Re: CGIDEV2 performance versus Net.Data

Nathan, although the amount of data is small, it could be argued that a small
amount of data and simple processing is the best way to isolate the relative
performance of the underlying methods.  The authors make it clear on page 99
that "Results listed here are not representative of any particular customer
environment.  Actual performance may vary significantly from what is provided
here."

The table does gives the reader a good idea of the RELATIVE performance of the
seven different kinds of page serving.  It makes it especially clear that CGI
programs should run in named activation groups if they are to have any hope of
performing.  In fact, DB2WWW, Net.Data's program (a CGI program), runs in a
named activation group.

Your web site's "shootout," compares net.data running in a named activation
group (and your product running in a ??? activation group) to CGIDEV2 hobbled by
running in a *new activation group.

If you run your CGIDEV2 "shootout" program in a named activation group and turn
all debugging off (as previously discussed) and discard the measurement on the
first execution, I am sure you will find that CGIDEV2 performance is more than
competitive, probably in line with the ratios in table 6.1.

If your product is as good as you say it is, and I have no reason to believe it
is not, it will be successful, and that is good for IBM and its eServer iSeries
platform.  Since CGIDEV2 generates no software revenue for IBM, losing CGIDEV2
"sales" to "competitive" iSeries software products does not hurt IBM and doesn't
bother me in the least.

On the other hand, your current "shootout" comparison, most likely
unintentionally, unfairly represents CGIDEV2 as a poor performer.

If you continue to use the "shootout" in your marketing, you owe it to yourself,
your customers, and your prospects to do it right.



Mel Rothman
CGIDEV2 Author
IBM eServer iSeries Custom Technology Center (iCTC)
Rochester, Minnesota



"Nathan M. Andelin" wrote:
>
> > The iSeries Performance Capabilities
> > Reference Version 5, Release 1,
> > http://publib.boulder.ibm.com/pubs/pdfs/as400/V4R5PDF/as4ppcp4.pdf,
> > has a table on page 99 that shows number of transaction
> > per second per CPW on the Apache server.  In the non-SSL
> > case, servlets: .46; CGI named activation group .29; CGI
> > new activation group .06.; Net.Data 0.19.
>
> Quote from page 102: "The data in the Table 6.1 assumes that a small amount
> of data is being served (say 100
> bytes)."
>
> How relevant are these benchmarks?  100 bytes?  Apparently no database
> access?  Apparently the response is produced entirely from in-line output
> statements?
>
> Properly structured Java applications normally involve a Servlet, a Java
> Bean, and a JSP, and frequently a Session, to produce a response.
>
> Most Net.Data macros evoke calls to the SQL language environment.
>
> The referenced comparisons seem to be almost completely divorced from
> real-life.
>
> Nathan M. Andelin
> www.relational-data.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> This is the Midrange Systems Technical Discussion (MIDRANGE-L) mailing list
> To post a message email: MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options,
> visit: http://lists.midrange.com/cgi-bin/listinfo/midrange-l
> or email: MIDRANGE-L-request@midrange.com
> Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives
> at http://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l.