Frank wrote: > From: email@example.com > Been on hols for a week, so reply is late.:( > > Mike Gillette wrote: > > > If in fact the AS/400 is source of your performance bottleneck, > >it may be as much a workload mix issue as it is a horsepower issue. > >The 9406/640 is primarily an interactive CPU > >and suffers under heavy batch processing. > >The new 7XX models and the older E-Custom Servers > >are tuned to give the BPCS user an adjustable CPW mix between > > Batch and Interactive. This has resulted > > in superior performance than what users have experienced with the > >"Classic" AS/400 like your 640. > > Mike I am very interested in knowing what an Interactive CPU is as opposed > to a Batch CPU. > Our batch load is not great, or is my definition of BATCH vs INTERACTIVE > something which no longer applies to the new IBM computers. I have recently been to several IBM classes & the instructors still define INTERACTIVE = Human being interacting with the computer, whether twinax or PC is the work station BATCH = the job is running without a work station in the picture, like off of a JOBQ We have some jobs that have heavy updates & file i/o that should be run in different sub-systems like QBATCH from the user QINTER to utilize system resources productively. This is an internal lapse in my data processing responsibilities. The overhead needed to support these 2 modes, printer, communications, PC LAN etc. use different resources & various different models of AS/400 are designed to be extremely powerful in a particular area, so if you are primarily in another area, then you have the wrong box for your company. > I am perplexed as to how hardware can solve a problem that is inherently a > software issue. There are problems that are difficult to diagnose was to what exactly is causing the performance problem. > To be precise, > if a programmer reads an entire file sequentially to update a record > rather than using a logical file to get to just the record that needs > updating, how will changing the CPU fix the problem. In this example, the correct solution is through software, although hardware can make the extremely inefficient process get done sooner. > I am in the dark, I cannot understand how certain jobs take as long as they > do on the 9406/640. > Certain jobs just scream along, others seem to dissapear up a black hole, > and occasionally appear and to an update. > Call me paranoid, but this smacks of 'wait loops' to me, not that I would > ever suggest IBM would ever do anything like that > (does anyone remember a thing call a PCJX or Junior, never mind, its > just a red herring). > My first job was with a S3M15 so I' ve been about a while and I thought I > knew a thing or 2 but this stuff is like > the X-Files to me, or am I paranoid again. > Frank Some jobs may appear to be in a wait condition if their access to system resources have a low priority. Check out the rules in *JOBD for the JOBQ a batch is in. This sort of topic is covered by IBM AS/400 classes in System Operator, Work Management, System Administration etc. http://www.training.ibm.com/ibmedu/spotlight/as400.html = IBM's curriculum on AS/400 complexities Al Macintyre +--- | 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: firstname.lastname@example.org +---
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.