DSXchange

comparision of DataStage 7.5.1A EE on win2003 and HP-UX nepa B.11.11.
which one is better to use if so why

srekant,

use the platform you already have the hardware for.

If you don't already have the hardware then there is no recommendation possible, there are too many variables. I can think of at least 20 factors off the top of my head without even trying.

[quote="ArndW"]srekant,

use the platform you already have the hardware for.

If you don't already have the hardware then there is no recommendation possible, there are too many variables. I can think of at least 20 factors off the top of my head without even trying.[/quote

1)Is it possible to run parallel jobs on win2003
2)what about scalability
3)performance

Yes, you can run Px on 2003.

Scalability and Performance have never been numbers to consider alone. Both of these values need to have measurements assocatied with them (let's use rows per second for DataStage and $$$ for hardware)

I can make a Windows 2003 machine outperform a HP nepa platform. I can make a HP perform faster than a Windows machine. If you throw enough money and effort and skill at a hardware solution it will beat even the Marketing department's predictions.

Then again, I can also take the most incredible MPP hardware architecture and make a DS job perform at under 10 rows/second; but that is a skill I share with many others

The question you posed without context makes an answer meaningless. It's like asking "What's the best car".

Unix over Windoze everytime.

Why? Windoze is a toy.

Ken has opened up the OS Wars, or at least a small OS Skirmish, with his salvo against Windoze. The American datastage contingent will send advisors but the situation will soon escalate

But jokes aside, how many here in DSXchange work with data warehouses or marts that have daily movements of millions of records and data in excess of a Terabyte that are hosted on Windows? I haven't.

srekant wrote: 1)Is it possible to run parallel jobs on win2003

ArndW wrote:Yes, you can run Px on 2003.

But not using DS 7.5.1.A

Given a choice between the same hardware running Windoze or running linux (Redhat), why would you give up 1 GB of memory just to run the GUI OS and suffer all of those security leaks?

How about a sleak OS that doesn't gobble memory, supports shell scripting natively, and is greatly more stable to every version of Windoze out there?

I never said this, in fact I was never here, but I would avoid the Windows version until it is more mature. Right now the Unix platform has gone through versions 6.x and several 7.x releases, not to mention many Orchestrate versions, while the Windows platform has had just one release and will have teething problems.

What you really need to be comparing is HP v Linux!!