MIDRANGE dot COM Mailing List Archive



Home » MIDRANGE-L » May 2014

RE: Navigator for i vrs. System i Navigator



fixed

Jim,

I have nearly the same environment and don't have any issues. That said the
web based tool is not going to win any speed records but it's generally
acceptable.

I would look to see how much activity you have running in *BASE. Any
database access (QZDASOINIT and QSQSRVR) will eat up that pool and slow the
entire machine down. Also look at how much memory is assigned. You'll need
a bit more than you might think to run it, it is WAS after all.

At V7R2 there are functions in the Navigator client that are not in the
windows client and if the windows client will not load on Win 8.x you're
done, IBM is not supporting moving the software. If it works, great, go for
it.

--
Jim Oberholtzer
Chief Technical Architect
Agile Technology Architects


-----Original Message-----
From: MIDRANGE-L [mailto:midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Jim
Essinger
Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2014 11:04 AM
To: Midrange Systems Technical Discussion
Subject: Navigator for i vrs. System i Navigator

My Environment: Power 7 hardware - 720, running 7.1 TR7 - Running the web
browser version in FireFox/Mozilla

I am seeing several articles touting the benefits of Navigator for i browser
based management over the windows based System i Navigator.

I have tried several times to use the browser based version, and I am seeing
VERY long response times.

For example in the work management section: Browser - I click on the active
jobs. This opens a tab for active jobs. It spins and the elapsed time shows
15 minutes, but has yet to give me a display of active jobs.

Try the same thing in windows based version and I get almost instant
response list of active jobs.

Same thing with almost all of the work management stuff. Job Queues, Output
Queues, detail in QINTER or another subsystem.

Same thing with sub options of Basic Operations. Long wait times to get no
response.

Try the same thing in MS Internet Explorer:

I finally get some response, so something is broken with FF. I don't know
about Chrome, but last time I tried to use it I got the same thing as FF.

This seems to me to be a lot less reliable than the windows client, as IBM
can't control when a browser entity breaks functionality. Response time
still not great but might be acceptable. Windows client is better, green
screen is best response.

Any thoughts on how to get better browser response time?

Can we make FF work or must we wait on IBM and/or Mozilla?

With FF I can set an exception for the site security. How can we make that
fix permanent so any browser will not balk at the connection?

How is the 7.2 version of the same thing? Is it better? I know that
monitoring has been delivered there. That piece has in part, kept me from
going to the browser.

I am not yet sold on the browser as a management tool for i.

Jim Essinger
Western Power Sports
Boise ID 83619
--
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.







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