RE: Upgrade to 5.2 - strange occurances?

From: "Eduard van den Braken" <e.vd.braken@xxxxxxxxx>
Reply-To: Midrange Systems Technical Discussion <midrange-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "'Midrange Systems Technical Discussion'" <midrange-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: Upgrade to 5.2 - strange occurances? Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2003 19:31:02 +0200

Rick

Did you run the object conversion of your libraries, or are they withholding
the speedy startup of the programms.
All the files need to be converted or it will be done on first access.

Groetjes (Greetings)
===========================================================
Name: Eduard van den Braken
E-mail: e.vd.braken@xxxxxxxxx
Town: Leusden -- the Netherlands
Homepage: http://home.hccnet.nl/e.vd.braken/
===========================================================

-----Original Message-----
From: midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Rick Rayburn
Sent: zondag 28 september 2003 17:03
To: midrange-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Upgrade to 5.2 - strange occurances?

Perhaps they are alien only to me but here are some things that have
occurred following a release upgrade from 4.3 to 4.5 - then from 4.5 to 5.2
- all in the same weekend:

1. After running a save entire system command following 5.2 installation,
the QSTRUP program did NOT appear to fire up...which, I am being told, it
should have. Our sysval is set to QSTRUP.QGPL (thought I'd bring back old 38

syntax for a laugh)...and that object does not appear to have been touched
for months.

2. there seems to be noticeable performance issues in our application
software AND, it appears, with PDM access as well. Some interractive
application menu options are taking up to 5x longer to engage - only on the
initial time in! Then, it is fine.

There are no messages that I can see about access path rebuilds...the system

memory and pool configuration looks basically the same save for a meg or 2
difference.

We are NOT using access groups (meaning we are using the IBM default all the

time)...could there be some "object recognition" on the first engagement to
"correct" the usage of the dreaded "default access group" associated with
the object (if there is even such an association captured in the template)?
My knowledge of how the access groups work specifically are admittedly scant

so this theory is 1000% guess work and may, in fact, have no legitimacy
whatsoever.

We just do not understand why we are experiencing this performance problem.

3. Are there any other "gotchas" to keep a groggy eye on?

Thanks to all.

Rick Rayburn
NJ

_________________________________________________________________
Instant message during games with MSN Messenger 6.0. Download it now FREE!
http://msnmessenger-download.com

_______________________________________________
This is the Midrange Systems Technical Discussion (MIDRANGE-L) mailing list
To post a message email: MIDRANGE-L@xxxxxxxxxxxx To subscribe, unsubscribe,
or change list options,
visit: http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/midrange-l
or email: MIDRANGE-L-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives
at http://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l.

_______________________________________________
This is the Midrange Systems Technical Discussion (MIDRANGE-L) mailing list
To post a message email: MIDRANGE-L@xxxxxxxxxxxx
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options,
visit: http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/midrange-l
or email: MIDRANGE-L-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives
at http://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l.