When I did the same in a node app using itoolkit, the LPAR simply died on
its feet. It wasn't obvious why because the node app was not showing up as
using much CPU.

Would be curious to know what the call stack looked like and also other
machine stats (i.e. wrkdsksts).

Also, I've found issues in using bash with Node.js (in my case used mass
amounts of CPU after exiting a node REPL) so now I use zsh as my PASE shell
(can't remember if I've said that here or not). Don't know if your issue
is at all related but I thought I'd convey.​


Aaron Bartell
litmis.com - Services for open source on IBM i


On Sat, Oct 10, 2015 at 5:32 PM, Kevin Turner <kevin.turner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

It may or may not be of interest or relevant, but we have lots of code
that sits and waits of data on a keyed data queue. It waits for 5 seconds
then loops round and checks some stuff (like an instruction to end) then
waits again.

When I did the same in a node app using itoolkit, the LPAR simply died on
its feet. It wasn't obvious why because the node app was not showing up as
using much CPU. However it certainly was the culprit - I changed to wait
for 60 seconds instead as it wasn't essential to loop every 5 secs. The
problem went away.

On 10 Oct 2015, at 15:58, Nathan Andelin <nandelin@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:


I am curious whether or not node scales more efficiently than the .NET
Provider in terms of concurrent users... I'm just curious which handles
concurrent users more efficiently in terms of CPU%.

All mainstream web application architectures scale by adding more cores
and
memory and distributing (load balancing) "requests" across pools of
application server instances, and occasionally across pools of virtual
machine instances.

You're smart to ask about CPU efficiency, IMHO. And the other concern is
how much additional time system administrators will need to allocate to
"managing" distributed computing architectures.

Regarding CPU efficiency, you should have a wake-up call if you add 5250
replacement to the comparison. Any of the web application interfaces
we've
mentioned in this thread (Java, PHP, Python, Ruby, Node.js, MS .Net) will
increase CPU usage by at least 3,000% over comparable 5250 interfaces.

5250 interfaces that consume 3 milliseconds of CPU time will consume a
minimum of 90 milliseconds after being converted to use a browser user
interface. Web interfaces often consume 200-300 milliseconds of CPU time
to
generate "an HTML page".

The question of comparing CPU efficiency of Node.js vs. MS .Net is hard
due
of the lack of benchmarks. Anecdotal evidence suggests that interpretive
scripting environments will consume several times more CPU than compiled
applications. But that could be ameliorated by reducing the amount of
"work" performed by Node.js or MS .Net by moving it to run in the IBM i
native environment.

Mike Pavlak of Zend has a story about a customer which was using
XMLSERVICE
to run the ADDLIBLE command from PHP and complained about the
performance.
Rather than "evoke" the "toolkit" for each library in the library list,
Mike suggested calling a CL program once to "add" all the needed
libraries.
That fixed the performance problem.
--
This is the Web Enabling the IBM i (AS/400 and iSeries) (WEB400) mailing
list
To post a message email: WEB400@xxxxxxxxxxxx
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options,
visit: http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/web400
or email: WEB400-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives
at http://archive.midrange.com/web400.


___________________________________________
This email has been scanned by iomartcloud.
http://www.iomartcloud.com/


________________________________

NOTICE: The information in this electronic mail transmission is intended
by CoralTree Systems Ltd for the use of the named individuals or entity to
which it is directed and may contain information that is privileged or
otherwise confidential. If you have received this electronic mail
transmission in error, please delete it from your system without copying or
forwarding it, and notify the sender of the error by reply email or by
telephone, so that the sender's address records can be corrected.




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


CoralTree Systems Limited
25 Barnes Wallis Road
Segensworth East, Fareham
PO15 5TT

Company Registration Number 5021022.
Registered Office:
12-14 Carlton Place
Southampton, UK
SO15 2EA
VAT Registration Number 834 1020 74.
--
This is the Web Enabling the IBM i (AS/400 and iSeries) (WEB400) mailing
list
To post a message email: WEB400@xxxxxxxxxxxx
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options,
visit: http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/web400
or email: WEB400-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives
at http://archive.midrange.com/web400.



This thread ...

Follow-Ups:
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].