Re: AS/400

[John Rockwell <midson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Buck,

I agree Phil spoke well.  I've been on the system a long time, back to when it
was a 38, and I'd much rather configure the system myself.  When they said we
were getting the equivalent interactive 'feature', I naively took that to mean
that that amount of CPW would always be available (minimum) instead of meaning
that that was the highest amount of CPW that would ever be available (maximum).
When they said 'feature'  I should have heard 'constraint'.  My mistake.

A curious thing about the limit being a 'reality' though.  We moved from 4.4 to
4.5, then to an 820.  There was a gap in between those moves that indicated the
constraint kicked in during the software move from 4.4. to 4.5 and not during 
the
hardware upgrade.  When we mentioned this casually to the folks from IBM they 
got
weird on us and started saying things like 'well if you want to get into the
legalese of it' etc. etc..  I've got to admit that the sudden defensiveness in
their tone took us all by surprise.  Maybe we were just getting too close to
complaints they were getting sick of listening too.



Buck Calabro wrote:

> >Isn't the issue of this thread not the overall capacity
> >of a given iSeries but the inability, due to CFINT,
> >to shift capacity from batch to interactive
> >by tuning the system?
>
> Phil,
> Well said!  In the days of yore, I used to have a dayshift/interactive
> subsystem configuration, where the memory pools were set to satisfy
> interactive demand and a nightshift/batch configuration where batch was
> optimised.
>
> >My impression is that
> >iSeries owners would prefer there to be **ONE**
> >CPW, and then leave it up to the owner to
> >tune it for batch, for interactive, for a mix, etc.
>
> I can understand this reasoning very well.  Perhaps this is a good message
> to send to IBM marketing via iSeries Nation?  Would you be willing to pay a
> premium for a system where you could control the mix?  Or, get a discount
> for a governed one?  The limit IS reality; how can we work with it in such a
> way that we can profit as well as IBM?
>
> One final thought: could the interactive/batch split CPW be designed as a
> way for IBM to fight the tendency for undersized systems to be sold?
>
> Buck
> +---
> | 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
> +---

+---
| 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
+---