Hi,

I had 3 issues on which I wanted feedback/comments from the experts/gurus.

1. We have BaaN 4c4 running on a HP-UX Application Server with Informix IDS 7.31running on a HP-UX database server (HP UX 10.20). We need to add hard disks on our Application server and database servers for creating a new test environment and to take care of our future requirements. We were looking at NAS/SAN options from EMC, IBM and NetApp. Has anybody placed their BaaN Application/database on a NAS box over the LAN? We were not too keen on the SAN option because of the high cost. Of all the NAS/SAN vendors whose solution is most cost effective? Any feedback or sharing of experiences in this regard is most welcome.
2. Our HP hardware (HP K260- Appl. Server and D380 – database server) is almost 6 years old. We were actively considering replacement of the current servers with new servers from HP or IBM or SUN and push the current servers as DR/test machines. We requested for a quote from HP, IBM and SUN for the new hardware. Because we are already on HP platform, HP is trying to take advantage and has quoted 60-70% more than SUN/IBM. Now we are in a dilemma, whether to stay with HP or go away from HP. If we decide to go away from HP then a) we need to migrate BaaN Application and Informix data base from HP to non HP platform, b) buy new DR machine also from the same vendor and c) throw away the old HP machines (means they can’t be put to effective use). What should be deciding factor in this case? Any feedback/comments are most welcome.
3. Presently, we have a distributed (Client/Server) installation of BaaN (separate application and database servers). While we are planning for an upgrade of hardware we want to look at the possibility of shifting to host mode (BaaN Application and database on the same machine). SUN guys were telling us that there were no particular benefits in a distributed installation; in fact they say the performance will be better in the host mode. I have seen the BaaN sizing guide, which says that the performance improves by going for a distributed installation. Any issues while shifting from distributed installation to Host mode installation? Any feedback on the user experiences in doing the above is most welcome.

Thanks in advance.

Cheers
RA

Hi RA

Here are my views on these issues: (2c worth :) )
[list=1]
NAS/SAN I have never actively worked with NAS/SAN, but know that one of my partner's customers opted for SAN, and it works well. That's about it for this topic.
HP/SUN/IBM For HP, that's a bit outrageous. Out of principle, I wouldn't even consider them anymore! Migration to another platform is no problem. It is being done quite often, and there is a lot of expertise around to help out on this. But why would you throw any the current setup? Use it as a test server! Since Baan is multi platform, it wouldn't mind. Even if you have a lot of O/S specific batch/script jobs, these shouldn't really make a difference.
Host vs C/S Switching to host mode will cut out the network traffic between the boxes, BUT, the database and Baan will have to share the memory and CPU's of the host, and therefore you would need a bigger memory pool, and more CPU's to cater for this. As for performance, this is a delicate issue, and the views of different people will be diverging. My own experience is that it depends greatly on the kind of machines you have access to:
* I have a customer running on a Sun Enterprise 10000, with 32 CPU's, 4GB RAM and Oracle as database, and running in host mode. Perfect! Switching to C/S mode only slows down the process, even with a fibre network link. We tried C/S, but switched back to host mode!
* At another customer, running two quad CPU IBM's, the C/S mode is faster. Again, we tried, and in the end opted for C/S, and bought a third machine for R&D.
* A third customer runs a mixed mode: a BIG database server, with batches being run on this box as well, and two application servers. In this case we use Baan as the C/S agent, whereas the IBM customer uses the Oracle network solution.
Basically, the options are endless, and per customer it can differ... As for issues while shifting, none to be concerned about. It's quite easy :p
[/list=1]
I hope this helps a little...

Following on from Nvanbeest's comments, I think you should keep in mind the bang-for-buck is much, much better now than it was six years ago: This will mean that you will get much faster machines, much more memory and faster disk drives than you presently have for lees cost than the machines you are replacing.

Therefore you can increase the real memory relatively cheaply, to cover the additional memory requirement that would be needed to run the application and the database on the same machine. Furthermore, the faster processors and faster i/o means that memory will tied up for a much less time than it is on the old-slower machines.

We run baan applications on two separate machines as a D/R minimisation strategy and as a means of spreading processing load (although for the same company, the baan implementations are quite different to suit two businesses). We recently replaced IBM machines that were 5+years old with new IBM p-series machines that were a lot faster, have a lot more memory and faster disks at a cost that was less than we paid for the old machines (note: we still use the old IBM SSA disk units).

The result of the change-over was that our response time inproved by an order of magnitude. We went from a situation of users calling me almost every day to find out what was happening with the machines, to a situation where users never call about the speed of their processing. The improvement was much more dramatic than I had anticipated. It certainly confirmed my rough queuing-theory hypothises of our situation with the old equipment.

Terry

I am surprised to hear about the high HP prices. Usually HP is very aggressive in their pricing.

I agree with Pat. As soon as you confront HP with the IBM prices, then they will follow suit. HP doesn't like loosing a customer to IBM at all.

Unfortunately I disagree with Nico on some of his statements:

a) Changing the platform from HP to IBM is quite easily done for Baan, but you have a lot of follow up issues:

- IBM AIX is not HP-Ux, Smith is not SAM, meaning you
throw a good deal of your knowledge away.
- printer etc. are used differently. Right know you most likely
use a lot of jetdirect boxes, which work perfectly with HP,
this setup needs to change for IBM

b) I strongly advise not to use HP on the test platform and IBM on the production. Again some reasons:

- Where would you test your backup and crash szenarios?
- If you ever worked on several Baan Platforms, then
you will notice, that on different platforms you definitely
will get differnrt bugs. So what are you testing?
- everytime you want to transfer your production data from
life to test, you will have to exp/imp the data, instead of
just copying.


Regards

markus

Points taken on the change of platform.:cool: I'm not an operator, so day-to-day issues don't trouble me.:D I've been working cross-platform for very long now, and luckily there is something like man pages to check the slight syntax differences between OS'es. Comparing Smitty and SAM? I tend to NOT use them, as far as possible! I have built up quite a library of platform specific scripts to handle low-level OS tasks.

As for test and production on different platforms, I've hardly ever had any trouble with Baan customizations compiling on one and not on another platform. Reasons when there were problems were mostly porting set differences and calls directly to OS functions.:mad: Lastly, why can't you copy objects? I've been doing it for years! Developing on Sun, and then copying objects to IBM, HP and NT, without problems!

Hi RA,

Maybe I can help you a bit with your questions. 6 years ago i helped build these systems while working for your parent company :D

1 - Database growth was always carefully monitored and sized for, in addition to appropriate data archiving. So you need a new test environment? Firstly, could you perhaps buy or lease a small D-Class box from HP? And you mention future requirements - what would these be?

If you really need to expand the disk capacity, I would look at a solution similar to EMC or Surestore. This would work very well, just checkout the cost. And decide whether or not you really do need this.

2 - Are the machines overloaded now? Can't imagine there being many more users. If you're experiencing performance problems, checkout the disk RAIDs, swap space etc.

If you really do need to upgrade, personally I'd stick with HP. Consider leasing arrangements for the HP boxes instead of purchasing (I think the current boxes were bought - very cheaply by a shrewd IT Director!). So try and make some sort of deal with HP.

3 - I'm a fan of host-mode configurations, and indeed your Serviceguard setup will function a lot better. I remember lots of trouble with the initial setup. Host mode will perform better, but you *will* need 2 new boxes with adequate specifications. Thus this can be quite a costly solution.

Let me know if you have further questions.

Good luck!

James