The administrative HTTP server is enough to kill the box :)
(kill:unusuable for anyone else because refreshing a 5250 screen takes half
a minute).
I think you definitely have an issue on those machines then. The only time
I have experienced that type of response time is when starting WAS, which
the HTTP admin server is not (at least it carries a fraction of the
footprint). In my experience the admin HTTP server has been quite
responsive (less than 5 seconds a screen) on 90% of the machines I work on
(I help a lot of people setup Apache and maintain it because of
www.rpg-xml.com).
I would agree with you that the i5 and HTTP admin IS NOT blazingly fast.
Maybe I need to raise my expectations :-) I guess I feel the slow down, in
some respects, is reasonable based on the fact that there is a lot going on
underneigth the covers and potentially a lot more jobs running on the i5
than the x3650. But I think we are getting back to price points but not
addressing all the feature points for our dollar. I won't disagree that I
would love to get an i5 for the same price as pSeries machines, but I think
we are getting more/better OS for the most part. I know it can get muddy
quick when comparing side by side, because as you have already noted, the i5
is lacking in some areas.
The problem is: We're wasting a lot of time on what i would consider
essential for the System i to stay on the market place - we're not GUI tool
vendor, we're an ERP vendor.
Couldn't agree with you more. I wish the framework your team developed
wasn't necessary. What does Microsoft have that is better though as it
concerns client server programming? (asking partially out of ignorance).
ASP.NET doesn't count (i.e. browser), because sometimes a "thick client"
_is_ needed (as your software house has found). How does Microsoft do
client server while making deployment the same as what you guys have
development? I think they are trying to remedy it with Silverlight, but
I'll wager a guess they are still "compiling" screens that need to be
downloaded when updates happen vs. having screen definitions being defined
on the fly as they come down from the server.
Aaron Bartell
http://mowyourlawn.com
-----Original Message-----
From: midrange-nontech-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:midrange-nontech-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Lukas Beeler
Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2008 8:30 AM
To: Non-Technical Discussion about the AS400 / iSeries
Subject: Re: i5/OS vs. Windows was->RE: i5 Youngsters
On 1/15/08, Aaron Bartell <albartell@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
My experience with Web Query is currently zero, and I have no idea what
you
mean by "debug" it. Could you expound? I would guess it is Java, and I
Web Query is Java and runs atop of Tomcat (which becomes part of V5R4
with a PTF).
Web Query, as it was shipped, didn't work at all. Well, at least not
on #2939 machines with CCSID 500. It might have worked on #2929
machines with CCSID 037, but i could care less.
I've had a ton of PMRs open and had to look through IFS folders at
logfiles that weren't reasonably named, didn't make a lot of sense,
etc. pp. In short: a mess. Far from working with simple joblogs,
message waits, etc. Which is very comfortable and a lot better than
the native error handling of other platforms has.
Being able just to hit "R" after encounting an error in a CL script is
awesome. I don't have anything similar on another platform. But when
you're running web query, you give up all these advantages.
Concerning backups, from what you are telling me it sounds like i5/OS
comes
ready to do baseline backups out of the box (hardware included) whereas
Windows would require you to work on a configuration (i.e. find a hardware
vendor for a tape drive, possibly different from the last one because it
didn't work well). Would you consider that a fair statement?
Not yet, sorry :)
Comparing Windows running on Whitebox hardware against a System i is
a) unfair
b) stupid
My Windows deployments build on quality hardware from a given vendor.
When i buy an IBM System x3650 with an IBM LTO4 tape drive and the
corresponding HBA i *KNOW* that it works. The same way if you order a
IBM System i 515 with an IBM LTO 4 tape drive and the corresponding
IOA. Both *WILL* work, or you'll have an IBM technician on-site fixing
it. Of course, a System x3650 is a lot more expensive than a whitebox
PC you buy at Media Markt or a corresponding US chain store :)
Did model 170's ship with V5R3 on them?
No, but it is a supported configuration. I'm just saying that while
Vista on a machine with 1GB RAM and a slow CPU is supported doesn't
mean it's good and fast :)
I have the smallest 520 IBM sells,
it shipped with V5R3 and runs excellent (only used for development and CGI
web serving).
I have worked with many baseline 520, and i think they're HORRIBLY
SLOW. Maybe we just have different expectations.
At what point was this 170 crawling? - just running the base
Everything. Just the base OS.
OS without any type of Java app server? The reason for my first question
is
to relate it to what Dell (insert other hardware vendor here) ships Vista
with on new low-end systems and how Vista can barely run on those
machines.
The administrative HTTP server is enough to kill the box :) (kill:
unusuable for anyone else because refreshing a 5250 screen takes half
a minute).
Microsoft designs their OS and software to work well on hardware that will
be mainstream in the forseeable future, not hardware that is mainstream
right now.
This is correct. That's why, right now, you need high end hardware to
run Windows decently.
With that said, unless something very significant has changed, there is
something more going on with your HTTP admin server. Like I said earlier,
I
I've worked on many different Systems with the same specs. I usually
deploy between 20 and 40 Systems per year. The admin HTTP server only
has become usuable with the model 515 and enough disk arms.
run a very small 520 (2GB RAM, mirrored 35GB HD's, 600/30 CPW) and have
very
reasonable response time given the nature of the app (Java is always
slower
than CGI when talking first time startup, but gains a lot after a page has
been accessed).
Maybe we just have different expectations. I expect a 15k machine to
run BLAZINGLY FAST. End of story. Running Java apps on a 15k System
x3650 is BLAZINGLY FAST. On a 15k System i, it isn't.
bad analogy. You have first hand experience with how the i5 can be
revitalized to provide the front-end that users clamor for by having
competant software engineers able to mix and match .NET with RPG using
back
and forth messaging (talking about the GUI software package your company
has
that you have shown me screen shots of).
Yes, and i still think that this was a very good approach. We've got a
very reliable piece of software (all Business Logic on the System i)
and a very tight integration into the user workplace (native Windows
client with full GUI). The problem is: We're wasting a lot of time on
what i would consider essential for the System i to stay on the market
place - we're not GUI tool vendor, we're an ERP vendor. Every minute
we have to waste on fixing problems with the Client/Server stuff or
improving it is time that we didn't spend on improving our ERP
package.
Maybe this is the statement we can move forward with: Finding the right
mixture/median for Windows in an i5/OS shop is essential to success for
your
IT organization to move faster than the competition. Being a bigot
towards
If i really hated i5/OS, i would've switched jobs long ago. But i
don't. I just think there are many things about i5/OS that *NEED* to
criticized and fixed, or the platform WILL go down. I'm a technician -
i don't care about stuff that works. I care about stuff that doesn't
work (yet) :)
or against either platform will only bring a lesser result, and instead
leveraging the right/correct strengths of each will bring the most
benefit.
Is that a fair statement? That is what I have found in my "travels".
Yes. I don't think that platform zealotry helps anyone, even though i
probably must sound like a Windows zealot in this discussion. But you
should hear me on a Windows mailing list ;)
midrange.com
