|
> From: Buck Calabro > > Also, The WebFacing tool is a slam dunk. (...) > I get response time in the 2.7 second range after the first touch on my > model 820 with 3 gig of RAM. I have a slight problem with the terminology here. A web application with nearly 3-second response time is hardly a slam dunk, in my opinion. There is no way that a web application should require 2.7 seconds to bring up a page. On my little bitty model 270 (370CPW, zero interactive), my average response time is 130 milliseconds - that's TWENTY TIMES FASTER than WebFacing. And it works under load, too. With 50 users banging on the same machine, with a 3-second delay between enter keys (that's 10-15 requests a second), I still get subsecond response (950ms with 50 users on a zero CPW machine!). Try simulating 50 users on your machine with WebFacing and see what the results are. I just don't understand why these horrendous response times are acceptable, especially when there is no reason for it! And it's not just my tool - I'm sure Brad's e-RPG approach or Nathan's web development environment both yield better results. (PSC/400 has other benefits <grin>). I think it's imperative that we nip this particular bit of bloat in the bud. Two and a half seconds for a web page is entirely unacceptable. On a dedicated machine, anything over a couple of hundred milliseconds should be considered SLOW. Joe
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2024 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].
Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.