|
Dieter I have seen the performance issues you describe but mostly on older hardware. I do use Tomcat and it does seem to be very solid with one exception -- the Coyote connector seems flakey and can adversely impact performance on the iSeries. The HttpConnector seems to work fine. On relatively small systems pulling the application server off the box does improve performance. However, that doesn't hold true for large scale transaction intensive workloads. It is too costly to process large sets of data on one system and ship the results back to another system. I have benchmarked quite a few cases -- iSeries database/Linux app server and iSeries database with iSeries app server. For reporting workloads and with older iSeries hardware the iSeries database/Linux app server is faster. For Transaction intensive systems like ERP systems, the single system with multiple processors does much better. I am stress testing an application this week as well as profiling. I profile memory use etc. off the iSeries but the scripts are the same. Running those tests to simulate a months worth of transactions by 20 users on a dedicated intel server hitting the same iSeries database takes about five times longer even with profiling turned off. David Morris >>> dieter.bender@xxxxxxxxxxxx 3/9/2004 1:37:05 AM >>> David, in the last 2 years, I have seen 2 diffrent things in the as400 world, I have never seen before, both related to webSphere installations. There were single processor machines with WebSphere (mostly without EJBs) and database on the same box. 4 to 8 huge slow disks and insufficient memory. This systems were "scaled" by ibm itself for this workload and they even didn't crawl; the customers were a little bit angry, when they saw their web application flying on a 2000 Euro (= $) intel box with linux or even Windows. And I Have seen very expensive big irons, with multiprocessor, huge memory and balanced storage, all work running on one box and we had to do PWRDWNSYS to stop WebSphere from eating up all ressources, DMPJVM didn't work, the WebSphere Admin didn't work, ENDSBS didn't work and ENDJOBABN didn't work. In my experience the WebSphere implementation on as400 is buggy, we've never seen such problems with Tomcat or JBoss on AS400 and we've never seen something like this with WebSphere on NT, AIX, or LINUX. Supporttimes for such problems with as400 weeks (install latest Cum, install latest Groups, send me JVM Dump, must work, latest cum...) One of the reasons for the bugs in as400 might be, that ibm itself doesn't see a real market for WebSphere on AS400; the full version with all features as multiple JVMs and load balancing was never available for as400. I've asked when it will be available at common conferences and at marketing shows and I've got answers like "never heared of enterprise edition", or speakers at those conferences didn't know Tomcat. BTW, the last fact has another drawback for an installation with a single as400; at the point scalability gets an issue and you need load balancing you have to change the platform for your app Server. The critical point for scalability on the high end isn't only the number of processors (6 or 12 might be the same). The point with the native data access: I've made some benchmarks and load tests too; I didn't see this advantage. seperated boxes were fastest up to the bandwith of the communications connection and with growing workload the separated scenario outperformed the single box. regards Dieter
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.