Re: Interractive Response Time

["Dare" <oludare@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I have worked extensively with PERFORMANCE tools 400. My experience is that
at different times of the day, different application either be home grown or
3rd party vendor, the number of interractive user with the complexity of
their system request, BATCH jobs, and internal machine code like CFINT01,
QDBSRVXR and the like play significant role in the response time.  I don't
think it is practical to have a steady average but an overall average.  My
environment is currently at 1.78, as high as 12 minutes for queries and I
know most of you will say run it in BATCH and yes that is part of the plan.

My plan is to have specific applications like ORDER ENTRY run at or under 2
seconds and have the overall average at most 2 seconds.


----- Original Message -----
From: "Hall, Philip" <phall@spss.com>
To: <midrange-l@midrange.com>
Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2002 3:48 PM
Subject: RE: Interractive Response Time


>
> Jerry.
>
> > I think there have been studies about response
>
> I got about this far and lost interest ;-)
>
> > time.  Human
> > (users that is, not IT folk) minds tend to wander if
> > response time is longer than 2 seconds so productivity
> > drops.
>
> Also found is that there is a big difference between machine response time
(as measured by timers in the code) and user perceived 'wall time' (as
measured by looking at the clock on the wall)
>
> --phil
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
>