F989999* - Opinions??

Hey everybody, we have had a few different recommendations from Oracle about where the serialized objects should reside.

We have an iseries 400 with a dedicated partition for our IBM WebServer with anywhere from 3 to 5 GB of dedicated ram for each JVM.

Originally, we kept the F98999* tables on the iSeries 400 Enterprise server and recently (based on an Oracle recommendation) moved them off the ES to our WebServer.

Your thoughts on whether the serialized objects tables should be closer to the data or the WebServer would be appreciated.

Michael

8.11 SP1 Update 2 8.96.G1, OS/400 V5R4 WAS 6.0.2

Michael,

not to discount your question, but ... what change did you see after moving the tables? After all, you have recent, direct experience here.

Larry,

We have not noticed a performance difference since moving the SO tables to the Web Server. I was hoping someone might be aware of a “best practice” for where the tables should reside or perhaps something I’m not aware of “yet” that would dictate they reside closer to the data or WAS. My Manager has just asked me to move them back to the Enterprise server which in our case is three different LPAR’s.

Thanks,

Michael

[ QUOTE ]

Originally, we kept the F98999* tables on the iSeries 400 Enterprise server and recently (based on an Oracle recommendation) moved them off the ES to our WebServer.


[/ QUOTE ]

What was the reason for doing this ? Obviously if it was primarily for performance, and you're not seeing a performance gain - then move them back ! You're using too many extra licenses and the serialized objects aren't being backed up as part of your generic backup - it has to be seperate, therefore its just not a good idea.

It'd be interesting to hear WHY Oracle made this recommendation, and obviously WHO at Oracle made this genius recommendation only to find it doesn't make any difference whatsoever. Remember, the serialized objects become CACHED in the JAS Servers memory - so although the initial load of an application might see a SLIGHT improvement, beyond that its just going to be coming from the JAS Servers memory anyway. I'd keep the F98999* tables on the central database, just like the standard recommendation states, so as to ensure it is backed up correctly. Just because EOne CAN move tables around your network, doesn't mean you SHOULD.

Jon, thanks for replying to my post. The recommendation was made thinking we would see performance improvements with the SO tables on the dedicated Web Server with each JVM in its own *SHRPOOL. The F98999* objects are in one library on the Web Server and we do back them up often. Having said that we are going to "move" them back to the database servers.