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.