Re: [WEB400] Maybe if I rephrase the question?

["David Morris" <David.Morris@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Nathan,

Record level access is different and will likely outperform native
access.
RLA is similar to RPG chain/read/setll and is platform specific. With
Windows, you do not get the ability to set thread priorities. I have
found
that it is much easier to tune either and AS/400 or Unix. My experience

setting java thread priorities is that it adds complication to your
Java
application and does not seem to help with Windows.

David Morris


>>> nandelin@relational-data.com 05/15/02 10:11AM >>>
> From: "David Morris" <David.Morris@plumcreek.com>
> With native access you will not have the socket
> overhead. I am not sure how it works under the covers,
> but it is noticeable faster on our system.

By "native access" you must be referring to "record-level access",
which is
said to be significantly faster than JDBC.  But even RLA is handled
via
TCP/IP connection with a Host Server.  If you have access to Fortress
Rochester, by Frank Soltis, the reference is on page 309.

I'd definitely keep the database on the iSeries!  And RLA would be my
preference over JDBC.  But the socket connection is the same regardless
of
whether the Java components are run under Windows or OS/400.

> if you want to generate a PDF file to print
> and you know it will take 30 seconds, everyone
> on the Windows server suffers. On the AS/400,
> you can change the priority of that thread to a batch
> priority.

Wouldn't the PDF generator be running within the Application Server
(Tomcat
or Websphere)?  Run from a Servlet?  Wouldn't the JVM be handling the
time
slicing?  Not the Operating System?

Thanks for your insights.

Nathan M. Andelin
www.relational-data.com