× The internal search function is temporarily non-functional. The current search engine is no longer viable and we are researching alternatives.
As a stop gap measure, we are using Google's custom search engine service.
If you know of an easy to use, open source, search engine ... please contact support@midrange.com.


  • Subject: RE: Websphere: a resource hog?
  • From: "Joe Pluta" <joepluta@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 24 May 2001 13:28:03 -0500
  • Importance: Normal

You gotta love this stuff.  Okay, I just moved the I/O out of the servlet
and into an RPG server.  I still have to start a session with the AS/400 and
call the RPG server program for every request, but this still oubles the
througput.  I'm now matching your response time, Nathan, of about .6 seconds
for 5 users, although I'm kicking out 33% more data.

At this point, WebSphere is running roughly one fourth as fast as your ILE
approach, and I haven't even put the server in batch yet (which will
eliminate RPG initialization time).

Joe


> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-midrange-l@midrange.com
> [mailto:owner-midrange-l@midrange.com]On Behalf Of Nathan M. Andelin
> Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2001 11:06 AM
> To: MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com
> Subject: RE: Websphere: a resource hog?
>
>
> > Of course, that's basically just measuring WebSphere's
> > capability to generate and output HTML.  Using the
> > Java toolbox, a simple application building an 8KB page
> > from a disk file will run 5 sessions at once with a 1.3
> > seconds response time.  That's 230 hits per minute,
> > or over 12,000 per hour.
>
> Those sound like impressive results, Joe.  But I guess it all depends on
> what you compare it to.  So, I decided to run the JMeter Web Stress tool
> against one of my ILE Web Application Servers.  The ILE server reads a
> database file and builds a 6KB response containing HTML and
> fields from the
> database.  The average response time is about .6 seconds when serving 5
> simultaneous clients.
>
> The impressive thing is that this is all done with a model 170-2290, which
> has a CPW rating of 73.
>
> Nathan.
>
>
> +---
> | This is the Midrange System Mailing List!
> | To submit a new message, send your mail to MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com.
> | To subscribe to this list send email to MIDRANGE-L-SUB@midrange.com.
> | To unsubscribe from this list send email to
> MIDRANGE-L-UNSUB@midrange.com.
> | Questions should be directed to the list owner/operator:
> david@midrange.com
> +---
>

+---
| This is the Midrange System Mailing List!
| To submit a new message, send your mail to MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com.
| To subscribe to this list send email to MIDRANGE-L-SUB@midrange.com.
| To unsubscribe from this list send email to MIDRANGE-L-UNSUB@midrange.com.
| Questions should be directed to the list owner/operator: david@midrange.com
+---

As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

This thread ...

Follow-Ups:
Replies:

Follow On AppleNews
Return to Archive home page | Return to MIDRANGE.COM home page

This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2024 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact [javascript protected email address].

Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.