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.
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
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
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
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
Every little bit of extra will slow down the whole system or will it
just be the
interactive jobs, that suffer ?