|
Is the same job consistently slow or does it run quickly sometimes and slow other times? We have found many areas of BPCS that use very poor programming techniques in general and SQL in particular. The As/Set case tool (we have been using since 1992) does not generate the world's most efficient code to begin with. Add to that some "creative" techniques used by SSA and you get some real dogs. We had a sizing problem with our AS/400 and would experience intermittant performance problems. If your performance comes and goes you could also be experiencing a "governing" effect supplied by IBM. When your job appears to "go to sleep", use WRKSYSACT and check if there are any CFINTxx jobs running and how much CPU they are pulling. If you see multiple CFINTxx jobs running and they are pulling a significant percentage of CPU, you are being slowed down by IBM which would probably indicate your interactive workload is heavier than is recommended with your AS/400. When this situation occurs, not only interactive will slow down but batch as well. Until we were able to upgrade, we forbid any interactive AS/400 queries, any interactive BPCS jobs, etc. This helped but we eventually had to sign the check and upgrade. By the way we are on BPCS 6.0.04 mixed mode with an AS/400 2178. Regards, Dwight Slessman -----Original Message----- From: fkolmann@revlon.com.au [SMTP:fkolmann@revlon.com.au] Sent: Monday, July 19, 1999 11:05 PM To: BPCS-L@midrange.com Subject: Re: Performance solutions through hardware > 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 Thanks for the defnition Al. I see nothing has changed. We certainly use QINTER QBATCH sbs as they should. I have started from S3 cvtd to S38 Cvtd to AS400 so I am familiar with all AS400 concepts. > > 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. > Thank you for your reply. My point is that with SQL many programmers are not setting up appropriate indexes thus forcing DB2/400 to create and destroy indexes on the fly for each get or update of a record via SQL. It is the ease with which SQL allows such a condition to occure and the careless approach of some coders, as evidenced by the actual code that is the problem. Luckily the AS400 DB has a ability to hunt for access paths the can facilitate a query. This function was not in the early AS400s and one had to be very careful about Indexes (lgl files). Today it seems that code gets written and only when the user has a problem are the LGL files created. No one has explicetly told us this is the case. This is not to mention IBM bugs (that have been since fixed) where the optimisating (hunting) logic did not find the optimum index. > > > knew a thing or 2 but this stuff is like the X-Files to me, or am I paranoid > again. > 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 Thanks Al , you reply has restored hope to me. I know all the stuff about JOBDs JOBQs CLASSes SBS ROUTING ENTRIES priorities etc. I know about disk arms and DB access positioning files for optimum acceses , sorting into most used sequence and buffering(double or otherwise). Thats what makes the problems that SQL causes so hard to understand. SQL has the coding methods to avoid poor performance, but it is very easy to cause poor perfromance with SQL. +--- | 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 +--- +--- | 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 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.