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 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
