Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*Server\s+AIX\s+vs\s+NT\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*Server\s+AIX\s+vs\s+NT\s*$/: 14 ]

Total 14 documents matching your query.

1. Server AIX vs NT (score: 1): Author: Ray Baughman <rbaughman AT NATIONALMACHINERY DOT COM>; Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2002 11:46:14 -0500; Hello, We are looking to replace our TSM server hardware, we are currently running the TSM server on an IBM H50. The bean counters are saying that an NT server would be a lot cheaper than a UNIX serv; /usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/ADSM-L/2002-11/msg00432.html (11,676 bytes)
2. Re: Server AIX vs NT (score: 1): Author: Karel Bos <Karel.Bos AT NUON DOT COM>; Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2002 17:53:24 +0100; Hi, We are running TSM on both a NSM (H70) and on Win2000 (IBM X Serie). At the moment the AIX server has more clients but the both boxes are storing nearly the same amount of data. Due to lack of pe; /usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/ADSM-L/2002-11/msg00434.html (12,584 bytes)
3. Re: Server AIX vs NT (score: 1): Author: "Williams, Tim P {PBSG}" <Tim.Williams AT PBSG DOT COM>; Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2002 11:13:01 -0600; You may find that AIX handles the IP stack better than NT...opinion.. Hello, We are looking to replace our TSM server hardware, we are currently running the TSM server on an IBM H50. The bean counter; /usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/ADSM-L/2002-11/msg00435.html (12,346 bytes)
4. Re: Server AIX vs NT (score: 1): Author: Sias Dealy <hnre AT UREACH DOT COM>; Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2002 13:05:30 -0500; The biggest thing that I have notice between the AIX and the NT server. The NT box are rebooted more often than the AIX box. The AIX box was reboot once and that was about three or four years ago. Th; /usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/ADSM-L/2002-11/msg00439.html (13,076 bytes)
5. Re: Server AIX vs NT (score: 1): Author: "Whitlow, Don" <Don.Whitlow AT QG DOT COM>; Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2002 12:23:32 -0600; hardware has been the I/O thruput. In our experience, Wintel hardware/software just cannot push I/O through like our RS6K hardware running AIX. That may be in large part due to the fact that Win32 s; /usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/ADSM-L/2002-11/msg00441.html (12,882 bytes)
6. Re: Server AIX vs NT (score: 1): Author: Ricardo Ribeiro <ricardo.ribeiro AT ADVANCEPCS DOT COM>; Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2002 13:39:33 -0700; Not to mention the uptime difference that you will gain from an AIX box. We had an NT TSM server that we had to replace with an industrial strength box due to capacity and down time issues running on; /usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/ADSM-L/2002-11/msg00449.html (13,657 bytes)
7. Re: Server AIX vs NT (score: 1): Author: "William F. Colwell" <bcolwell AT DRAPER DOT COM>; Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2002 17:38:48 -0500; Ricardo, I will be rehosting soon from OS/390 to either W2k or sun. What precisely was your capacity issue? We are leaning to W2k right now, if our requirements are below your problem we may be OK wi; /usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/ADSM-L/2002-11/msg00454.html (14,827 bytes)
8. Re: Server AIX vs NT (score: 1): Author: Ricardo Ribeiro <ricardo.ribeiro AT ADVANCEPCS DOT COM>; Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2002 16:31:35 -0700; Well, there we many different issues. The main one that I can think of is the PCI scsi adapters and their performance. We had 4 scsi adapters (PCI 64bit), they could not keep up with the demand of cl; /usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/ADSM-L/2002-11/msg00458.html (15,733 bytes)
9. Re: Server AIX vs NT (score: 1): Author: Remco Post <r.post AT SARA DOT NL>; Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 17:47:08 +0100; Hi, We run TSM on AIX, quite heavily loaded (105GB db, 70% full), no problems, moving our 200soemthing GB daily. I don't know of any PC hardware that could handle our 15-something PCI adapters, so th; /usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/ADSM-L/2002-11/msg00572.html (14,284 bytes)
10. Re: Server AIX vs NT (score: 1): Author: Tony Morgan <TONY.MORGAN AT FORTISBANK DOT COM>; Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 17:55:11 +0100; My "Tuppence" worth (Two pence GB is worth 3 US Cents), We run quite happily on a wintel server, backing up 70+ clients and 200Gb Overnight. Just buy the biggest and faster box you can afford (Intel; /usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/ADSM-L/2002-11/msg00577.html (15,647 bytes)
11. Re: Server AIX vs NT (score: 1): Author: Karel Bos <Karel.Bos AT NUON DOT COM>; Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 18:38:05 +0100; With you. We run 90+ clients and 700-800 gigs a day on a wintel box. We have moved the large files servers of our AIX server to this wintel box, because of performance. --Oorspronkelijk bericht-- Van; /usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/ADSM-L/2002-11/msg00580.html (15,977 bytes)
12. Re: Server AIX vs NT (score: 1): Author: Ricardo Ribeiro <ricardo.ribeiro AT ADVANCEPCS DOT COM>; Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 11:19:35 -0700; Yeah! but what type of aix box was it? 43p? Karel Bos <Karel.Bos@NUON. To: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU COM> cc: Sent by: "ADSM: Subject: Re: Server AIX vs NT Dist Stor Manager" <[email protected] T.EDU; /usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/ADSM-L/2002-11/msg00589.html (16,588 bytes)
13. Re: Server AIX vs NT (score: 1): Author: Suad <s.musovich AT AUCKLAND.AC DOT NZ>; Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 22:36:24 +1300; Have you though about upgrading to 5.1.5 and running Linux? Also, I've been investigating and have found newer Intel based servers are coming with a lot more I/O capabilities. Unfortunately the vendo; /usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/ADSM-L/2002-11/msg00611.html (12,359 bytes)
14. Re: Server AIX vs NT (score: 1): Author: Zlatko Krastev <acit AT ATTGLOBAL DOT NET>; Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 23:15:04 +0200; Many times discussed on the list and always the discussion is lengthy and dispersed in opinions. I personally recommend UNIX-systems thus if you are not interested in my arguments please do not read; /usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/ADSM-L/2002-11/msg00667.html (16,182 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 14
Page: [1]