Aix vs. Solaris -- what should I get?

Aix vs. Solaris -- what should I get?

Post by Steve Moo » Sun, 17 Jan 1999 04:00:00



My company is developing a new system. Our past experience is with an
AS/400 (in one location, being phased out) and ES9000 mainframe (another
location), and NT.

The system will be based on a relational database, probably DB2 5.2 but
possibly Oracle 8.

We don't have a DBA yet, and we have both AIX and Solaris in house
(running vertical applications -- very little sys admin knowledge yet).
So this means we will have to hire a DBA and sysadmin. The system is too
mission-critical to trust to NT.

Our overall corporate strategy has always revolved around IBM, and we
will definitely be staying in the mainframe arena for a long time, so
this leans us toward the IBM solution -- DB2, and since we want a UNIX
version, probably AIX. However several of our consultants prefer a
Sun/Oracle solution. As we add new database-based applications we will
want to leverage this project & it's team, so whatever we choose we will
likely stick with for other projects in the future.

What would you choose? What killer features or capabilities does Solaris
have that AIX doesn't? (or vice-versa)

How good is the market for experienced AIX admins vs. Solaris admins?
(US Northeast)

Size-wise this will be a 20-40GB database, so it shouldn't really
stretch the limits of either of these OS's.

Any help appreciated in advance.

Thanks!
Steve-

 
 
 

Aix vs. Solaris -- what should I get?

Post by Stan » Sun, 17 Jan 1999 04:00:00


goto www.dhbrown.com this is the latest review of UNIX OS's.  By the way AIX
won!  If you go with Sun you will need a couple of System Admins to keep it
all running.  AIX will only need one.

You can do Oracle on IBM too.  (If that is your preference.)

Stan" THE UNIX MAN"


>My company is developing a new system. Our past experience is with an
>AS/400 (in one location, being phased out) and ES9000 mainframe (another
>location), and NT.

>The system will be based on a relational database, probably DB2 5.2 but
>possibly Oracle 8.

>We don't have a DBA yet, and we have both AIX and Solaris in house
>(running vertical applications -- very little sys admin knowledge yet).
>So this means we will have to hire a DBA and sysadmin. The system is too
>mission-critical to trust to NT.

>Our overall corporate strategy has always revolved around IBM, and we
>will definitely be staying in the mainframe arena for a long time, so
>this leans us toward the IBM solution -- DB2, and since we want a UNIX
>version, probably AIX. However several of our consultants prefer a
>Sun/Oracle solution. As we add new database-based applications we will
>want to leverage this project & it's team, so whatever we choose we will
>likely stick with for other projects in the future.

>What would you choose? What killer features or capabilities does Solaris
>have that AIX doesn't? (or vice-versa)

>How good is the market for experienced AIX admins vs. Solaris admins?
>(US Northeast)

>Size-wise this will be a 20-40GB database, so it shouldn't really
>stretch the limits of either of these OS's.

>Any help appreciated in advance.

>Thanks!
>Steve-


 
 
 

Aix vs. Solaris -- what should I get?

Post by Richard Ellin » Mon, 18 Jan 1999 04:00:00


What a setup for a cross-newsgroup fight.  I'll be civil :-)


> My company is developing a new system. Our past experience is with an
> AS/400 (in one location, being phased out) and ES9000 mainframe (another
> location), and NT.

> The system will be based on a relational database, probably DB2 5.2 but
> possibly Oracle 8.

Seems typical.  Both run well on Solaris and AIX.

Quote:> We don't have a DBA yet, and we have both AIX and Solaris in house
> (running vertical applications -- very little sys admin knowledge yet).
> So this means we will have to hire a DBA and sysadmin. The system is too
> mission-critical to trust to NT.

My view is that Solaris is more SYSVR4 and AIX is less so.  But it
shouldn't matter much, both are modern UNIX implementations and the
feature lists are comparable.

Quote:> Our overall corporate strategy has always revolved around IBM, and we
> will definitely be staying in the mainframe arena for a long time, so
> this leans us toward the IBM solution -- DB2, and since we want a UNIX
> version, probably AIX. However several of our consultants prefer a
> Sun/Oracle solution. As we add new database-based applications we will
> want to leverage this project & it's team, so whatever we choose we will
> likely stick with for other projects in the future.

> What would you choose? What killer features or capabilities does Solaris
> have that AIX doesn't? (or vice-versa)

Hmmm... probably no "killer" features.  But ORACLE has a closer relationship
with Sun.  DB2 is obviously IBM.  The two also differ in their design
targets of the last few years.  ORACLE is heavily SMP oriented.  DB2 got
sidetracked with the MPP virus.  Not that either is good or bad, just
different.  SMP is clearly winning as evidenced by IBMs move towards
larger SMP boxes.  Meanwhile, the MPP market is going away.

Quote:> How good is the market for experienced AIX admins vs. Solaris admins?
> (US Northeast)

Solaris has a much larger market share in units.  Also, Solaris on
Intel x86 based machines is the same as Solaris on SPARC.  You can
get both Solaris versions for essentially free for non-commercial use.
Thus the supply of Solaris literate admins is liable to be more
plentiful than AIX admins.  But I would expect you to see a regional
variation.

Quote:> Size-wise this will be a 20-40GB database, so it shouldn't really
> stretch the limits of either of these OS's.

Such a database would easily fit into main memory with ORACLE on a
mid to high end Sun system...
  -- richard
 
 
 

Aix vs. Solaris -- what should I get?

Post by Ian Brow » Mon, 18 Jan 1999 04:00:00





>>What a setup for a cross-newsgroup fight.  I'll be civil :-)

>I won't.  If you buy Sun boxes, you won't have to deal with IBM.  
>Worth every penny.

If we're really going to start fighting, what's wrong with DB2 on an
AS/400?
<Asbestos suit being worn>
--
Ian Brown
 
 
 

Aix vs. Solaris -- what should I get?

Post by Frank Kraeme » Mon, 18 Jan 1999 04:00:00




> > My company is developing a new system. Our past experience is with an
> > AS/400 (in one location, being phased out) and ES9000 mainframe (another
> > location), and NT.
> > Our overall corporate strategy has always revolved around IBM, and we
> > will definitely be staying in the mainframe arena for a long time, so
> > this leans us toward the IBM solution -- DB2, and since we want a UNIX
> > version, probably AIX. However several of our consultants prefer a
> > Sun/Oracle solution. As we add new database-based applications we will
> > want to leverage this project & it's team, so whatever we choose we will
> > likely stick with for other projects in the future.

> > What would you choose? What killer features or capabilities does Solaris
> > have that AIX doesn't? (or vice-versa)

if you want to get connected to the mainframe AIX does offer more features and
connection options.
HACMP/6000 will offer more advanced features for a HA system.

Quote:> Hmmm... probably no "killer" features.  But ORACLE has a closer relationship
> with Sun.  DB2 is obviously IBM.  The two also differ in their design
> targets of the last few years.  ORACLE is heavily SMP oriented.  DB2 got
> sidetracked with the MPP virus.  Not that either is good or bad, just
> different.  SMP is clearly winning as evidenced by IBMs move towards
> larger SMP boxes.  Meanwhile, the MPP market is going away.

the closer relationship means the distance from the SUN headquater to to the
Oracle
headquater ? IBM's backup software ADSM does offer direct Oracle plug-in. IBM
MPP configurations (that mean's an SP) is the plattform of choice for Oracle
Parallel Server (OPS).

SUN used DB2 to archieve high figures in a recent benchmark. Oracale runs as
good on a RS/6000
as DB2 does on SUN.

Quote:> > How good is the market for experienced AIX admins vs. Solaris admins?
> > (US Northeast)

> Solaris has a much larger market share in units.  Also, Solaris on
> Intel x86 based machines is the same as Solaris on SPARC.  You can
> get both Solaris versions for essentially free for non-commercial use.
> Thus the supply of Solaris literate admins is liable to be more
> plentiful than AIX admins.  But I would expect you to see a regional
> variation.

Solaris expert is not Solaris expert, SUN made quite a large change in the
number of tools to administer the system in the past. AIX alsways had only ONE
tool that did the job; version and realease did not matter at all. If you need
an HA enviroment, there will be much more admins for AIX & HACMP/6000 than for
SUN HA.

Quote:> > Size-wise this will be a 20-40GB database, so it shouldn't really
> > stretch the limits of either of these OS's.

RS/6000 offers more choices of I/O equipment. IBM SSA will outperform SUN SSA in
most cases. IBM does offer SCSI, SSA and Versatile Storage Server (EMC
quivalent) and IBM is one of the 2 manufactures of Fibre Channel disks. Need
tapes ? 3590 Magstar tapes will offer you 9 MB/s substained for real fast
backups. Need backup software - ADSM for AIX is the clear leader of the pack.

-frank-

 
 
 

Aix vs. Solaris -- what should I get?

Post by John Kotche » Mon, 18 Jan 1999 04:00:00



Quote:

> goto www.dhbrown.com this is the latest review of UNIX OS's.  By the way AIX
> won!  If you go with Sun you will need a couple of System Admins to keep it
> all running.  AIX will only need one.

It's one box, or maybe two.  Neither AIX nor Solaris would
require more than one competent Sys Admin to manage them.

The group I work with manages over 400 systems.  We average
about 30 machines each.  We have mixed AIX, Solaris and NT.
Our worst problems come from NT....

AIX and Solaris are both stable, robust platforms.  It will
come down to which platform is most comfortable for Steve.

I think AIX will get the nod, given the fact that it's already
an IBM mainframe site.

Quote:> You can do Oracle on IBM too.  (If that is your preference.)

This is an excellent point.  They don't have skill sets to cover
either AIX or Solaris so the issue is availibility of SA talent
in the market.  I don't know the NE market, but if you check the
job market here in the midwest, there's a lot of calling for Sun
expertise...  A close second is AIX, followed (distantly) by HP-UX.

> Stan" THE UNIX MAN"



<<< Sorry Steve, I deleted your message

--
************************************************************
* A goofy Unix SA working for a large computer equipment   *
* manufacturer and  services provider.  Opinions expressed *

************************************************************

 
 
 

Aix vs. Solaris -- what should I get?

Post by Tim Henstoc » Mon, 18 Jan 1999 04:00:00




> >What a setup for a cross-newsgroup fight.  I'll be civil :-)

> I won't.  If you buy Sun boxes, you won't have to deal with IBM.
> Worth every penny.

Both systems are capable of doing what you want. AIX gains in
administration somewhat through SMIT, although I disagree
that you would need more admins for a Sun - our department has
30 Suns and 2 AIX systems run by one person who spends about
20% of her time on the AIX and 80% on the Suns. Some things on
AIX (printers for example) are just too well disguised
even with SMIT. AIX networking seems a little fragile
and any glitch between the AIX boxes and the DNS server on
the next subnet causes them to sulk. Sun are likely
to be cheaper, although I assume that is not a consideration.
IBM hardware is possibly a bit more reliable, although
maintenance is typically more expensive (we figure that
since our 595 costs 10k/year hardware support we should
have the engineer come and check it every 10 days or
so....) The BBBBIIIIGGGG problems with IBM are the people
and getting the stuff delivered. We had a rep that it took
two years to upgrade despite repeated requests who
actually knew _less_ than was on the basic RS6000 web page
(things like insisting a particular upgrade would
change the number of memory slots on the system.) By
the time I had dumped and faxed the machine configuration
for the fourth time for an order I was pretty unimpressed.
I was even more unimpressed that the order was placed in
June (for an upgrade that had supposedly been shipping for
a couple of months) and delivery was first promised in August,
then September, then October, and the system was finally
up and running the end of November. When the machine
was delivered it did everything we had expected (rather
than been told!) but it was pretty frustrating.
 Other people on campus
have waited a year for orders to be fulfilled despite
calling weekly (by the time the orders are delivered they
are frequently obsolete...) Even though we have a software
upgrade contract they wanted to charge us multi-$100s
for "media costs" when we went to 4.2, and insisted that
we needed different media for 370 and 595 systems. We loaded
both off the same image (actually the 370 loaded from
the 595) since when our two packages showed up they had the
identical part number.
By contrast with Sun, we talk to people who seem to know
what they are talking about, are happy to say "I dont know,
I'll have an engineer call you" and it happens, and when we
place an order it shows up when promised. Oh, and we
dont have to put up with repeatedly installing full korean
 language support because security patches insist its a
 pre-requisite.

well, I _tried_ to be civil, but sometimes.....

Tim Henstock

 
 
 

Aix vs. Solaris -- what should I get?

Post by David William » Mon, 18 Jan 1999 04:00:00






>> >What a setup for a cross-newsgroup fight.  I'll be civil :-)

>> I won't.  If you buy Sun boxes, you won't have to deal with IBM.
>> Worth every penny.

>Both systems are capable of doing what you want. AIX gains in
>administration somewhat through SMIT, although I disagree

 True.

Quote:>By contrast with Sun, we talk to people who seem to know
>what they are talking about, are happy to say "I dont know,
>I'll have an engineer call you" and it happens, and when we
>place an order it shows up when promised. Oh, and we

  Yep, I've always been impressed with Sun support.
  Especially when the hardware engineer turns up the next and gives
  me his mobile number as he leaves and says "call me if you get any
  more problems!"

  Sun just seem to have a better attitude and are more organised.

  E.g. when you log a call they only ask for the serial number of the
  machine and then they know everything about it!! Plus if you raise a
  second call they remember you are , confirm your telephone number
  + address.

  Plus when they agreed to fax something to you now they do it.

  E.g. Sun engineer agreed to fax me a license key and left his name
  with me. When I called 30 minutes later the receptionist

  a) knew who I was a that I was waiting for this engineer!
  b) said the engineer was next to her and was trying to send it now
  c) passed me over to the engineer who said "We are having trouble
     with the fax machine can I e-mail it to you?" Within the hour I had
     it faxed + e-mailed to me and the engineer called back to confirm I
     had got it!

  i.e. the SUPPORT 'attitude' shows through

  Sun also seem to have excellent internal IT systems to track
  customers/support calls + they all have Internet connectivity
  and use it!
  ^^^^^^^^^^

  E.g. I'm having problems installing Solaris C compiler without
  X-Windows, the engineer talks to me, admits he is not sure but can I
  hold whilst he checks with a colleague. Comes back and tell me there
  is a README on the CD about it... and then

  a) said "I've got the CD in front of me"!!
  b) checks the CD
  c) find the file and section where the answer is
  d) confirms with me that I can see it and reads the basic answer to
     me!

  Simple problem but they actually go and check the CD to make sure the
  answer they give is current and correct!!

  The thoroughness of Sun support and their whole attitude of double
  checking that they give you the best support possible impresses me!

  When I run my own company...

Quote:>dont have to put up with repeatedly installing full korean
> language support because security patches insist its a
> pre-requisite.

>well, I _tried_ to be civil, but sometimes.....

>Tim Henstock

--
David Williams
 
 
 

Aix vs. Solaris -- what should I get?

Post by Philip Bro » Tue, 19 Jan 1999 04:00:00



>goto www.dhbrown.com this is the latest review of UNIX OS's.  By the way AIX
>won!

give us a break, huh? dhbrown uses wierd criteria, and they are definately
not appropriate to anwering the question of "DB2/AIX vs solaris/oracle"

Quote:>If you go with Sun you will need a couple of System Admins to keep it
>all running.  AIX will only need one.

only if you have a policy of hiring morons for solaris admins.

--
[trim the no-bots from my address to reply to me by email!]
 --------------------------------------------------
Secret nONsONaTIAL monologue...
H52QdPK4iQPijBgQeMKIUQOCjRg0IN6IYWMGhJszBevIARHGjBuLZTaKCZNx4x0xb0CsWYlQ
jpwxINDAPKMRBB0xYgiqEVMGj0qWbsIQnOMyD4g5ITcaBOGRDYg6C+OwWalAAQ

 
 
 

Aix vs. Solaris -- what should I get?

Post by Michael Wojc » Tue, 19 Jan 1999 04:00:00


Threads like this are 90% anecdote, of course, and therefore of dubious
value.

For my pointless contribution, though, I'd have to agree with what
seems to be the majority sentiment: both platforms will do the job,
and neither will be worry-free.  How they'll bite you is tough to
predict.  (I notice that I've had precisely the opposite experience
as Tim Henstock, for example: I've never had significant networking
problems with my '6000s, while Solaris' nscd proved wildly buggy
in early releases.  You never know.)

However, I also have to agree that IBM seems to be having trouble
with sales and support, and has been for some time - dating back
to one of the many reorganizations, no doubt.  I've noticed it more
with AS/400 stuff, but that's largely because I've had to do more
'400 upgrading recently.

I've been working on IBM equipment for years, and service used to
be much better - very fast, informed responses; on-time and
correct deliveries; knowledgeable people taking questions and
orders.  These days it's a mess.  Wrong and delayed shipments,
mazes of undertrained support techs...  We *are* still getting
very good CEs, when someone has to make a site visit, but aside
from that it's a far cry from the old days.

Things usually go better with Sun, particularly with hardware.
I've had some intermittent problems with software purchases through
SunExpress.  The cost-cutting plague strikes everywhere.

I still find IBM and Sun both much easier to deal with than HP,
though.


AAI Development, Micro Focus
Department of English, Miami University

Vinegar keeps more flies away than honey does.

 
 
 

Aix vs. Solaris -- what should I get?

Post by Thomas Bus » Tue, 19 Jan 1999 04:00:00


Dear Steve,
your question isn't really easy to answer, but I'll try. I have worked and
administrated both Solaris and AIX and also I know both systems in
combination with Oracle database. When you come from the classical unix
side, you need some time to accustom yourself to AIX, but when you are
accostomed to AIX you begin to love it. The biggest advatage for AIX is the
journaled filesystem it uses. With this type of filesystem you get a high
flexibility for administering your hard disks. Also you have a small system
database called odm, which does a lot of work for you(for example recognize
automaticlly all kind of hardware with the cfgmgr command and so on) and you
have a administring tool called smit, which helps you getting an easier
begin of adminidtration. The odm has also the disadvantage, that if it's
once corrupted, you are really running into problems. (You can fix it by
hand but you have to dig deep into the system). A good book for
AIX-Administration is "The AIX Survival Guide."
Solaris is more an classical UNIX-System and you can do more by changing the
configuration files. Also you can find tools, making your administration
live easier, but you have to buy it seperated. Also I think Solaris is wider
used and also you can find more kind of Software running on Solaris (in the
public domain software area you can find more Solaris Software than
AIX-Software). The classical Aplications like Oracle, FrameMaker, Informix
Tcl/Tk gcc gnu-Software normally runs on both systems, but for example gimp
(public domain software like photoshop I haven' t found for AIX.)
May be this should be the first step for your decision, to look what kind of
software you plan to use and to look, wether it exists on the both
platforms.
I think for a beginner with a low UNIX know how you find your administration
path easier with AIX, but if you have some people with UNIX knowledge (may
be from Linux) than I think for them it's easier to use Solaris.
so long
thomas

> My company is developing a new system. Our past experience is with an
> AS/400 (in one location, being phased out) and ES9000 mainframe (another
> location), and NT.

> The system will be based on a relational database, probably DB2 5.2 but
> possibly Oracle 8.

> We don't have a DBA yet, and we have both AIX and Solaris in house
> (running vertical applications -- very little sys admin knowledge yet).
> So this means we will have to hire a DBA and sysadmin. The system is too
> mission-critical to trust to NT.

> Our overall corporate strategy has always revolved around IBM, and we
> will definitely be staying in the mainframe arena for a long time, so
> this leans us toward the IBM solution -- DB2, and since we want a UNIX
> version, probably AIX. However several of our consultants prefer a
> Sun/Oracle solution. As we add new database-based applications we will
> want to leverage this project & it's team, so whatever we choose we will
> likely stick with for other projects in the future.

> What would you choose? What killer features or capabilities does Solaris
> have that AIX doesn't? (or vice-versa)

> How good is the market for experienced AIX admins vs. Solaris admins?
> (US Northeast)

> Size-wise this will be a 20-40GB database, so it shouldn't really
> stretch the limits of either of these OS's.

> Any help appreciated in advance.

> Thanks!
> Steve-

 
 
 

Aix vs. Solaris -- what should I get?

Post by Philip Bro » Tue, 19 Jan 1999 04:00:00



>Hello Steve,

>    From my experience, Solaris is strong in Networking, such as NIS and
>NIS+.  AIX is strong in the administrations tools such as smitty.  In fact,
>if you want to run the Oracle database in UNIX.  I suggest you choose the
>AIX because the disk management in AIX is much simpler and flexible.

how is it easier than just running the GUI for disksuite?

If your admins can't think without having a GUI (or they can't think, period)
GUIs ARE available for solaris.

--
[trim the no-bots from my address to reply to me by email!]
 --------------------------------------------------
Secret nONsONaTIAL monologue...
H52QdPK4iQPijBgQeMKIUQOCjRg0IN6IYWMGhJszBevIARHGjBuLZTaKCZNx4x0xb0CsWYlQ
jpwxINDAPKMRBB0xYgiqEVMGj0qWbsIQnOMyD4g5ITcaBOGRDYg6C+OwWalAAQ

 
 
 

Aix vs. Solaris -- what should I get?

Post by John R. Campbe » Tue, 19 Jan 1999 04:00:00




>>Hello Steve,

>>    From my experience, Solaris is strong in Networking, such as NIS and
>>NIS+.  AIX is strong in the administrations tools such as smitty.  In fact,
>>if you want to run the Oracle database in UNIX.  I suggest you choose the
>>AIX because the disk management in AIX is much simpler and flexible.

>how is it easier than just running the GUI for disksuite?

        Huh?

        With a Solaris system (Slolaris is it's an x86) you'd need an
        added cost facility, the Veritas file system, to get within
        hailing distance of LVM+JFS facilities (you can dynamically
        expand a filesystem w/o a reboot).  Just for the JFS (Journalled
        File System) and LVM (Logical Volume Manager) sets AIX apart
        from all of the rest that I've worked with.  (I'd *LOVE* to
        have JFS/LVM functionality on my Linux systems, too.)

Quote:>If your admins can't think without having a GUI (or they can't think, period)
>GUIs ARE available for solaris.

        Smit tries to be an X (GUI) program but it's WAY faster (and,
        IMHO, clearer) when run on a terminal.  The "smitty" command
        will allow you to force this.

        Additionally, you don't need to run smit all of the time;  It's
        just a shell that runs in front of a whole BUNCH of programs that
        do the actual work.

        Solaris does have some strengths but you need to consider what
        you want your system to do.  It may really be a case of "6 of 1
        or half-a-dozen of the other", so you'd look more into the
        strength/reach of the servicing organization.

--

 - As a SysAdmin, yes, I CAN read your e-mail, but I DON'T get that bored!
   Disclaimer:  All opinions expressed are those of John Campbell alone and
                do not reflect the opinions of his employer(s) or lackeys
                thereof.  Anyone who says differently is itching for a fight!

 
 
 

Aix vs. Solaris -- what should I get?

Post by Mathew A. Hennes » Tue, 19 Jan 1999 04:00:00




>how is it easier than just running the GUI for disksuite?

        Because...
        o you have built-in LVM & JFS, which are expensive Veritas options
          on Solaris.  This alone is worth the differential in the
          license cost of AIX vs. Solaris (though not the HW cost,
          depending on circumstance)
        o AIX provides a unified, consistent admin interface, as opposed
          to the hodgepodge collection of tools Solaris (or, for that
          matter, NT) provides.  GUI uniformity is _good_.
        o AIX's GUI is fully-featured and powerful: almost anything you
          can do by hacking text files can be done in SMIT.  In fact,
          SMIT is usually safer, as it will use AIXisms which will
          automatically update the ODM, instead of having to keep running
          manual updaters like 'inetcfg'..  BTW: for most of AIX admin
          tasks, SMIT is also _dynamic_, so changes can be performed on
          a hot multiuser session..
        o DiskSuite requires you to manually lay your disk's slices out
          and build DS entities on them.  AIX (as any civilised OS should)
          permits you to add disks to a logical 'volume group', from which
          you can partition any number (IIRC the limit is 255) of
          filesystems.  

        No one should need to argue the general superiority of the LVM +
JFS principle.  If you don't like LVM/JFS, you haven't used it, or you are
an incurable *.  Implementations on the other hand.. ;)

Quote:>If your admins can't think without having a GUI (or they can't think, period)
>GUIs ARE available for solaris.

        Yep: DSMIT runs on Solaris IIRC..  

        The difference here is: the IBM GUI is _extremely_ helpful, even
to _experienced_ admins.  Whom will it help most?  I think it helps those
coming from other flavors of Unix most.  One of the nicest things about
SMIT is that it merely builds and executes AIX-specific shell scripts.  It
also saves the content of those shell scripts, so you can figure out how
the AIXisms work and then put them into your _own_ scripts..  A useful
example of this would be to put a filesize booster script in cron, which
checks your filesystem utilization periodically.  If you maintain a
certain high watermark of disk utilization for a certain period of time,
the system can then automagically add space to the partition until it
reaches a certain low watermark, then inform you of the increase.

        How much time do you spend slapping drives and slices onto the
filesystem?

        Once you are comfy with AIXisms (for cool stuff like chdev -l
sys0), you _no longer need_ smit unless you _want_ to use it (for nice GUI
stuff like adding users, partitions, RAIDs, etc)..  I have _NO PROBLEM_
performing braindead tasks with a GUI, particulary if they require filling
in forms, _particularly_ if you are one among many admins working the same
systems..  Nothing sucks worse than inheriting a collection of poorly
documented one-off tools from a disgruntled former admin..  SMIT becomes
the single common interface for _all_ the tools on _all_ the AIX systems.
That is _valuable_ and _a good thing_.  btw: IIRC SMIT _is_ admin-
extensible, though I've never gotten around to trying..  

        Then again, AIX can be really complicated and special, and IBM
price performance (and service, though I only state this from anecdote: I
had trouble with a 7135-010 RAID and had my call quickly escalated to one
of the RAID engineers in Austin) lags..

        The Right Tool For The Job.....

--

"One of the neat things about computers is that they don't respond well to
dynamic personalities with take charge attitudes and well tailored suits."
                                                - Cory Hamasaki

 
 
 

1. Opinions Wanted: Solaris 2.4 vs. AIX vs. HP/UX vs AT&T Sys5v4

We are presently evaluating UNIX file servers for nationwide distribution
and retail centers. The following vendor platforms are in the race:

IBM RS6000     AIX 3.2.5
HP       9000     HP/UX (not sure of the version, I think 9 or 10)
SUN    1000      Solaris 2.4
AT&T   3450      System 5v.4 (modified, I think)

Anyone performed a similar evalution or have opinions, please let me know.

Thanks,


2. how do you continue a line in .htaccess file?

3. SunOS 5.6 vs Solaris 2.6 vs Solaris 7 vs Solaris 8

4. Proper setup of pdksh?

5. Solaris 7 vs Linux vs AIX security?

6. AppleTalk over PPP ?

7. AIX vs Solaris 7 vs Linux security?

8. Why did you guys start to use linux?

9. ot: % of the industry using solaris vs. aix vs. hpux etc...

10. Solaris vs unix vs aix

11. AIX smit Re: Solaris vs AIX

12. Linux vs OS2 vs NT vs Win95 vs Multics vs PDP11 vs BSD geeks