Re: BPCS 6.1mm performance and the AS/400

Chick,

In a message dated 2/16/00 2:08:11 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
Cdoe@barton-instruments.com writes:

> for what it's worth we went through the bpcs sizing exercise twice and the 
> results we reviewed by the ssa account manager. his response was 'don't 
trust 
> it!'. we ended up purchasing an as/400 based upon the size of machines 
> already installed in 'comparable' customer sites.
<<snip>>

It is my understanding that, in general, the new sizer is far more accurate 
than was the old one.  It is also my understanding that, in some cases, IBM 
and SSA definitions of some activity levels are not clearly defined enough to 
achieve the desired result among typical customers -- thus making _my_ old 
rule of doubling the memory and increasing by a processor level over the 
indicated values still valid.

FWIW, my current primary client ordered a "preconfigured" system from IBM 
that was supposedly "optimized" for BPCS.  Unfortunately, over half of the 
LPP's that they ordered weren't installed, the system was still running out 
of QBASE, and BPCS wasn't even on it.  I welcome the partnership between IBM 
and SSA, but it still needs a little work...

JME,

Dean Asmussen
Enterprise Systems Consulting, Inc.
Fuquay-Varina, NC  USA
E-mail:  DAsmussen@aol.com

"A country is not judged by its' ability to make war, but it's ability to 
maintain peace." -- Gene Roddenberry
+---
| 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
+---