× The internal search function is temporarily non-functional. The current search engine is no longer viable and we are researching alternatives.
As a stop gap measure, we are using Google's custom search engine service.
If you know of an easy to use, open source, search engine ... please contact support@midrange.com.


  • Subject: Re: BPCS Performance Problems
  • From: DAsmussen@xxxxxxx
  • Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1999 18:31:09 EST

Dwight,

In a message dated 2/17/99 10:59:37 AM Eastern Standard Time,
dslessman@nationalelectrical.com writes:

> We filled out an "old" sizing document because the "new" one was not ready. 
>   SSA than took the recommendations and "upped" them by 60%.  The 2177 
>  performed great when we were running 4.0.05 (our old version of BPCS).  We 
>  went live with 6.0.04 mixed mode in November of 1998.  The performance has 
>  been poor.  We have analyzed and created many logical files to help the SQL
>  performance.  We have since filled out a "new" sizing document.  SSA is now
>  recommending the 2178 with more memory.  The only workload change on the 
>  system has been BPCS 6.0.04.  The new version of BPCS is far more resource 
>  hungry than previous versions (we started on BPCS 2.1).  There was no 
>  sticker shock and pull-back.  We went with SSA's recommendations.  We are 
>  now verifying them with our local IBM branch (wish I had done that to begin
>  with).

Well, I've stated it many times before and will do so again since we have so
many new members on the list.  The new sizer works, but many companies do not
fill it out in a realistic fashion.  The old sizer _NEVER_ worked, IMO, and I
have always recommended a processor jump in concert with doubling the
suggested memory and DASD from what the old sizer recommended.  When moving to
V6 from a V4 release, you will experience the same "CASE crunch" that MAPICS
users on older versions experience when moving to XA.  In trying to be all
things to all people, CASE tools of any manufacture inherently open more files
and require more code than the older "hand written" versions did.  BPCS is
even worse, as it incorporates so much SQL.

If you're not on V4R3 and running SMP across multiple processors, you're at a
performance disadvantage with V6.  By the time you make it to this list, it's
too late to tell you to get it written into your contract that you get a free
upgrade if your sizing information is correct but you still experience
performance problems.  Too bad...

Regards,

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

"Miracles happen to those that believe in them."  -- Bernard Berenson
+---
| 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
+---


As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

This thread ...


Follow On AppleNews
Return to Archive home page | Return to MIDRANGE.COM home page

This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2024 by midrange.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 on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact [javascript protected email address].

Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.