HP vs SUN - Comparision
x
been asked by senior management to evaluate whether we stay on HP-UX or move
to Sun - both are supported by the application. If we stay with HP-UX then
we'll migrate again, this time to a RP7420 and a MC/Serviceguard Continental
Cluster.
We always ran HP-UX (back to '98), starting with 9.0 on T500 with EMC and
have slowly migrated to RP5470s on 11i at the moment. Prior to the RP5470
we also had migrations to K570s and K580s. I have been the systems
administrator over the machines since the K570 days. The application runs
on Oracle.
Our current environment for the application is two RP5470 running 11.11
Enterprise in a highly redundant configuration: MC/ServiceGuard, dual 2Gb
fiber cards on each server, dual SAN Switches, Dual VA7410 arrays, etc.
Uptime and performance is critical. We maintain CS support with guarantee
array uptime, have yearly performance analysis performed by HP, quarter
patching by the RSAA, ISEE installed and VPN-partnering with HP to manage
the servers.
My feeling is to stay on HP-UX because is has always ran very well. I'm
looking for any documentation or websites to substantiate differences in Sun
and HP - this would be both performance of servers, scalability, longevity
as well as support matrixes (P24, PSS, CS, etc). I'm not looking to start a
flame war just perform the due diligence.
Thank,
BJ
Anon
"x" <x...@xyz.com> wrote:
I've used both, and support both daily. Stay with HP-UX. Disclaimer: I
have much more HP experience, so I am biased in the direction. It just
seems easier to deal with than Solaris.
Joel Loudermilk
> I've used both, and support both daily. Stay with HP-UX. Disclaimer: I
> have much more HP experience, so I am biased in the direction. It just
> seems easier to deal with than Solaris.
I use and support both daily, and I favor Solaris. But then again, I have
much more Solaris experience. I guess it's a matter of personal preference.
A while back, I collected a list of the reasons why I like Solaris better
than HP-UX at:
http://www.loudermilk.org/software/solaris-hpux.html
--
Joel
Benjamin Gawert
> I've used both, and support both daily. Stay with HP-UX. Disclaimer: I
> have much more HP experience, so I am biased in the direction. It just
> seems easier to deal with than Solaris.
Full ACK. We had tons of Sun equipment but overall it gave us much more
troubles than we had with our HP-UX gear (which we have even more than
what we had from Sun). Administration wasn't a problem on any of them
but we had lots of issues with Sun hardware and Sun support...
HP-UX has proven to be extremely reliable, as has the HP9000 and
Integrity hardware...
Benjamin
Mario
"x" <x...@xyz.com> wrote in message
news:ckHmf.1474$eD5.5...@twister.southeast.rr.com...
Hi,
it seems that you have been recognized by your company management as an
advisor. Trusted or not, you know better than I do :).
If that is correct, the main question is: what do you want? From your post I
can see that you would like to stay with HP.
If you have good relation with HP people (I assume you do) then you can ask
them for all information you need.Their job is to give you all information
and sources.
Then you can go further. If you have SUN in house, ask them too.
My personal opinion is that you will not miss if you stay with HP.
You sounds to me as an experienced HP user with good feelings about HP
products.
If that is a case, I would not change a "horse" which makes me secured.
BTW,
You are almost at the highest level of HP support and I am pretty sure that
HP support is one of the best you can find on IT market today.
I am not aware of any similar product like ISEE is and for me it makes
difference.
M.
Alan D Johnson
If you have the systems and apps that work on HP/UX, stay there. The
support and functionality are much beter IF it is supported. It is much
better then Sun who "support" most things. Want to have fun? try it with
trusted systems...
Marcin 'Rambo' Roguski
> Full ACK.
> HP-UX has proven to be extremely reliable, as has the HP9000
Agree, as collector I have SparcStation 5 running Sol8 and B132L+ with 11.00
The solaris was knocked off by one miserable /etc file misconfiguration, and also
nothing compiled right without SEGVing something else, so I was put off enough
so much that SS5 is now gathering dust, while B132 is now always besides me,
and sometimes I turn it on just to work for a while on CDE with mozilla, despite
the system being hold "by nails" together (I don't have media, so I just use
what's installed, or free from HP and hpux depot- and the system works, and
works just right).
Papa Piquillo
The oracle support for sun is better than for hpux (i supose they have
more clients with sun). You can see the releases are avaliable first
for sun than for hpux and there are bugs in hpux platform that doesn't
exist in sun.
But i agree Alan if your system and apps don't have bugs with hpux stay
there.
MaxAdamo
x wrote:
> My company is the process of upgrading our purchased application and I have
> been asked by senior management to evaluate whether we stay on HP-UX or move
> to Sun - both are supported by the application. If we stay with HP-UX then
> we'll migrate again, this time to a RP7420 and a MC/Serviceguard Continental
> Cluster.
My company is doing about the same. We have 1000 hp-ux and we're
probably moving to solaris.
There maybe reasons why sun is better the hp-ux, but first of all I
don't like hp politics.
Many times the don't support any feature if this is not massively used
by users.
I hate this.
HP-UX doesn't have things like pseudo filesystems, and loopback device
only because they don't want to spend mone when this features are used
by a little number of users.
The kernel structure is really really old-style. There are few
dinamycal parameters but it's still realy close to the concept of
monolitic kernel. Even linux has better kernel who doesn't requires any
reboot to the kernel (thank to proc device as well!!)
concept of clustering is inside solaris kernel. In hp-ux the don't have
idea about this and Tru64 cluster was dismissed.
I think your company is taking the right direction....
--
Massimiliano
Olivier S. Masse
HP-UX has no coolness or bleeding-edge factor as Solaris does, but it does
the job. Business-wise, migrating to a new architecture requires sysadmin
and operator training, and furthermore it could be seen by your management
as a risk, even if they asked for alternatives. Unless HP is really more
expensive or you have reasons to think your third party developper might
favor the Solaris version of their software in the future, I think it's a no
brainer to stick with HP-UX if you're comfortable with it already. I'm not
biased; if you were on Solaris, and looking to switch, I'd say to stick with
Solaris.
Caution, a continental cluster will require a third arbitrator site to host
a quorum server, which represents additionnal costs. I don't know about
Sun/Veritas, it might be better.
---
Olivier S. Massé
omasse_attatatat_mayoxide_dododot_com
"x" <x...@xyz.com> wrote in message
news:ckHmf.1474$eD5.5...@twister.southeast.rr.com...