RE: Overall BPCS performance

[mitchell@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Mitchell, Dan)]

On 10/7/98 Vince Rowe wrote:

>Here's our sad tale:  2+ years ago we started to implement BPCS 5.x.x on a
>nice little 310 AS/400.  Of course we had to move to 6.x.x, and over the
>years we've landed on 6.0.2 PLF mixed mode March Cum.  Over a year ago we
>actually got COM to function and discovered to our dismay that a one line
      >order took 20 minutes to confirm with no one else on the box.
      >...
      >My question is:  can IBM make a machine that is
      >up to the punishment BPCS hands out?  Yes, we've had tuning specialist 
here
      >and our BPCS consultants have remarked that our machine is the fastest
      >responding they've ever used.

Certainly, as a BPCS Y2K solution vendor, I feel that he had a brilliant 
alternative to 6.x.x.  As well, he most probably still has enough time to 
century-enable his 5.1 implementation and put off the 6.x.x pain for some 
time.

However, this discussion about the poor 6.x.x performance provokes another 
thought:

Why does everyone seem to accept that BPCS 6.x.x _SHOULD_ command such 
incredible AS/400 resources?

There has not been that much of an increase in useful business functionality 
over prior BPCS versions.  So it must be architectural or technical 
underpinnings that require all of those resources.?.?.?.

Are people really convinced that the architectural merits of BPCS 6.x.x are 
worth having to pay for all that IBM can muster??

(By the way, I AM truly impressed with what IBM has done for AS/400 
performance and I'm sure SSA must be grateful to IBM.)




+---
| 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
+---