MIDRANGE dot COM Mailing List Archive



Home » MIDRANGE-L » November 2006

Re: i5-520+ - Performance



fixed

Phillip,

You may want to consider a "jump" to a fully non-interactive workload using WDHT. That would require that you move to HATS for your all of your interactive workloads which just means that you build a default project and deploy it and let HATS manage all your screen interactions. You can continue develop "classic" 5250 applications, it is just that rather than accessing them through a 5250 application like iSeries Access, Mochasoft or tn5250j, you'd access them through a browser. In V5R4M0 your interactive workload goes to zero without having to recompile, re-tool, or re-build any applications. They are just viewed through a web browser. It looks very similar to iSeries Access for Web.

The advantage is that your interactive workload requirement goes to zero. The only disadvantage, if you want to call it that, is that your applications are accessed through a web browser. You can even make the HATS project look exactly like a "green screen" application if you want. Your users wouldn't see any difference in function or performance, they would just user a browser.

With an express model you could throw an accelerator option in for about $13k and get 3800 CPW. Add the WDHT license and you are still money ahead on an Enterprise version and since you are already running in a browser, nobody will complain about running "old green screen" applications since you can easily modify the screens to look more "web like" if you wanted.

I know this goes beyond the scope of your original question, but the interactive workload requirement of 0 makes WDHT a great option and you get the tools to develop and extend your application to the web.

Pete Helgren



Hello Chad and others,

now we have some numbers:
Users on system overall = 168, with about 100 of them concurrently active.
Our graph from performance measuring of interactive functions is going from
everything between 12% to a 100%, with an average about  35-40%.
We have been advised that you have to calculate abot 1-5 CPW per user,
this would be a 100 CPW minimum for us.
Now, if you take into account, that disk I/O and memory of a 520 are much faster than a 720, is it correct to say that the CPW-value of a 520 counts about 2-3 times
as much as a 720's value ? Or is interactive CPW = interactive CPW ???
BTW, is there such a hard limitation as it used to be with the S20/S30 systems ?
Unfortunately there is a huge gap between those 60 CPW and the enterprise
version with the full 1200 CPW and one is not able to "just do a test-drive".
So even if we could say that 60 CPW nowadays compare to the old 720's CPW
values like 120 or 180 CPW this is still just enough to handle our load of today. Every little bit of extra will slow down the whole system or will it just be the
interactive jobs, that suffer ?

Regards,
Philipp






Return to Archive home page | Return to MIDRANGE.COM home page

This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2014 by MIDRANGE dot 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 here. If you have questions about this, please contact