high availibility on as400
peptor
does anyone of you has an experience with the system like Vision or Mimix
for high availability on as400?
Which one is better to work with, which one protect better ???
I've tried to find some _disinterested_ comparison, but not succesfull.
Thanks for your opinion!
peptor
Mark P.
peptor <pep...@wp.pl> wrote in message news:9qecc2$2nn$1...@news.formus.pl...
DataMirror is also worth a look www.datamirror.com
I think (with all things in life) everybody has some bias so you'll end up
having to make your own decision.
Mark
peptor
Użytkownik "Mark P." <nos...@nospam.nospam> napisał w wiadomości
news:8Fyy7.626$635.4...@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com...
I don't want anybody to make a decision for me, I'd like to hear some words
from people having experience with both of them or from anyone who compares
it by himself.
Greetings
peptor
MrDuck
We have Mimix, but not the most current version (newest is 4.1, we have
3.2). We can't really call it "high availability", more like "warm spare".
We've had to put lots of fixes on it, yet it still has lots of problems
syncronizing files and objects. The way Mimix400 works is that it "pumps"
journal changes from one system to the other. If it fails to apply the
journal changes to a file on the replicating system, it goes on "hold". We
frequently have files go on hold and for that matter, it is a full-time job
for at least one person to maintain Mimix in our shop (12 systems replicated
to 8). Syncronizing isn't easy either. We have also been told frequently
by Lakeview (the maker of Mimix400) that "your files are different" or "your
files are too big" and placing all the blame on us for our problems. And of
course we've been assured by Lakeview that "most of the problems will go
away in 4.1" (where have we heard that before?).
MrDuck
Bradley V. Stone
I've used Vision. Works ok, but any product that does what Vision or
Mimix does is bound to have problems. There's a lot going on there.
The one thing about Vision that I liked is they came to our shop for a
couple of days (3 or 4 people) and helped set up a demo.
Mimix, no experience.
Datamirror... I'll say nothing.
Truthfully, you'll have more problems with your network going down as
the cause of no availability than your AS/400 actually going down.
I'd focus the time and energy somewhere else, and implement a good
backup schedule.
If you really want to have redundant machines, sell your AS/400 and
buy linux boxes. (honest).
Brad
www.bvstools.com
Tamas Feher
> If you really want to have redundant machines, sell your AS/400 and
> buy linux boxes. (honest).
If I understand correctly, you used the word "redundant" in the sense
as:
needless, sitting useless, waste of money? Then I fully agree.
The reason IBM does not implement real HA for OS/400 is that its
mainframe product line would go extinct ASAP, cause iSeries is light
years ahead of the S/390 monsters in simplicity and flexibility. This
is also the reason PPC cpu inside the iSeries are running
underclocked. IBM has to keep artifically imposed, exclusive areas for
its mainframe business branch, where iSeries cannot and must not
compete.
The 3rd party HA vendors try to do their job, but expecting splendid
results w/o Big Blue's support is a bit idealistic.
Sincerely: Tamas Feher.
Brad Rosman
used all available bandwidth on their T1, they were never able to get it
truly in synch and they had to make constant adjustments. They switched to
VISION and found that much easier to install and work with and gave them
something much closer to what they needed.
Second (or third) hand info, but that's what I know.
Brad
peptor <pep...@wp.pl> wrote in message news:9qecc2$2nn$1...@news.formus.pl...
Serg Anitshenko
news:9qet2p$jkf$1...@athena.euroweb.hu...
Then, why did IBM engineer the 400? for business game?
I think, the first IBMer's plans to make the system not for quick
(interactive)
tasks were successful for CISC's 400. In RISC version of their systems,
IBM improves streaming jobs (batch processes) permanently.
In practice, batch jobs need the HA much more than interactive jobs.
Now, more and more companies use buseness application with high-perfomatce
jobs
on their hosts. There is a question, why IBM does not implement real HA for
400?
serg.
Guillermo
you have money you can try the EMC disks. Depending on what level of
protection you want you may have ( EMC claim so )
two boxes connected to an EMC box; the second box with an LPAR with the same
name as the primary box; box 1 goes down you power up lpar on box 2 and
that's all
one box connected to an EMC connected to another EMC km away connected to
another box.
Got the picture?
PS: They are VERY EXPENSIVE( that's why I couldn't tested it!!! ), and they
claim they have a huge performance advantage over the internal ibm disks.
PS II: I have no personal/commercial relationship with EMC.
Regards
NoSpam.j...@talk21.com
Hi Peptor,
Well we have just finished looking at all 3 products and gone for
Mimix. The big reason being the confidence the busniess partner gave
us in their ability to work with us to setup the product for our
needs.
If you think I can be of any further help drop me an email more than
happy to share our findings but you would note I am in the UK and was
dealing with UK based distributors.
JD
P
Ima Psuedonym
DataMirror is used for 2-way replication between 2 AS/400s and an Oracle DB.
Lots of heavy transformation processing is used, since the formats for the
databases are very different. It was installed at our original web vendor's
insistence, only replicates a small handful of files, and requires about 1/2
an FTE to keep running as it fails all the time.
MIMIX is used for 1-way replication between 2 AS/400s and 2 backup AS/400s,
replicating both objects and ALL production data files (about 200Gb worth on
each system). The journaling workload has turned out to be a non-issue,
provided that you can get your work files excluded properly. But as some
other people have pointed out, MIMIX still suffers from files falling on
hold for no apparent reason other than the product loses track of what its
doing. I'd say that in an average week, MIMIX would consume no more than
1/4 of an FTE (full time equivalent for those who are HR impaired).
No matter which product you choose, your success or failure will be more
determined by the quality of support you get setting up your installation
much more than by the product chosen. We're on our second install of MIMIX
right now, as we had to junk completely the first one done for us by a
business partner. If you choose MIMIX, try and deal directly with Lakeview,
especially on the support and installation end. Don't let them put you off
on a business partner, as happened to us the first time. If you can afford
it, don't be shy about getting IBM involved either. Rochester has a couple
of people dedicated to high-availability solution consulting and I can say
without reservation that they're absolutely terrific.
Good luck,
Dan
"peptor" <pep...@wp.pl> wrote in message news:9qecc2$2nn$1...@news.formus.pl...
Serg Anitshenko
"Guillermo" <x.gui...@ieee.org> wrote in message
news:9qhobb$nttl0$2...@ID-84472.news.dfncis.de...
> Besides from the products already mentioned ( Mimix, datamirror, etc. ) IF
> you have money you can try the EMC disks. Depending on what level of
> protection you want you may have ( EMC claim so )
> two boxes connected to an EMC box; the second box with an LPAR with the
same
> name as the primary box; box 1 goes down you power up lpar on box 2 and
> that's all
>
What about database recovery? No matter, how many boxes you have connected
to EMC,
if you have an application level problem with DB (etc. deathlock) all of you
need is recover DB
and after that start any processor-box.
Serg Anitshenko
<NoSpam.j...@talk21.com> wrote in message
news:3bcc8feb...@news.btinternet.com...
> On Mon, 15 Oct 2001 12:04:36 +0200, "peptor" <pep...@wp.pl> wrote:
>
> Hi Peptor,
>
> Well we have just finished looking at all 3 products and gone for
> Mimix. The big reason being the confidence the busniess partner gave
> us in their ability to work with us to setup the product for our
> needs.
>
> If you think I can be of any further help drop me an email more than
> happy to share our findings but you would note I am in the UK and was
> dealing with UK based distributors.
>
> JD
>
DataMirror has an office in UK. They have done installation of their product
in our side.
Guillermo
Are you referring to what would happen if you need to do a RGZPFM or if some
object in the DB is damaged? In that case the EMC has nothing to do, is
handled by the OS/400 not by the EMC itself.
In the scenarios I have described the EMC is seen by only one AS/400
"logically" at the time. If you have to rebuild a physical file or logical
file you have to do it through the standard OS/400 commands.
Regards
Guillermo
PS: Again I have no relation with EMC
Rodney Johnson
>
> Then, why did IBM engineer the 400? for business game?
>I don't think that IBM felt that the AS/400 would compete with their
mainframes when AS/400 first came out. The problem was the hardware engineers
for the AS/400 were too good at their job and started to "threaten" the
mainframe.
>
> I think, the first IBMer's plans to make the system not for quick
> (interactive)
> tasks were successful for CISC's 400. In RISC version of their systems,
> IBM improves streaming jobs (batch processes) permanently.
> In practice, batch jobs need the HA much more than interactive jobs.
> Now, more and more companies use buseness application with high-perfomatce
> jobs
> on their hosts. There is a question, why IBM does not implement real HA for
> 400?
>
>Implementation of an HA isn't quite the same on an AS/400 as it is on other
systems due to the integrated operating system (higher cost than on another
platform). Part of the reason why HA isn't needed quite as much on the AS/400
because of all the error recovery capabilities, data integrity, and other
features. Also note that pursuing HA for AS/400 also means stepping on BP
toes. With BPs selling more AS/400s than IBM itself that can be rather lethal
to one's bottom line.
>As always, AS/400 (iSeries) will keep on introducing new features as it fits
our allocated budget. Sometimes that doesn't fit well with customer demand.
You as customers can help by putting more pressure on IBM marketting, your IBM
representatives or IBM business advocates. This is one of the means in how
things get prioritized.
>
> serg.
--
Rodney A Johnson
Technical Team Lead for AS/400 Spool
Dept GJC
IBM Rochester, Minnesota
The contents of this message express only the sender's opinion.
This message does not necessarily reflect the policy or views of
my employer, IBM. All responsibility for the statements
made in this Usenet posting resides solely and completely with the
sender.
peptor
I share the point, that the main matter is the support and how the help you
to properly setup up the product for your needs.
peptor
Serg Anitshenko
I do not have too. But I want to say that EMC is not disaster aid.
In case with HA there are main problems: hardware damage and software
damage.
If we have two 400s as a processor-box and only one disk-box connected to
both 400s and
an aplication breaks DB on disk-box? in this case we will not be able to
start any processor.
serg.
Guillermo
I do agree with you that HA has many issues to address; I was addressing
only the hardware aspect, not the software one. Based on my experience with
fault tolerant Stratus systems, I would say that related to the hdw you can
fullfill almost as much functionality as with the the Stratus ( depending on
the money of course ) with EMC ( until IBM finally releases the Independent
ASP ( or whatever they would call it by that time ) in the QSYS file
system ). Mimix, Datamirror et al AFAIK do not allow you to boot the system
with exactly the same configuration as the previous one ( if you have two
boxes ) TCP/IP address, SNA, etc. etc. covered.
> I do not have too. But I want to say that EMC is not disaster aid.
> In case with HA there are main problems: hardware damage and software
> damage.
> If we have two 400s as a processor-box and only one disk-box connected to
> both 400s and
> an aplication breaks DB on disk-box? in this case we will not be able to
> start any processor.
If you mean an EMC being seen by 2 AS/400 boxes then the AS/400 processor
box that does not fail won't be affect since the EMC does not allow the
other box to mess the working one.
If we are talking disaster recovery ( a "lights off" Data Center miles
way ) you could handle that with mimix et al but I believe that you would
have some development to do ( e.g: DDM Files, ip ads, SNA confg, etc. ).
Regarding the software IMHO neither the OS nor the Appl software is fault
tolerant, so...
Please mail me in private if you want to discuss further.
Regards
Guillermo
>
> serg.
>
>
>
Serg Anitshenko
news:3BCDA5DE...@rchland.ibm.com...
> Serg Anitshenko wrote:
>
> Also note that pursuing HA for AS/400 also means stepping on BP
> toes. With BPs selling more AS/400s than IBM itself that can be rather
lethal
> to one's bottom line.
If saying BP you mean "Business Partner" I do not agree. It will be a crash
for only
three BPs : Mimix, DataMirror, LakeView. But... I cannot see any wrongs for
business.
Are I thinking right way?
serg.
Simon Taylor
information. Also alot of speculation as to the nature of IBM. I have
no 'real' experiance of DataMirror and as such my opinion on the
product is pretty much void.
I am a MiMiX solutions engineer in the UK, obviously because of this
my opinions are not exactly level footed, however there are not too
many people out there who have ACTUALLY had first hand experiance of
both products.
Through my role i come into contact with clients who currently have
DataMirror installed at their site and the solution implemented does
not fit their exact requirements,(An important keyword to remember
there...'SOLUTION') As such the product is not performing as expected
and is not delivering the promises of the salesperson who made the
sale. As such the client opinion of the product is low and they look
for alternatives.
Because of my standpoint, it isn't appropriate for me to critisie
either product or make recommendations when i have no 'REAL'
experiance to make recommentation from. Where i would focus my
attention is at the people that are going to implement the SOLUTION,
do they fully understand your needs, to they understand the
application, as at the end of the day if thay cannot manipulate the
tool (MIMIX/DataMirror) to replicate your application correctly then
you have no hope of getting the solution you need.
If you look at it basically MIMIX/DataMirror are just tools, it is how
you manupulate those tools that makes for a working solution.
As for referances to MIMIX V3R2 and MIMIX V4R1 i can express some
opinion here! MIMIX V4R1 is a far superior release of the product and
to say the it will resolve all issues with MIMIX V3R2 is a lie but it
certainly is a faster and easier to use product than it used to be. If
you would like some more information about MIMIX I would be more than
happy to supply you with what you require and i believe that somewhere
we even have some benchmark tests of MIMIX Vs DataMirror. I would be
happy to help.
Simon Taylor
Shield Software Services
UK
Rodney Johnson
addressed and unfortunately there will be some politics involved (plus the
fact that by adding HA to iSeries it may start taking away some of the S/390
customers...always gets the S/390 folks a bit upset). We get many sales when
a customer wants a reliable system and the iSeries is packaged with one of the
big three (DataMirror, VisionSolutions, or LakeView Technologies). There are
consultants that package everything together and sell it as a whole (probably
including service contracts).
Serg Anitshenko wrote:
--