Re: Interactive vs. Batch

["Nathan M. Andelin" <nathanma@xxxxxxxxx>]

Jim,

It seems to me that IBM found it necessary to price client-server work
differently than traditional 5250 work.  From that point forward the term
"interactive" took on new meaning.

Prior to client-server architecture, Interactive vs. Batch had much to do
with work management (job priority, dedicated memory pools, maximum # of
active jobs, etc.).  Default system configurations allocated more system
resources to interactive work.

Now, in contrast, Web and other client-server jobs need the highest
priority, the most memory, etc.  The term interactive has taken on the more
narrow meaning of a job that uses IBM's Workstation Manager.  Any CPU used
by those jobs is subject to the "interactive feature" limits placed on the
machine.

Nathan.


> From: Jim Damato <jdamato@dollargeneral.com>
> Subject: RE: Interactive vs. Batch
>
> Actually Steve, the Lawson GUI was what stirred up all of this for me.
> After purchasing hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of Interactive
> Feature we discovered that the Lawson GUI didn't use interactive CPW.  (We
> bought one of the first models to use Interactive Feature, and at the time
> we, Lawson, IBM, and our business partner did not understand how to size
for
> the cards.)  The GUI starts a sockets connection which is mapped to a
Lawson
> server program through a TCP/IP service table entry.  Each connection
> launches a server job on the AS/400 in a batch subsystem.  Lawson's green
> screen presentation runs one presentation program with one display file.
> All inquiry programs, prompts, entry, etc. operate through calls to
> application programs (RPG) which pass screen formatting information back
to
> the presentation program.  The GUI's server job accomplishes the same
thing
> by calling the same application programs and passing the formatting
> information to the client.  The same formatting information is mapped on
the
> green screen into fields and function keys, and mapped on the client into
> form elements, pull downs, and buttons.
>
> Lawson took pride in explaining that their client was thin (it was
> positively obese from the installation and support side, but that's
another
> story) and that it required very little client processing resources.  I
> became confused as to why the same user actions and functions could be
> accomplished through a TCP/IP sockets connection and a batch job, and yet
> required a small fortune in extra hardware to run them interactively on a
> terminal or emulator.  This led to a two-year quest to get someone at IBM
to
> admit that Interactive Feature was software licensing and that there was
no
> productive technology on the cards (boy, you should have heard John Sears'
> uncomfortable dodge when I asked him about it.)
>
> Nathan's web reference nails down IBM's definition very well, though the
> definition still evades the whole truth.  "iSeries 400 or AS/400 Advanced
> Servers and AS/400e servers are intended for use primarily in
client/server
> or other non-interactive work environments. 5250-based interactive work
can
> be run on these servers with limitations."  Just add the word "contrived"
in
> front of the word "limitations."
>
> While we still had users thrashing between 5250 and the Lawson GUI I
notice
> that the GUI did not perform as well, so I changed the Lawson server
> subsystems, job descriptions, and classes to run GUI jobs at an
interactive
> level, and within the interactive pool.  This brought GUI job performance
up
> to an interactive level.
>
> In the client-server, web-based, n-tier, whatever whatever, non-5250
> interface environment, do these issues come into play?  Are data mining or
> SQL-reporting tool interfaces configured to batch-oriented work management
> parameters, while inquiry, lookup, and data entry forms invoke a more
> interactive-type job?
>
> Interactive vs. Batch used to describe types of work being done on the
> system.  The terms have been co-opted to define a pricing structure.  In
the
> process do you think we've dumbed-down system tuning for these different
> types of work, are the concepts still applied, or are they moot with the
> newer interfaces?


+---
| This is the Midrange System Mailing List!
| To submit a new message, send your mail to MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com.
| To subscribe to this list send email to MIDRANGE-L-SUB@midrange.com.
| To unsubscribe from this list send email to MIDRANGE-L-UNSUB@midrange.com.
| Questions should be directed to the list owner/operator: david@midrange.com
+---