Someone else correctly (IMHO) pointed out the "commodity" aspect of unix
servers. One other thing you've got to factor in is the recent introduction
of HP-UX blades. Now, you need one app running on unix ? OK, that's 2
blades. Another app ? Add 2 more blades. And so forth. And you can
reconfigure your blades at will, virtualize, consolidate, reassign CPU
power, take advantage of common IO channels, etc. A very different rationale
than what was going on for MPE.
Need more "something" (CPU, memory, IO, etc.) on your HP-UX farm ? Add 1
line onto your leasing contract !
Bottom line : while you can still technically "evolve" MPE servers into
HP-UX servers, there's very, very little objective reason to do so.
Christian
> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : HP-3000 Systems Discussion [mailto:[log in to unmask]] De la part
> de Chuck Ciesinski
> Envoyé : mercredi 18 janvier 2006 02:00
> À : [log in to unmask]
> Objet : Re: [HP3000-L] 3000 to 9000 Conversion - Experiences? Feasibility?
>
> To all,
>
> On the HP.COM servers page, take a look at the 'Discontinued
> Servers' link. There are 3000's and the HP-9000's are broken
> down by various classes. All the A's, L's, K's, and N's are
> already discontinued. In fact several of the HP 'Superdomes'
> are already on the discontinued list.
>
> As Donna indicated, one app -> two servers (active/passive
> failover) is more the norm than 1 HP3000 hosting lots of apps.
>
> Chuck Ciesinski
>
> * To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
> * etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *
* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *
|
