I don't believe you are correct. 390 I/O rates are generally orders of
magnitude larger than UNIX as there is simply much more I/O being performed.
Personally, having experience on both, I find 390 much easier to administer,
and the security is much more robust. And I don't work for IBM either. 390
processor utilization is a product of the workload, and adjustable via
tuning. If your ADSM environment was not being dispatched properly, then
either you had a mistuned 390 system or an undersized processor, or both.
390 is indeed a transaction processor par excellence, but is no slouch in
the I/O area, but it is indeed "optimized" for this environment, as DB2 and
CICS would not transact very well if it was not. UNIX may be better at
interactive applications, but I don't think it is better at I/O,
transaction, or batch processing. And a 390 is infinitely more scaleable,
and now can run Linux anyway. And one 390 box can replace a whole bunch of
small UNIX servers. Just my $.02

Doug


At 02:18 PM 3/20/2002 +0100, you wrote:
>Hi
>
>As far as I can see, moving do a UNIX platform only has positive
>effects such as:
>
>- Higher throughput. Normally, the S/390 guys only allows a minor
>amount of memory and processor utilization to be used by ADSM/TSM. This
>is not a problem when running a UNIX box.
>
>- The UNIX boxes normally have higher disk and tape I/O than a S/390
>system. Dont ask me why, but I have seen this in environments where TSM
>had existed on both UNIX and S/390.
>
>- Administration of a UNIX box is normally easier, and you don't have
>to have a IBM representative doing all the work.
>
>- S/390 is optimized for transactions, UNIX is optimized for
>disk/tape/network I/O.
>
>Best Regards
>
>Daniel Sparrman
snip>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>..
Doug Fuerst
Consultant
BK Associates
Brooklyn, NY
(718) 921-2620
doug AT bkassociates DOT net