Re: BPCS Sizing -- BPCS-L

Hello,

Another bounce due to PGP attachment.  Could you "state of the art" folks
figure out how to _NOT_ get your PGP signature attached to your e-mail ;-)?
BTW, despite my earlier bashing, I think that it's only fair to point out that
the configurator only reports what you feed into it.  GIGO rules, and you
don't stand a chance of getting SSA to pay for your hardware upgrade if you do
not adequately report the transaction volume and number of modules that you
use.  The "bounced" message follows...

Dean Asmussen
Enterprise Systems Consulting, Inc.
Fuquay-Varina, NC  USA
E-Mail:  DAsmussen@aol.com

"BPCS -- Better Programs Coming Soon"

In a message dated 98-09-18 18:31:43 EDT, you write:

> Tony,
>  
>  Welcome to the wonderful world of SSA!  I haven't heard of anyone that =
>  was sized adequately on the first attempt and this is not a new problem. =
>   When we bought 4.0.3, we sized our processor using SSA guidelines, then =
>  bought the next larger size.  That was too small by the time we got a =
>  quarter of our planned users onto the system, so we went up 2 more =
>  sizes, which doubled the performance of the processor.  That is barely =
>  enough.
>  
>  Steve Richel
>  Universal Flavors
>  
>  -----Original Message-----
>  From:        Tony Johnson [SMTP:tjohnson@promac.com]
>  Sent:        Thursday, September 17, 1998 10:12 AM
>  To:  BPCS-L@midrange.com
>  Subject:     BPCS Sizing Issues
>  
>  Tom,
>  
>  It sounds like your situation is very similar to what my company has=20
>  experienced. We were not an AS/400 shop prior to purchasing BPCS.  In =
>  the fall=20
>  of 1996, we completed the SSA sizing process.  Shortly thereafter we =
>  purchased=20
>  a 510-2143, 384MB Memory, 16GB Disk (12GB Usable with RAID5) =
>  specifically to=20
>  run BPCS.=20
>  
>  During our implementation process with a limited number of users on the =
>  system=20
>  (6.0.02 plf cum3 Mixed Mode), disk space filled up to almost 90% and=20
>  performance was sluggish in certain programs (Especially billing and =
>  some of=20
>  the manufacturing programs).  At that point in the fall of 1997, we went =
>  
>  though the entire sizing process a second time with SSA.  We noticed =
>  that the=20
>  format of the sizing questionnaire had changed between sizing #1 and =
>  sizing=20
>  #2.  SSA came back with new reports stating we could not go live with =
>  our 100=20
>  users on the AS/400 that we originally bought, and would need to buy a=20
>  620-2181 or S20-2177.  This was quite a financial shock to our =
>  relatively=20
>  small company (130 employees) since we weren't even live on the first =
>  system=20
>  yet.  Consequently, our implementation was placed on hold until the =
>  sizing=20
>  issues could be resolved.  We've already spent a million dollars on the=20
>  project, and now we are looking at close to another million to move =
>  forward.
>  
>  We have spent months trying to get SSA and the other involved parties =
>  together=20
>  to discuss a a resolution to our issues.  Although we have now had some=20
>  meetings, very little concrete progress has been made to date. =20
>  
>  You mentioned in your email that your company will "probably move up".  =
>  I am=20
>  curious to know if your company or any other company out there has had a =
>  
>  similar mis-sizing experience like ours.  If so, how were you able to =
>  resolve=20
>  it, or are you still in limbo like us?
>  
>  Regards,
>  Tony Johnson
>  BPCS Project Manager
>  Promac, Inc.
>  
>  tjohnson@promac.com
>  
>  
>  ------------------------
>    From: Tom McKeel  <tmckeel@worldnet.att.net>
>    Subject: Re: BPCS 6.04 on an AS400 Model 300/2042
>    Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1998 06:51:02 -0400=20
>    To: BPCS-L@midrange.com
>  
>  
>  I would have to agree.  We are running 6.0.2plf on a model 510-2143 512k =
>  mem
>  with 150 users and performance is bad especially in the  Billing and =
>  Shop
>  Floor Control areas...  We will probably move up...
>  
>  -----Original Message-----
>  From: JLR@mead.com <JLR@mead.com>
>  To: BPCS-L@midrange.com <BPCS-L@midrange.com>
>  Date: Wednesday, September 16, 1998 12:02 PM
>  Subject: Re: BPCS 6.04 on an AS400 Model 300/2042
>  
>  
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >I guess it depends on the number of user you have.  We had a Model 530 =
>  tier
>  >2 and we had about 150 users on it with 6.02 MM and the system could =
>  not
>  >handle it.  We migrated to a Model 640 tier 2 with 60 Gs of hard disk =
>  and
>  >that seems to be working fine even after we increaed our user base to =
>  about
>  >250.
>  >
>  >Joe Royer
+---
| This is the BPCS Users Mailing List!
| To submit a new message, send your mail to BPCS-L@midrange.com.
| To subscribe to this list send email to BPCS-L-SUB@midrange.com.
| To unsubscribe from this list send email to BPCS-L-UNSUB@midrange.com.
| Questions should be directed to the list owner: dasmussen@aol.com
+---