|
there are some ptfs for netserver response in v5r1 MF26400 V5R1M0 OSP AS/400 NETSERVER HAS SLOW DOWN OR FAILS TO RESPOND MF26394 V5R1M0 OSP AS/400 NETSERVER HAS SLOW DOWN OR FAILS TO RESPOND MF26397 V5R1M0 OSP AS/400 NETSERVER HAS SLOW DOWN OR FAILS TO RESPOND MF26404 V5R1M0 OSP AS/400 NETSERVER HAS SLOW DOWN OR FAILS TO RESPOND MF26399 V5R1M0 OSP AS/400 NETSERVER HAS SLOW DOWN OR FAILS TO RESPOND also, large#files in a directory can cost you. jim ----- Original Message ----- From: "Reeve Fritchman" <reeve@ltl400.com> To: "Midrange-L@Midrange. Com" <midrange-l@midrange.com> Sent: Monday, December 17, 2001 10:17 PM Subject: IFS response time-additional information This is a multi-part message in MIME format. -- [ Picked text/plain from multipart/alternative ] Additional information: (1) I'm running through a WAN, not a LAN. (2) My Internet circuit into the iBox is a partial T1 (128K). (3) QSYSWRK was in *BASE (Chris B., thanks for your sharing your expertise so often); I've moved it into one of my shared pools previously set up for QCMN, etc. (4) TCP/IP send/receive buffer sizes are 8192. (5) I'm accessing HTML files in a directory off the root level of the IFS (not QDLS) using NetServer/file shares/mapped network drives. (6) Response sucks regardless, Notepad or HTML editor. (7) VPN doesn't seem to affect response. (8) Our workload on the WAN and iBox is low. Previously: I'm experiencing extremely long response times when accessing the IFS through shared folders. I'm experimenting with a couple of HTML editors (CoffeeCup, HomeSite) and I'm looking at >60 seconds to download a 2K HTML file. My IFS isn't huge nor is it busy. >From a V5R1 820, I have a firewall, VPN, Internet/WAN connection, cable modem, and 1.1 gHz desktop. There is very little running on the 820; we have enough memory (> 200 mb.) in *BASE and other stuff split out into a couple of other subsystems, etc. with 128 mb. or 256 mb. Serving HTML works fine; response is good. I use CODE/400 (mostly) and SEU extensively; CODE/400 up/downloads aren't fast but they're better than IFS work. Is there some terrible TCP/IP default I've forgotten to change in OS/400-land, or am I expecting too much? Thanks, rf -- _______________________________________________ This is the Midrange Systems Technical Discussion (MIDRANGE-L) mailing list To post a message email: MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options, visit: http://lists.midrange.com/cgi-bin/listinfo/midrange-l or email: MIDRANGE-L-request@midrange.com Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives at http://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l.
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.