Our biggest WAS performance gains came when we moved WAS to a private
memory pool.  If you're only doing one WAS instance, change the SBS to
use a separate memory pool.  Allow the performance adjuster to move RAM
into the pool as needed.  Watch for peaks and set the pool to have
around that much as a minimum.

We've had a single WAS instance take 13+GB RAM.

If you let WAS run out of *BASE, it will be lumped in with the RAM
paging that occurs for all of the stuff in *BASE.  On most systems
that's almost everything except 5250 users and printers.  Java does it's
own memory management (sort of, anyway) and will perform far better if
segregated from other RAM consumers.

There's also the Dump Java (IIRC) command that dumps details about the
JVM.  That may prove useful.


John A. Jones, CISSP
Americas Information Security Officer
Jones Lang LaSalle, Inc.
V: +1-630-455-2787 F: +1-312-601-1782
john.jones@xxxxxxxxxx

-----Original Message-----
From: midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Dave Odom
Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2006 12:31 PM
To: midrange-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Need better WebSphere Application Server Performance for
anapplication thereunder

Gang,
 
How can I increase the performance of WAS so an application running
thereunder will perform as good or better than its Windoz counterpart?  
 
 
We have installed WAS and the package application that we'd like to run
under both on a Wintel blade that runs under one of our partitions  and
we also installed it in the IFS of one of our i5 partitions; this to see
which would perform better.  We also installed a version of the package
application under regular Windoz without any WebSphere.   Well, the
WebSphere versions of the application, regardless of where installed,
runs like a herd of turtles in a cloud of wet cement, I assume because
of all that Java, whereas the Windoz version simply flys; because,
basically, its a Client-Server type of application.   I'd really like to
get one of the WebSphere versions of the application running at an
acceptable performance level.   
 
Anyone experienced something like this before and if so, how do you make
performance acceptable.
 
Thanks in advance,
 
Dave Odom
Arizona
--
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.



This email is for the use of the intended recipient(s) only.  If you have 
received this email in error, please notify the sender immediately and then 
delete it.  If you are not the intended recipient, you must not keep, use, 
disclose, copy or distribute this email without the author's prior permission.  
We have taken precautions to minimize the risk of transmitting software 
viruses, but we advise you to carry out your own virus checks on any attachment 
to this message.  We cannot accept liability for any loss or damage caused by 
software viruses.  The information contained in this communication may be 
confidential and may be subject to the attorney-client privilege. If you are 
the intended recipient and you do not wish to receive similar electronic 
messages from us in the future then please respond to the sender to this effect.


This thread ...

Replies:

Follow On AppleNews
Return to Archive home page | Return to MIDRANGE.COM home page

This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2019 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].