|
Maybe run VB.Net. ;p Adam Lang Systems Engineer Rutgers Casualty Insurance Company http://www.rutgersinsurance.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Joe Pluta" <joepluta@PlutaBrothers.com> To: <midrange-l@midrange.com> Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2001 3:47 PM Subject: RE: Trivia: Processor MHz > I think this is what some of the other posters may have been referring to > when they stated that MHz alone as a measuring stick is meaningless. While > it's not meaningless, MHz alone is not a sufficient guide. While a 252MHz > CPU may be underpowered for some applications, particularly the more > inefficient Windows applications, it is more than powerful enough for what > the iSeries does, namely business transaction processing. > > This is for two reasons: iSeries applications do far more database access on > much larger databases than most desktop applications, and iSeries machines > have many independent processors that offload the majority of the peripheral > processing that is relegated to the primary CPU on desktops. Try to run an > application that needs to sort a hundred million customer records on a 1GHz > Windows machine as opposed to a lowly 252MHz iSeries, and you'll see what I > mean. > > So back to your point about "modern programming languages". What do you > consider modern? Java? In many cases, this is due to the fact that people > insist on using JDBC in their Java applications, which is fundamentally much > slower than native database access. It makes little difference on a Windows > machine, because there are no peripheral subprocessors in the first place > and the database already performs poorly, but when you add the overhead of > JDBC to the overhead of SQL on an iSeries, you are definitely going to have > performance issues. > > A well written RPG application still processes database transactions faster > than any Windows machine. So I question what you mean my "modern > programming language" and instead I'd ask you to define a specific > application where the iSeries box does not measure up to a Windows machine. > My guess is that not one database-intensive application will appear in your > list, which simply bolsters my contention that we need to focus on the > iSeries as a database transaction server, and leave the CPU intensive stuff, > particularly graphics, to the gigahertz desktop machines. > > Joe
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.