Re: Performance Issues on 570

Has there been a verification if any system values changed in release
upgrade?
Same for the subsystem descriptions (and class descriptions)?
I assume you have latest ptf cume, and at least current group ptfs hiper &
database?
Has the paging option or max active value or pool size for the pools
changed?
Any verification with system tools of the drives (new & old) having
problems?
If nothing changed in programs. I would be looking at the work environment
and
what changed in the release upgrade.
jim

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Nelson Smith" <ncsmith@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "Midrange Systems Technical Discussion" <midrange-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2005 8:46 PM
Subject: Re: Performance Issues on 570


> About a month ago, my company upgraded from an 870 to a 570.  We went
> from 48G to 96G and more than doubled our disk capacity and increased
> the number of arms from around 90 to 128. We went down in processors
> from 12 to 11. Unfortunately, we also upgraded from V5R2 to V5R3 at the
> same time (I know, I know).
>
> After spending many hundreds of thousands of dollars, the sad result is
> that some of our major batch processes have more than doubled in run
> times.  For example, a 4-hour nightly billing run is now taking upwards
> of 9 hours.  Needless to say, there is much knashing of teeth going on
> around here and it is not a pleasant experience. It seems to be
> primarily a batch problem.  Processor efficiency and interactive
> response times seem to be improved.  During the batch runs, there seems
> to be a great amount of paging going on.
>
> Both the old system and the new one, have (had) a development partitian
> and a production partition. Relative sizes have not changed.  There have
> been no significant changes in database sizes or the applications. Both
> Business Partner and IBM have had many engineers working on the problem
> for a month now and of course, everyone is pointing fingers at everyone
> else.  They have been running every sort of performance management tool
> you can think of. They have tuned this and that. They have replace card
> after card.  They have tried all sorts of caching schemes.  All to no
> avail.
>
> Lately, they are starting to point fingers at the applications.  Now I
> grant you that our applications are old and could stand much
> improvement, but they have not changed since before the upgrade.  We are
> embarking on a modernation project in development, but we will not
> implement any such improvements until the upgrade issues are settled.
>
> The one question I have not been able to get a straight answer out of
> any of these engineers, and the reason for this post, is what has been
> the experience of other recent converts to the 570?  Or, what has been
> the experience of other upgraders from V5R2 to V5R3? Particularly in
> relation to long-running batch jobs.  I can't think of anything unique
> in what we are running.  We have very little, if any, embedded SQL.
> That's the only thing I've seen any complaints about on this list.  Has
> anyone else going to a 570 experienced any sort of major slowdown?  At
> this point, we are willing to look at anything.
>
>
>
> -- 
> This is the Midrange Systems Technical Discussion (MIDRANGE-L) mailing
list
> To post a message email: MIDRANGE-L@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options,
> visit: http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/midrange-l
> or email: MIDRANGE-L-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives
> at http://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l.
>
>