Re: Typical PC Guy question - and request for RFB contacts

Last question:

Given a 22.7 shared CPW - any ball park figure as to what percentage would
be system?

I'm trying to relate what kind of performance impact (in some kind of
half-way understandable terms to my president) a hardware upgrade like I
described below will have.

Example (yes . .i know this technically isn't correct:) . .as CPW is a
measurement . . BUT .  .for ease of explanation):

On the existing 22.7 shared CPW, the system uses 10 of that 22.7, giving us
a realistic CPW of 12.7.

On the new system, that 10 will be located in the 115 of the 115/25, leaving
the entire 25 available for interactive use, therefore in essence we will
have nearly doubled the interactive power of the system.

The above might not make ANY sense . .hopefully it does:).

Ant


----- Original Message -----
From: "Scott Klement" <klemscot@klements.com>
To: <midrange-l@midrange.com>
Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2002 9:58 AM
Subject: Re: Typical PC Guy question - and request for RFB contacts


>
> It's hard to put this in PC terms, since the way an AS/400 uses the CPU
> and the way a PC uses the CPU are very different.
>
> I'd say your upgrade is probably somewhat close to going from a high-end
> 486 to a low-end pentium 2... maybe a 266 or 300.
>
> When we did our upgrade, we went from a 12 shared CPW system, a model 200,
> to a 270 with very similar benchmark scores to yours.  Although the
> interactive CPW only changed from 12 to 25 (a factor of about 2) the
> response times are more like 10 times the speed.   As I understand it, the
> reason is that the operating system processes that drive the whole machine
> are running at the higher CPW value (the "batch" value) and therefore the
> interactive processes that rely on them are faster as well, even though
> they are themselves limited to 25...
>
> That's just one experience, though, your mileage may vary! :)
>
>
> On Wed, 4 Dec 2002, Anthony Hardy wrote:
>
> > I, having very little AS400/iseries experience am in charge of our
> > current AS400.  I understand fully the impact in performance when I talk
> > in Megahertz, RAM, etc. and have learned a decent amount of IBM lingo,
> > DASD, main memory, CPW, etc.
> >
> > My question is this .  .our third pary vendor recently made a needed
> > change to our administrative software which has our current system at
> > its needs.  We are a higher ed. institution and we have students waiting
> > 3-4 minutes for fees to process.
> >
> > Our current machine is a model 600-2129 , 22.7 SHARED CPW, 192 main mem.
> > and 12G DASD.
> >
> > I am looking at a refurb 170-2291, 115/25 CPW, 512 main mem and 17G
DASD.
> >
> > Disk space is not an issue for me . .the ONLY thing this box is used for
> > is this ONE third party app (no web, mail, storage, etc).  I have been
> > told that this 170 config will push me to the top of the P05 group
> > (don't want to go P10 for budgetary reasons).
> >
> > My questions are this:
> >
> > 1. What kind of performance increase am I looking at generically.  I
> > know you can't give me exact figures, but in generic terms, are we
> > talking about moving from a 386 to a pentium here?  maybe better?  I
> > have some performance figures on this box . .but i'm really not
> > interested in specifics . .just trying to get an overall feel for CPW
> > ratings and the difference they make.
> >
> > 2. I need to bid out this project (the hardware, license transfer and
> > data move).  If you handle this type of thing, please send me your
> > contact information, including name, address, phone, fax and email.
> >
> > Sincerely,
> >
> > Anthony Hardy
> > Director of MIS/Enrollment Management
> > Jefferson Davis Community College
> > (251) 809-1531
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
>