|
Nathan, although the amount of data is small, it could be argued that a small amount of data and simple processing is the best way to isolate the relative performance of the underlying methods. The authors make it clear on page 99 that "Results listed here are not representative of any particular customer environment. Actual performance may vary significantly from what is provided here." The table does gives the reader a good idea of the RELATIVE performance of the seven different kinds of page serving. It makes it especially clear that CGI programs should run in named activation groups if they are to have any hope of performing. In fact, DB2WWW, Net.Data's program (a CGI program), runs in a named activation group. Your web site's "shootout," compares net.data running in a named activation group (and your product running in a ??? activation group) to CGIDEV2 hobbled by running in a *new activation group. If you run your CGIDEV2 "shootout" program in a named activation group and turn all debugging off (as previously discussed) and discard the measurement on the first execution, I am sure you will find that CGIDEV2 performance is more than competitive, probably in line with the ratios in table 6.1. If your product is as good as you say it is, and I have no reason to believe it is not, it will be successful, and that is good for IBM and its eServer iSeries platform. Since CGIDEV2 generates no software revenue for IBM, losing CGIDEV2 "sales" to "competitive" iSeries software products does not hurt IBM and doesn't bother me in the least. On the other hand, your current "shootout" comparison, most likely unintentionally, unfairly represents CGIDEV2 as a poor performer. If you continue to use the "shootout" in your marketing, you owe it to yourself, your customers, and your prospects to do it right. Mel Rothman CGIDEV2 Author IBM eServer iSeries Custom Technology Center (iCTC) Rochester, Minnesota "Nathan M. Andelin" wrote: > > > The iSeries Performance Capabilities > > Reference Version 5, Release 1, > > http://publib.boulder.ibm.com/pubs/pdfs/as400/V4R5PDF/as4ppcp4.pdf, > > has a table on page 99 that shows number of transaction > > per second per CPW on the Apache server. In the non-SSL > > case, servlets: .46; CGI named activation group .29; CGI > > new activation group .06.; Net.Data 0.19. > > Quote from page 102: "The data in the Table 6.1 assumes that a small amount > of data is being served (say 100 > bytes)." > > How relevant are these benchmarks? 100 bytes? Apparently no database > access? Apparently the response is produced entirely from in-line output > statements? > > Properly structured Java applications normally involve a Servlet, a Java > Bean, and a JSP, and frequently a Session, to produce a response. > > Most Net.Data macros evoke calls to the SQL language environment. > > The referenced comparisons seem to be almost completely divorced from > real-life. > > Nathan M. Andelin > www.relational-data.com > > _______________________________________________ > This is the Midrange Systems Technical Discussion (MIDRANGE-L) mailing list > To post a message email: MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com > To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options, > visit: http://lists.midrange.com/cgi-bin/listinfo/midrange-l > or email: MIDRANGE-L-request@midrange.com > Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives > at http://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l.
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.
midrange.com
