RE: BPCS 6.1mm performance and the AS/400 -- BPCS-L

I agree on your statement.  Since the sizing has been revamped by SSA and 
IBM, our customers have been pleased with the performance.  We (with 
guidance from IBM and SSA) used to do sizing, but trying to keep everyone 
updated became a severe problem.

Thanks to the  SSA Competency Center, the ERP Sizing Center, and SSA for 
getting this sizing corrected.

Douglas J. Schneider
G/S Software Solutions
Voice: (616) 956-1121


-----Original Message-----
From:   pgreenfi@ssax.com [SMTP:pgreenfi@ssax.com]
Sent:   Wednesday, February 16, 2000 11:05 AM
To:     BPCS-L@midrange.com
Subject:        Re: BPCS 6.1mm performance and the AS/400

Hi Rosalie,

I read your reply regarding the Sizing process with some surprise.  The 
sizing
for V6.1 has been very successful to date.  SSA and IBM have spent a lot of 
time
and resource making it so.  I wonder if you are referring to a previous 
version
of the sizing process.

I am interested to hear who did your sizing and why it was not considered 
to be
correct.  It also disturbs me to hear that most of your user group has
experienced the same problems.

If there is a problem with the V6.1 we need to know so that it can be 
addressed,
but as I have said, it has been very successful to date.

Please e-mail me directly with any issues or concerns that you may have.

Regards
Peter

SSA AS/400 Product Manager





Rosalie@omnia.co.za on 02/16/2000 12:04:05 AM

Please respond to BPCS-L@midrange.com

To:   BPCS-L@midrange.com
cc:    (bcc: Peter Greenfield/SSA/US)
Subject:  Re: BPCS 6.1mm performance and the AS/400



We did the sizing according to the BPCS sizing guide and it was a total
waste of time.  Just about everyone in our user group who did the exercise
also said it was a waste of time and that generally you have to double or
triple the processing requirements that you think you might need.  Most of
the performance issues are just poor programming/design principles (or lack
thereof) e.g., a single spool file for each invoice - this is ridiculous
and if any programmer working for me did this I would get rid of them very
quickly!





"Genyphyr Novak" <novakg@ssax.com> on 15/02/2000 07:30:28 PM

Please respond to BPCS-L@midrange.com

To:   BPCS-L@midrange.com
cc:    (bcc: Rosalie Ducasse/ITS/Omnia Group)

Subject:  Re: BPCS 6.1mm performance and the AS/400




Hi Sandy,

Simply comparing what other companies have to what you have is often not
enough, as you are not taking into account the myriad of different ways to
use and set up BPCS, and the varied performance requirements that each mode
of BPCS (C/S or MM), which applications you use most heavily and business
needs set up requires. The BPCS sizing guide (developed by SSA and IBM)
takes all of this into account.

Random sampling of other system processers used by other companies on a
mailing list is likely not the best way to research this topic, as
performance is very complex and site/useage-specific. If you are asking
about this here, just to get a few 'warm fuzzies' to know you are not way
off-base about your pending decision, and not as a primary research tool,
then that would be a wise approach to take.

It is not surprising that System/36 BPCS ran fine on a smaller box and
6.1.00 does not, as they are extremely different releases. I am sure you
have looked at all the many many Net Change documents between those
releases. Quite a few new features have been added as well as many new
products and files (and thus the additional processor overhead to keep
track
of all the new functionality).

Thanks

Genyphyr Novak
SSA

-----Original Message-----
From: Forwiw@aol.com <Forwiw@aol.com>
To: BPCS-L@midrange.com <BPCS-L@midrange.com>
Date: Saturday, February 12, 2000 7:20 PM
Subject: Re: BPCS 6.1mm performance and the AS/400


>
>    We had an OLD version of BPCS 4.4B running as a System/36 guest on
>    our AS/400.  We had no problem with the older version,  it's just
>    when we went to BPCS 6.1 mm we noticed the performance hit.
>
>    What model AS/400 do you have?
>
>    Thanks for responding.
>    Sandy
>
>+---
>| 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
+---






+---
| 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
+---

+---
| 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
+---