Mark, Lets compare apples with apples and oranges with oranges. What could you say in response to that: "Your sluggish Windows 3.1 even does not have own TCP/IP stack but I do have IPSec in AIX 4.3.3" How many years have passed since Compaq bought DEC and even now HP buys Compaq (alright, they "merge"). You love your mice, I love my keyboard 51 times more - 102 keys (I replaced the funny kbd with Win keys with an old rock solid PS/2 keyboard) vs 2 buttons :-) - Even in Windoze It is easier for me to do Alt-Tab several times instead of click-here, click-there. But can you manage Windows TCP/IP stack other than with a mouse or digging deeply in (a deep shit called) registry - is there somewhere in the world a description of at least 5% of registry keys any just-installed Windows system does have. What about the man pages. I do not heed to have ability to open Control Panel applets from the help, I need information how to proceed when they open. - not only me but many of my colleagues use X only to have more telnet/ssh screens. I am very sad that IBM replaced high-function terminal (hft) console in AIX 3.x with low-function terminal (lft) console in AIX 4.x and later. With hft we were able to have many screens and switch between them (even if some are X while other are text) - what would you do to automate the everyday tasks of lets say TSM client if you had only GUI or Web client and not dsmc ?!? Windows scripting host??? - can you say that all Windows management tasks can be performed from command line and automated without the tools micro&soft though are enough for you. And I have to learn for each new version of windoze where the heck now can I perform <task1>, <task2>, etc. - we had to go all the way to Windows XP to reach at the end "secure operating system". Have you seen in your life a UNIX with permissions of / and /usr set to 777?!? - mom and pap down the street are able to setup Windows in a half hour. Later they call somebody called "programmer" in Bulgaria to identify their hardware and install that tiny piece of software that would make the sound working, video with resolution greater than 640x480 (VGA was introduced in IBM PS/2 in 1988, right), make this Internet-connection thingy working, etc. And I even had my life an "IT specialist" from a major international bank coming to the office of a customer (big internaltional corporation) to install e-banking SW, got the response that the modem is external and is on the desk and fully cabled, and five minutes later plugged the second phone line into Ethernet adapter. The adapter didn't liked too much the idea to be a fuse but blown as is expected from a fuse. - you already have experience in the past with X terminals. How much time passed to "invent" Windows Terminal Server ? And how many users can run lets say Word on a WTS box simultaneously? And how powerful this box ought to be? - others already pointed TSM mainly needs I/O resources like bus throughput, memory access speed, network performance and even number of slots. What can we do with PC box with 2 slots on primary PCI and 4-5 more through PCI-PCI bridge. So 133-266 MB/s are shared among disk controller (boot), FC adapter (usualy 0 or 2), one or more network adapters. One Gb Ethernet and one FC adapters are enough to congest the bus. Only top-end Intel-based servers have more than one PCI bus. And I will have to get 4,8-processor capable system with only one processor to have necessary bus performance. Guess also from where Intel servers took the idea memory modules to be installed in pairs or quads? I do remember MCA-based RS/6000 53H which served me fine in 1993 having 128-bit wide memory bus with 41MHz processor
Sorry for being so angry. I do recommend to my customers Windows NT/2000 servers for small shops. I hope we will get TSM server on Linux some day. But for any medium-sized or larger enterprise the definitive answer is UNIX (or mainframe if you need it *and* can afford it). If you need to backup NT fileserver, Exchange server and MS SQL server plus/minus few dozen Windows PCs the answer is TSM on Windows. If you have DB2, Informix, Oracle or SAP and several hundred GB database better leave the sandbox and put TSM on UNIX. Have you seen a server with 150-300 GB disk space intended to be backed up to a DDS3 tape (not autochanger) ?! I did. Thank you for the patience rading all I wrote. Zlatko Krastev IT Consultant "Remeta, Mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on 17.01.2002 19:03:29 Please respond to "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] cc: Subject: Re: TSM Server on Windows - Does it work? Well this is not the case Daniel. I do have Unix experience. With Sun's version of Unix before it became Solaris, SunOS, with SCO Unix, with DEC Ultrix and another company who's no longer in business Convergent. I don't remember what they called it. I've used X-Terminals on my desktop before PC's became vogue. Shoot I even modified DEC's install script to support third party drives with Ultrix. Windows is everything Unix should be, easy to use, powerful... I think many so called 'Unix specialists' are just jealous that mom and pop from down the street can setup Windows in an afternoon and do everything that the specialists took 3 days to get running on Unix. -----Original Message----- From: Daniel Sparrman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2002 11:24 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: TSM Server on Windows - Does it work? Normally, this opinion is because you don't have any experience using UNIX. If you we're a unix specialist, what would you prefer? NT or UNIX? The performance gain using UNIX vs NT is not that high when using a small amount of clients. However, using a large amount of clients, over 100, gains a lot of performance. At the customer I earlier described, we had to use an NT server temporary, because there was a slight delay in the delivery of the UNIX machine. The NT machine could backup machines in the morning, while users were working. If I were to backup a 100 clients in morning using the UNIX machine, everything else would stop, because the UNIX machine has a lot higher throughput. The customer had a T/R bridge, and when we started backing up with the UNIX machine, we got the comment from the network guy that the bridge had never been so highly utilized. Best Regards Daniel Sparrman PS This question has been on the ADSM.ORG list before. Which operating system you choose to use is normally based on what knowledge you have. ----------------------------------- Daniel Sparrman Exist i Stockholm AB Bergkällavägen 31D 192 79 SOLLENTUNA Växel: 08 - 754 98 00 Mobil: 070 - 399 27 51 "Remeta, Mark" <MRemeta@SELIGMA To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] NDATA.COM> cc: Sent by: "ADSM: Subject: Re: TSM Server on Windows - Does it work? Dist Stor Manager" <[EMAIL PROTECTED] T.EDU> 2002-01-17 17:23 Please respond to "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" If I had a choice between unix and nt I would choose nt every time. It's much easier to use and the much ballyhooed performance gained by using unix is not that great. Mark -----Original Message----- From: Daniel Sparrman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2002 4:57 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: TSM Server on Windows - Does it work? The cost of an HP LXr8500 with the configuration descripted shouldn't be much lower than a UNIX box with comparable performance. For example and IBM P-Series 610 with PowerPC processors running at 450Mhz would require 2 processor card to be comparable to and 8-way HP intel machine. So, please don't say that a UNIX box is MUCH more expensive. What you have done is to maximize an intel machine. If you were to maximize and UNIX box, it could probably handle as least 10 times the amount of clients. And, then it would be much more expensive. But that isn't what we're talking about. We have a single processor machine running 180 servers, with about 500-600GB of incremental data each night. This machine is half asleep when running backups. Thats the difference in performance. Everybody knows, that if you put an intel machine against a UNIX machine and compare I/O performance, the UNIX machine will outrun the intel box without any problems. And, almost all work that a TSM servers is doing, is related to I/O (disk transactions, db transactions, migration and so on...). Best Regards Daniel Sparrman ----------------------------------- Daniel Sparrman Exist i Stockholm AB Bergkällavägen 31D 192 79 SOLLENTUNA Växel: 08 - 754 98 00 Mobil: 070 - 399 27 51 "Boireau, Eric (MED)" To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <eric.boireau@M cc: ED.GE.COM> Subject: Re: TSM Server on Windows - Does it work? Sent by: "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" <[EMAIL PROTECTED] ST.EDU> 2002-01-17 10:54 Please respond to "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" I do on Win2K Box : More than 650 Completed backup Win9x, NT, 2K Clients backup / days More than 80 NT/ 20 Unix Completed Backup / days 10 Exchange Servers Volume by day 100-300 GB It works fine used less than 50% CPU at maximum. Server : HP LXr8500 8x PIII 700 2MB, 4GB Ram, 24x18GB Ultra3 Raid 5 Disk, 1Gb/s NetCard. Library : STKL700, 6xLTO Ultrium. The main advantage of Win2K Platfom is the cost of the Hardware comparing to SUN or AIX box. Salutations / Best Regards g GE Medical Systems Eric Boireau Global Systems Server Architect / Technology & Infrastructure Team GE Medical Systems S.A 283, rue de la Minière 78533 BUC Cedex France Tél: (33) 1 30 70 39 32, DC: 8*644 3932 Fax: (33) 1 30 70 42 30, DC: 8*644 3930 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -----Original Message----- From: Salak Juraj [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2002 9:22 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: TSM Server on Windows - Does it work? Hi, from what i learned by myself and from couple of tsm users in our area, the aix implementation is even more stable and scalable comparing to nt. TSM itself on nt is as stable as nt itself, if you are happy with nt you will likely be happy with tsm/nt as well. I am just setting-up new nt/tsm box, mainly because our know-how in unix is small. But if my requirements were harder I would swap to aix and buy aix know-how along with the product. For example, a neighbour company with x-terbytes of backup data and ATM backbone could double their tcp-ip throughput by swapping to aix, inspite of their perfect NT know how and weeks of tuning and comparable HW used for both NT and AIX. But I do not need that, so I stay with NT. regards Juraj -----Original Message----- From: wptw63 [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2002 10:13 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: TSM Server on Windows - Does it work? We are considering installing TSM server, and are being 'encouraged' to run it on AIX but are a little cold to the idea. We have more experience supporting Windows 2000. Does anyone have any feedback on the stability or performance of TSM server running on Windows? Feel free to mail directly if you have any information that you willing to share but are uncomfortable putting on the list. Thanks ---------------- Powered by telstra.com Confidentiality Note: The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to whom or which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you receive this in error, please delete this material immediately. Confidentiality Note: The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to whom or which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you receive this in error, please delete this material immediately.
