ca.portal.admin

Re:Re: CPU Increase in 16.2

Discussion created by ca.portal.admin on Oct 1, 2005
Chris and Listers -

Chris - Thank You again for the information you have shared.


I do not really have a conclusion on this.

I do have several things to say:

C.A. and I (us) cannot come to agreement that there has been an increase
in CPU usage. We FTP'd PMIM stat records and they have run their own
reports and summarized their findings.
They have concluded NO increase.

I do not agree with the results because the conclusions were based on
average CPU utilization per task comparing one day of 14.1 to another on
16.0 and repeating the comparisons for several other selected days.
Although they say that the days were selected based on similarities in
number of task executions, DB calls, I/O, etc., I could not help but
notice that the days they selected had high average CPU for the 14.1
data and low average CPU for the 16.0 data. I could not help but get
the impression that the days they selected were intended to be days that
would produce the desired outcome.

I would prefer to wait until we have a month's worth of 16.0 data (still
another 1-1/2 weeks yet) and then compare a month of 16.0 averages to a
month of 14.1 averages. The business is not seasonal, so I would expect
that a comparison of a full month's worth of data would produce
statistically more accurate results.

C.A. has said that British Telecom did a benchmark study that showed NO
increase.
Perhaps anybody from there on this list might want to chime in.

My intent is not to alarm everybody.
My intent is to seek help as to why.

I haven't dismissed that something defined here is wrong or requires
re-tweaking.

Also, I want to be clear that if the increase is because 16.0 is
functionally more robust that 14.1, we can live with that.
If it is because something is defined wrong here, that's fine, too.
If I know what's wrong, I can remedy the condition.

Where our difficulty lies is that we cannot come to agreement on the
statistics at-hand and to-date.
Two different groups are looking at the same data and drawing two
entirely different conclusions.

Thanks.
Jon Gocher


----- Original Message -----
From: Wood, Chris
To: Jon Gocher
Sent: Friday, September 30, 2005 1:03 PM
Subject: RE: CPU Increase in 16.2


Any news yet Jon?



Chris



"
IDMS Public Discussion Forum
IDMS-L@LISTSERV.IUASSN.COM
SMTP
IDMS-L@LISTSERV.IUASSN.COM
IDMS-L@LISTSERV.IUASSN.COM
SMTP








Normal

Normal
Re: CPU Increase in 16.2
"Chris and Listers -

Chris - Thank You again for the information you have shared.


I do not really have a conclusion on this.

I do have several things to say:

C.A. and I (us) cannot come to agreement that there has been an increase in CPU usage. We FTP'd PMIM stat records and they have run their own reports and summarized their findings.
They have concluded NO increase.

I do not agree with the results because the conclusions were based on average CPU utilization per task comparing one day of 14.1 to another on 16.0 and repeating the comparisons for several other selected days.
Although they say that the days were selected based on similarities in number of task executions, DB calls, I/O, etc., I could not help but notice that the days they selected had high average CPU for the 14.1 data and low average CPU for the 16.0 data. I could not help but get the impression that the days they selected were intended to be days that would produce the desired outcome.

I would prefer to wait until we have a month's worth of 16.0 data (still another 1-1/2 weeks yet) and then compare a month of 16.0 averages to a month of 14.1 averages. The business is not seasonal, so I would expect that a comparison of a full month's worth of data would produce statistically more accurate results.

C.A. has said that British Telecom did a benchmark study that showed NO increase.
Perhaps anybody from there on this list might want to chime in.

My intent is not to alarm everybody.
My intent is to seek help as to why.

I haven't dismissed that something defined here is wrong or requires re-tweaking.

Also, I want to be clear that if the increase is because 16.0 is functionally more robust that 14.1, we can live with that.
If it is because something is defined wrong here, that's fine, too.
If I know what's wrong, I can remedy the condition.

Where our difficulty lies is that we cannot come to agreement on the statistics at-hand and to-date.
Two different groups are looking at the same data and drawing two entirely different conclusions.

Thanks.
Jon Gocher


----- Original Message -----
From: Wood, Chris
To: Jon Gocher
Sent: Friday, September 30, 2005 1:03 PM
Subject: RE: CPU Increase in 16.2


Any news yet Jon?



Chris



"
IDMS Public Discussion Forum
IDMS-L@LISTSERV.IUASSN.COM
SMTP
IDMS-L@LISTSERV.IUASSN.COM
IDMS-L@LISTSERV.IUASSN.COM
SMTP








Normal

Normal
Re: goodbye 14.1
"I have one client where all systems have been converted to 16.0 SP2 from
14.1.
Another client on 14.0 and will remain there pending elimination of all
mainframe processing.
Another client at 14.0 that will move to 16.0 SP? in 3 to 6 months.
(Upgrade delayed due to assimilation of new business)

Thanks.
Jon Gocher




----- Original Message -----
From: ""Chris Hoelscher"" <choelscher@HUMANA.COM>
To: <IDMS-L@LISTSERV.IUASSN.COM>
Sent: Friday, September 30, 2005 12:43 PM
Subject: goodbye 14.1

good-bye 14.1

Chris Hoelscher
IDMS & DB2 Database Administrator
Humana Inc
502-580-2538
choelscher@humana.com




The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to
which it is addressed and may contain CONFIDENTIAL material. If you
receive this material/information in error, please contact the sender and
delete or destroy the material/information.

"
IDMS Public Discussion Forum
IDMS-L@LISTSERV.IUASSN.COM
SMTP
IDMS-L@LISTSERV.IUASSN.COM
IDMS-L@LISTSERV.IUASSN.COM
SMTP








Normal

Normal
Re: Goodbye IDMS
"The Flight Test organization at Boeing Commercial Airplanes in Seattle
is moving to Oracle on HP Linux platforms. Current plans call for
production switch-over to occur Mar 27,2006.


Thank you,

Preston Lyon
Boeing FTCS Database Administration
B-XZ33 14-ME 206-655-2055
email preston.v.lyon@boeing.com

Outcomes