaction logging [journaling], security, and DB tuning tools are also included. Backup, Restore, and Recovery are available for the entire system including the database rather than separately for/from the database. Each of these functions are used to implement many other features on the system. For example fixes are created & delivered as save files, and auditing uses journaling. Thus such features will generally function well for the non-IBM applications and end users, because if not, then the OS itself probably does not function; another benefit of the integration.
Maybe most important is that both data & executable are encapsulated and only supported methods are allowed access. The pointers are marked dead if improperly manipulated outside of the allowed methods, and each identifies the type of object to which it points; living only as long as the object, its address never to be usable again. There is no method to rename or change a _file_ to make it [appear as] an executable, and there is no option to access and modify instruction streams [as data]. A _file_ is an object, and an application is a different object type [an executable, a program; by whatever name, is *not* a generic 'file' for which its 'type' is denoted by its name.extension]. There is a method to read log/journal entries, but none to update. These and other attributes & features are what makes the System i5 a 'business' computer; with i5/OS as operating system to support business [applications].
Other operating systems might be /cool/ for allowing programmers to do just about anything, outside of an appropriate set of methods, but the integrity is probably much more suspect -- similar to how some applications might be suspect for the language failing to enforce logical rules and encapsulation. There seems to be little reason IMO, to allow changing a 'file' from one type to another to allow it to execute, except to assist in propagating a virus. The i5/OS does not allow anything like that, for which many can rejoice.
Addressing the needs of commercial enterprises, the value of the investment is enhanced with and is protected by an unrivaled upward and downward compatibility of binaries. Source compiles can be directed to the down-level release, then saved & restored to the prior-release system; coming back up any number of releases.
So are those all things that add to the initial/acquisition cost? Yes. It is the *value* in those and the many other things that i5/OS and the System i5 provide [e.g. LPAR including the ability to have both AIX and LINUX partitions in the same box, plus enhanced coexistence with Windows and Linux on Intel with xSeries], that when recognized and acknowledged, should enable someone to make the safe choice to buy into the System i family.

As for performance of queries, there are many examples of customers getting very fast query response times with DB2 for i5/OS as compared to other databases. When a query is uncharacteristically slow, that is sometimes a problem with the client tooling trying to do too much [rather than allowing the server to do the work], but more often due to the database having been created without necessary index definitions which give the optimizer information about the data to be retrieved and how a requested query might be rewritten for the quickest results. Additionally as a RDBS with row locking since its infancy, and live data expectations, many SQL query requesters are defaulted to FOR UPDATE when they need to have specified FOR READ ONLY or to have used a read-only driver. Additionally the access may default to an isolation level that is more appropriate for business, preventing read of /dirty data/, so fastest SQL query results may require WITH NC when appropriate. Even so the database can scale up very well using SMP when activated. So if the perceived results were poor, there was probably _something_ that could have been done to improve the results. There is a variety of tooling to assist in getting improved performance from queries, even for when the database is already defined with appropriate INDEX definitions, expected to assist the optimizer. Each database engine will sometimes like things other than what was originally used to architect the database, such that tuning must be tweaked to best take advantage of the specific engine.

Regards, Chuck
-- All comments provided "as is" with no warranties of any kind whatsoever and may not represent positions, strategies, nor views of my employer

kellyj00@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
I work with both systems, and I'm having trouble seeing how they
relate at all in price.
Dell servers with very cutting-edge hardware are about 20-25k a piece
through our salesman, and the iSeries is being quoted at over 150k,
through our IBM rep.

I'm a little confused as to how they can pack 6 ($150k/$25k) times the
performance into a server. The Dell servers that we run now running
windows are handling our Email and BI tool (among other servers for
other software) without any trouble or noticable hesitation.

I haven't been in the industry very long, and started my career in my
last job as a developer on the PC platform...running IBM p-series (AIX
os) and Oracle for Peoplesoft ERP. The system was just as reliable
as the as400 that my current employer has, but was much faster in
query response time.

From what I've seen of the as400, it hasn't warranted the cost over a
PC server. In fact, if I understood our IBM rep correctly, the
drives are all SCSI 15k rpm, same as a PC server. I know drives
aren't the only performance factor, but this fact leads me to believe
that the iSeries isn't really all that much different from a PC
server, and that the iSeries may actually be simply maintaining the
market share that it had before Pentium processors and the PC world
became much more efficient.

Correct me where I'm wrong. I'm not trying to say that the iSeries is
an inferior machine, but I'm not seeing the performance to justify
over 6 times the cost.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: dataset Performence Issue
    ... Microsoft that a DataSet is okay to abuse as a DataBase. ... Managed Code can never be as fast and as optimized ... very good for 90% of the situations i.e. normal memory usage, ... Merge/GetChanges - and oh lets not forget keeping your disconnected cache ...
    (microsoft.public.dotnet.framework.adonet)
  • Re: A memcached-like server in Ruby - feasible?
    ... mysql can either do this with a readonly slave *or* it cannot be done ... The problem is that for a perfectly normalized database, ... several DBAs have already looked into our query strategy. ... web servers). ...
    (comp.lang.ruby)
  • Re: Table names in make-table query
    ... "They are exported on a monthly basis so need to have a new table name for ... Now you can use a query to retrieve any batch of data in the table. ... also uses the database default on how large a text field should be. ... but does eat up memory. ...
    (microsoft.public.access.tablesdbdesign)
  • Re: To Normalize or not ??
    ... The problem is that when you run a split database, ... save a word document (it is in memory, and thus does not get saved). ... ms-access is different then excel or word. ... database server. ...
    (microsoft.public.access.formscoding)
  • Re: Update Application value on multiple servers?
    ... I have to agree with Aaron and Bob on this one even though I originally ... >> Why are you using poor database design as an excuse for poor application ... >> need to synchronize between all the servers in the farm. ... More often than not that particular query is the bottleneck in our ...
    (microsoft.public.inetserver.asp.general)