Rob, Don't want to get caught? Yeah, there is some truth to that (I suspect we may not be the only shop where that is true!). But it's more like: I want to show continual progress at reducing the problem areas (eg, program problems, scheduling issues). If a programmer intentionally runs an interactive compile or uses DBU to scan through a 5 million record file looking for 451.12995, I don't want that included in the summary statistics that I would then have to explain away. A development box? Someday (maybe), but we have quite a few other items on the agenda first. Phil Subject: Re: Interactive Response Time To: email@example.com From: firstname.lastname@example.org Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2001 09:09:35 -0500 Reply-To: email@example.com The rub is, that you can click on any particular time piece and get a nice chart of each job at that particular time and what their interactive response time was. They are storing this detail - now how do I access that? Oh well, I hope Performance Tools works out for you. Why would you filter out the MIS users? Would ignoring this rule out the possible benefits of getting a separate development box give you? I can still remember the call from an irate VP that someone's compile was killing the performance of the system and he'd better stop that. Mind you, this was years ago in the infancy of the 400. Now our development team has their own 820-24AA with +230gb which exceeded the dasd of our production erp machine until recently. Or, does the MIS users run stuff interactive that should be running in batch, and you don't want to get caught? Rob Berendt
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.