Re: Strategy to reduce iSeries costs: BPCS archiving with Locksmith

Or if you want to take that route you could always buy Fast/400 from that UK
company (if it's still around), and then you won't have to suffer the
appallingly bad English in the Go Faster literature from ATT Barcelona,
Spain!!

cheers,

Clare

----- Original Message -----
From: "Manuel Antunes" <manuelantunes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "SSA's BPCS ERP System" <bpcs-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 2004 12:00 PM
Subject: RE: Strategy to reduce iSeries costs: BPCS archiving with Locksmith


> Hi,
>
> And sometimes there is a third solution:
>
> We have a 720 and BPCS V6.1.01 MM. Late 2002, we were running out of our
AS400 processor capacity.
>
> We found a nice (*) solution by simply "disconnecting" CFINT01: The system
job that consumes the processor capacity if the interactive jobs go over the
contracted capacity. Now, we have the overall capacity available to
interactive and batch jobs as needed and we are far from having to upgrade
our AS400.
>
> Bes regards,
>
> Manuel Antunes
> System Analist
> Laboratorios Azevedos, SA
> Portugal
>
> (*) GoFaster from American Top Tools:
http://www.att.es/archivos/GoFasterBulletin%20I98%20ENG.pdf
>
> | -----Mensagem original-----
> | De: Clare Holtham [mailto:Clare.Holtham@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> | Enviada: terça-feira, 27 de Abril de 2004 8:50
> | Para: SSA's BPCS ERP System
> | Assunto: Re: Strategy to reduce iSeries costs: BPCS archiving with
> | Locksmith
> |
> |
> | Of course it makes sense to invest in a system that is the
> | right size for
> | your workload, with room for growth. However, that doesn't
> | mean you should
> | just go on without considering efficiency. Why pay all that
> | money to IBM if
> | you don't have to? And even if the jobs go through like
> | greased lightning,
> | you still may have response time problems on an interactive
> | screen. You's be
> | surprised how quickly you can fill up disk and use CPU cycles
> | wastefully. My
> | advice is to put a tuning programme and archiving strategy in
> | place while
> | you have the luxury of over-capacity! And I agree, in some
> | situations where
> | the system is overloaded, it isn't an either or situation,
> | it's a both.
> |
> | cheers,
> |
> | Clare
> |
> | Clare Holtham
> | Director, Small Blue Ltd - Archiving for BPCS
> | Web: www.smallblue.co.uk
> | IBM Certified AS/400 Systems Professional
> | E-Mail: Clare.Holtham@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> | Mobile: +44 (0)7960 665958
> |
> | ----- Original Message -----
> | From: <Tom_Page@xxxxxxxxxx>
> | To: "SSA's BPCS ERP System" <bpcs-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> | Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2004 3:38 AM
> | Subject: Re: Strategy to reduce iSeries costs: BPCS archiving
> | with Locksmith
> |
> |
> | > We are running 6.101 mixed mode, had a 720 with 120 interactive CPW,
> | > constantly at 90% or above.  Constant problems, batch jobs
> | backing up, not
> | > fun to support.
> | > We upgraded to an 810 1500 cpw no interactive limits,  BPCS
> | actually works
> | > now, F5 you get an immediate response.  OK it was $130K but
> | we are running
> | > at 15% capacity now, there is never more than
> | > two jobs in the queue because the clear out so fast.  Jobs
> | that used to
> | > take an hour now take 5 minutes.  Month end closing and
> | INV903, dont blink
> | > becuase it is done before you can check on the job, it used
> | to take 40
> | > minutes.  This is one case where throwing more hardware at
> | the problem has
> | > solved most all of our problems.  We even had a runaway job
> | going for 2
> | > weeks before any noticed, me!
> | > My recomendation, upgrade your hardware, become efficient later.
> | >
> | >
> | >
> | >
> | >
> | >
> | > "Milt Habeck" <mhabeck@xxxxxxxxxx>
> | > Sent by: bpcs-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> | > 04/26/2004 12:05 AM
> | > Please respond to "SSA's BPCS ERP System"
> | >
> | >
> | >         To:     "BPCS user community" <BPCS-L@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> | >         cc:
> | >         Subject:        Strategy to reduce iSeries costs:
> | BPCS archiving
> | with Locksmith
> | >
> | >
> | > Dear Nadun,
> | >
> | > At 95% CPU utilization, it's entirely possible that you'll
> | > need a new box even if you don't upgrade to BPCS v8.x.
> | > But  ... before you place the order with IBM, please
> | > consider this strategy ---->>
> | >
> | >         +  Measure the response time improvement
> | >              achievable with Locksmith software.
> | >
> | > Locksmith archiving software could produce one or
> | > both of these happy results:
> | >
> | >   1. There's a chance that the response time improvement
> | >       realized from Locksmith could be significant enough
> | >       to postpone the day when a new iSeries is needed.
> | >
> | >   2. If you archive BPCS before moving off the old box,
> | >       you'll get a better feel for how much punch is actually
> | >       needed in the new box. You might be able to shave
> | >       some cost off an IBM configuration.
> | >
> | > Either result would more than pay for a copy of Locksmith.
> | > Details available here:
> | >     http://www.unbeatenpathintl.com/locksmith_bpcs.htm
> | >
> | > Here's several more clever/affordable Bells & Whistles
> | > for BPCS software ideas:
> | >    http://www.unbeatenpathintl.com/bells/source/1.html
> | >
> | > Warm regards and peace to you,
> | >
> | > Milt Habeck
> | > Unbeaten Path International
> | >
> | > Toll free North America:  (888) 874-8008
> | > International voice: (262) 681-3151
> | > mhabeck@xxxxxxxxxx
> | > www.unbeatenpathintl.com
> | >
> | >
> | >
> | > +++++++  +++++++  +++++++  +++++++  +++++++  +++++++
> | > From: ngamage@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> | > To: bpcs-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> | > Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2004 3:24 AM
> | > Subject: BPCS V8.2 Question
> | >
> | > Hi,
> | >
> | > We operate our business using BPCS & EAM V6.1.01 (mixed
> | mode) in AS/400
> | > 620
> | > model (CPW-85) on OS/400 V5R1. The concurrent users are estimated as
> | > around
> | > 70 to 80 and the CPU utilization is at its maximum (above
> | 95%) most of the
> | > time. In such a situation we also have some plans to
> | upgrade our BPCS &
> | > EAM
> | > to V8.2 full client version under the same hardware platform. We are
> | > seriously doubtful and concern about whether the current
> | AS/400 can handle
> | > the workload once we upgrade to V8.2 full client.
> | >
> | > Any suggestions and comments are highly appreciated to
> | handle the current
> | > situation
> | >
> | > Regards, Nadun Gamage
> | >
> | > _______________________________________________
> | > This is the SSA's BPCS ERP System (BPCS-L) mailing list
> | > To post a message email: BPCS-L@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> | > To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options,
> | > visit: http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/bpcs-l
> | > or email: BPCS-L-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> | > Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives
> | > at http://archive.midrange.com/bpcs-l.
> | >
> | >
> | >
> | > _______________________________________________
> | > This is the SSA's BPCS ERP System (BPCS-L) mailing list
> | > To post a message email: BPCS-L@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> | > To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options,
> | > visit: http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/bpcs-l
> | > or email: BPCS-L-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> | > Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives
> | > at http://archive.midrange.com/bpcs-l.
> | >
> |
> |
> |
> |
>
> _______________________________________________
> This is the SSA's BPCS ERP System (BPCS-L) mailing list
> To post a message email: BPCS-L@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options,
> visit: http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/bpcs-l
> or email: BPCS-L-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives
> at http://archive.midrange.com/bpcs-l.
>