Which is best for Progress DB, AIX, HP-UX, SUN etc
- Thread starter bino
- Start date
My personal views:
* Alpha - the best chip around - still. Once Alpha chip = 2 Sun chips. Its dying though
* Sun - works ok - really bad Java performance last time I checked. Has some nice stuff in OS 8. Ultrasparc IIs help. The Sun Fire 6800 is a nice machine.
* HP - no idea
* IBM - always make good stuff - have not tried anything lately.
Personally I have always found that Alpha packs the grunt and Intel/Linux is the cheapest.
Murray
* Alpha - the best chip around - still. Once Alpha chip = 2 Sun chips. Its dying though
* Sun - works ok - really bad Java performance last time I checked. Has some nice stuff in OS 8. Ultrasparc IIs help. The Sun Fire 6800 is a nice machine.
* HP - no idea
* IBM - always make good stuff - have not tried anything lately.
Personally I have always found that Alpha packs the grunt and Intel/Linux is the cheapest.
Murray
We're running a large scale Intel platform with Red Hat. Quad Intel Xeon 2.8 Gz MP, 16 GB RAM, attached to a midsize 2GB SAN. It has the best performance our ERP vendor has ever seen. We can sustain 125K locks per second under this configuration with approximately 1.5GB updates per minute with replication. This has the lowest price point against performance. I am looking at another Quad Opteron box with localy attached SATA disk. A Quad with 32 GB RAM and 6 TB of raw disk space can be aquired for as low as $30,000. If you lower the SATA disk size to ones running 15K RPM, you can exceed the 2GB Fiber SAN performance. Eventually, Progress will have to release a 64Bit version or the DB. Until then, it will run 32 bit native under the 64 bit OS, much like the AIX platform.
In doing some testing (a couple of years ago) it seemed that the application (batch intensive) we ran, performed better on a smaller IBM box than a larger SUN box. To even get comparable results we had to bring in SUN engineers to tweak the SUN box .... so why bother. Go with AIX or HP/UX (which also runs Progress DB very well). Or look into some of the Linux offerings today ....
And, that's also not to say that SUN doesn't perform better these days ... our tests were done 3 years ago.
And, that's also not to say that SUN doesn't perform better these days ... our tests were done 3 years ago.
Progress_Guy
Member
Hi there,
We use HP-UX and with the one exception I've used it everywhere else I've worked.
I'm not a UNIX guru, all I insist is that my databases sit in a stable efficient environment and HP provides this.
The performance is superb and Progress sits well on it. There is also a log of knowledge about it - especially in the Progress community.
HP is a little like IBM used to be. You can't get fired for buying it - lol.
We use HP-UX and with the one exception I've used it everywhere else I've worked.
I'm not a UNIX guru, all I insist is that my databases sit in a stable efficient environment and HP provides this.
The performance is superb and Progress sits well on it. There is also a log of knowledge about it - especially in the Progress community.
HP is a little like IBM used to be. You can't get fired for buying it - lol.
Hahah! yes. But they are expensive. Either way it does the job perfectly.
We do email,vsifax,pdf,tiff,png transforms of reports, barcodes etc.,import/exports to datawarehouse server via a single dell server ($5000 piece of hardware) with sco unixware installed. Can this be done for example in Windows? theoretically yes. practically no.
Honestly unix is an extremely rich platform including HP/UX.
