[plug] Pronto platform and Server

[Bernd Felsche]

hatari <hatari at iinet.net.au> writes:

>I have two problems rolled into one....

>1.
>In my new employment supervising I.T. we are currently using PRONTO on 
>SCO.  Support was outsourced to a third party that has a financial link 
>to Pronto - so has a self-interest in maintaining the skill-set that way.

>Despite Pronto blurb saying they can offer PRONTO on RedHat or Windows 
>the third-party support claims Pronto/Redhat isn't stable and Windows 
>T.S. is too slow, and won't guarantee their support - thus forcing the 
>Pronto/SCO continuum.  (I have yet to glean Pronto/RedHat versions they 
>tested etc.)

>So - QUESTION: anyone out there using Pronto on anything?  (especially 
>RedHat, but even Windows?)

Pronto (if it's the same Pronto that I know) will use Progress as
the back-end DB server. Progress runs MUCH better and is more stable
under any decent Linux than SCO.

"Redhat" is a generic thing... Progress Software tend to use SuSE
for a lot of performance-related stuff because almost all the nice
bits for enterprise are in the default kernel.

You will need roughly 4 times the hardware to get the "same"
performance with Windows.

>2.
>Given that we might use the Pronto/Redhat pathway (based partly on your 
>discussions) we now also need a new SERVER.  So I need a 
>cheap-to-moderate/reliable server solution to maintain VERY STABLE RedHat.

>So - another QUESTION: advice or offers on RELIABLE server solution 
>(component-wise) to maintain VERY STABLE RedHat.

SuSE Linux 10.0 runs Progress very well. The later version quite
well... just an environment hack required for up to V9.x Progress,

I've had good experience with Opteron-based systems plugged into
Tyan mainboards. The size of your user population will determine the
scale. Get lots of 15k rpm U320 hard discs.

>NOTES:
>    (i)
>    Notice above that I did not say "cheap and nasty" solution; I just 
>want to keep costs low to demo a good alternative to throwing money out 
>the window.  And I want this option to be a killer blow - IF it is stable.

>    (ii)
>    Any advice on Debian in this mix would be welcome.

>    (iii)
>    This is a national, commercial, financial platform so it needs to be 
>STABLE.  (Did I mention STABLE yet?)

You will want a redundant system that'll provide either transparent,
or near-transparent fail-over.

>This matter is URGENT for me because I might just use it as a parting 
>shot on Monday.  (Did I mention angry yet?)  So any urgent responses 
>will be very welcome.

Don't get angry. Get even.
-- 
/"\ Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia
\ /  ASCII ribbon campaign | "If we let things terrify us,
 X   against HTML mail     |  life will not be worth living."
/ \  and postings          | Lucius Annaeus Seneca, c. 4BC - 65AD.