don_schoen
Member
RE: AS400 vs. NT Enterprise Server - Why Not Both?
List
We are an AS/400 E/S shop about to grow to 120 One World users using sales
order, financials, and warehouse management. We have almost everyone
connected via Citrix. The 400 is a 2-way 720 and over 50 spindles.
We believe that the workload on the 400 may be much easier to manage if we
move custom financial reports to a report server, and possibly move order
import processing (which includes advanced pricing) to an application
server. In terms of first shift, that would mean that big batch jobs that
could impact interactive users would be on a different platform, and would
only contend for data base services. The rest of the workload would be more
homogenous, and could be managed in a few subsystems.
Has anyone any real experience with this approach?
We end up with 3 questions:
1. could the batch jobs we were worried about flood the 400 with IO
requests that get a higher priority than we would have given that batch
processing had it taken place on the 400? That is, did we lose control over
that batch job by putting it on a app server or fat client?
2. is there any way to adjust the priority given to the data base
services to the fat client or the application server - so that the flooding
wouldn't impact us negatively?
3. is the introduction of an application server (in this case an N/T
machine) generally a good way to off-load 400 batch processing load, and
does it really help overall through-put? And by how much?
Thanks for any input.
Don Schoen
Terlato Wine Group
Xe Update 3, SP14.2
List
We are an AS/400 E/S shop about to grow to 120 One World users using sales
order, financials, and warehouse management. We have almost everyone
connected via Citrix. The 400 is a 2-way 720 and over 50 spindles.
We believe that the workload on the 400 may be much easier to manage if we
move custom financial reports to a report server, and possibly move order
import processing (which includes advanced pricing) to an application
server. In terms of first shift, that would mean that big batch jobs that
could impact interactive users would be on a different platform, and would
only contend for data base services. The rest of the workload would be more
homogenous, and could be managed in a few subsystems.
Has anyone any real experience with this approach?
We end up with 3 questions:
1. could the batch jobs we were worried about flood the 400 with IO
requests that get a higher priority than we would have given that batch
processing had it taken place on the 400? That is, did we lose control over
that batch job by putting it on a app server or fat client?
2. is there any way to adjust the priority given to the data base
services to the fat client or the application server - so that the flooding
wouldn't impact us negatively?
3. is the introduction of an application server (in this case an N/T
machine) generally a good way to off-load 400 batch processing load, and
does it really help overall through-put? And by how much?
Thanks for any input.
Don Schoen
Terlato Wine Group
Xe Update 3, SP14.2