Re: Upgrading to V5R1

The latest CUM has been ordered.  But, I still have two
problems.

1.  If I test with the latest CUM and performance is no
better (or only slightly better), then there's the "you must
not have installed the correct PTF(s)" excuse.

I don't want this to be an issue, and I'm sure others don't
as well.  I really want pbA CGI performance to be on par
with Classic.

2.  I find it hard to believe IBM can't load test a web
server.

I searched the cover letters you mention earlier.  There
were quite a few for V5R1 and pbA server.  I had thought
that you said the developer said there were specific PTFs
that increased the performance.  Maybe I read it wrong.  I
can understand if the developer doesn't know which PTF his
fix gets applied to, so we'll just have to wait and see.

Thanks for your assistance, Mel.

Brad

On Thu, 21 Feb 2002 17:48:26 -0600
 Mel Rothman <mel@rothmanweb.com> wrote:
> Brad, I don't have any problem with your data.
>
> However, saying unequivocally that pbA CGI performance
> "*IS* horrific," rather than "*WAS* horrific when I
> measured it x months ago..." would be of much greater
> value to all.
>
> Our developers neither need nor want the hassle that
> comes with "bending" the truth.  And, I got the
> developer's agreement to post what he said onto the
> Web400 list, so he knew it would get wide distribution.
>
> I didn't mention which PTFs are needed.  The latest CUM
> and all applicable group and HIPER PTFs should be
> sufficient.  I would also search the cover letters at
>   http://www-912.ibm.com/supporthome.nsf/home/PTF+Cover+Letters
> for the string HTTPSVR sorted by date.  Sometimes a gem
> is found
> there that has not yet made it into the group PTF.
>
>
> Mel
>
>
>