Re: Overall BPCS performance

Most of the people I've talked to who have gone through the SSA sizing process
recently end up with a recommendation to go the AS/400 620 or AS/400 S20.

SSA's recommendations to my company was for a S20-2177 or a 620-2181, 
depending on which style of processing power we prefer.  After a year of the 
implementation process, we discovered we could not go live on the AS/400 we 
bought specifically for BPCS [510-2143 with 384 MB Memory and 16GB Disk (12GB 
Usable with RAID5)].  We currently have 6.0.02 plf cum3 Mixed Mode loaded on 
it sitting idle.

Sounds like there many common similarities among the subscribers of this 
BPCS-List.  I'd like to ask that everyone who is now or has experienced 
hardware or sizing problems to post their resolutions to them.  Maybe others 
can benefit from your wisdom (Or lack of it as the case may be).  Thank you in 
advance for your contribution.    

We are a relatively small company (130 employees) and have already spent a 
million dollars on our BPCS implementation project and are not live.  We have 
not yet been able to justify moving forward because it would cost us close to 
another million when you add up all costs involved 
(hardware/software/services/etc.)

Regards,
Tony Johnson
tjohnson@promac.com

------------------------
  From: Vince Rowe <vrowe@zeus.odyssey.net>
  Subject: Re: Overall BPCS performance
  Date: Wed, 07 Oct 1998 22:01:43 -0400 
  To: BPCS-L@midrange.com


At 07:41 PM 10/7/98 -0400, you wrote:
>Has anyone addressed their overall system performance decline since going to
>BPCS 6.x.  When we talk with them they try to indicated that we are the only
>one addressing these types of problems.  (Which I know is not true).
>
Here's our sad tale:  2+ years ago we started to implement BPCS 5.x.x on a
nice little 310 AS/400.  Of course we had to move to 6.x.x, and over the
years we've landed on 6.0.2 PLF mixed mode March Cum.  Over a year ago we
actually got COM to function and discovered to our dismay that a one line
order took 20 minutes to confirm with no one else on the box.  Well, the
cure was a 510 w/ 728M of memory and 60G of DASD.  We're supposed to go
live in 3 weeks and decided to do a stress test w/ 10 CS people or so doing
order entry at 3 sites and a few others (trying) to do various tasks that
would ordinarily be required to run a business.  Back to the 20 minute
scenerio w/ COM timing out on two out of three tries; simple GreenScreen
Material Status lookups took minutes; forget getting anything to print; and
the box was pegged for an hour *after* we completed our 1 hour test,
finishing up some 65 left over jobs..........When we got the 510, it was
the biggest box IBM made.  My question is:  can IBM make a machine that is
up to the punishment BPCS hands out?  Yes, we've had tuning specialist here
and our BPCS consultants have remarked that our machine is the fastest
responding they've ever used.  

You are not alone.

Vince Rowe
vrowe@odyssey.net
Marietta Corporation
Cortland, NY
+---
| This is the BPCS Users Mailing List!
| To submit a new message, send your mail to BPCS-L@midrange.com.
| To subscribe to this list send email to BPCS-L-SUB@midrange.com.
| To unsubscribe from this list send email to BPCS-L-UNSUB@midrange.com.
| Questions should be directed to the list owner: dasmussen@aol.com
+---

---------------End of Original Message-----------------


+---
| This is the BPCS Users Mailing List!
| To submit a new message, send your mail to BPCS-L@midrange.com.
| To subscribe to this list send email to BPCS-L-SUB@midrange.com.
| To unsubscribe from this list send email to BPCS-L-UNSUB@midrange.com.
| Questions should be directed to the list owner: dasmussen@aol.com
+---