Re: Access for Web up and running!

[Vern Hamberg <vhamberg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Y'all, this raises a concern I have - are we willing to put up with 1-2 
second response time when we had subsecond response time even in PC5250? 
Just to get some "prettified" look? I expect things to be slow with our 
270-2248, which is not up to the minimum IBM suggests for this application.

Of course, IBM can always sell you a much more powerful box. Oh, that's 
right, you don't need to pay the interactive penalty, so you CAN get more 
power to run these pigs.

I know, preaching to the choir.

There is an article on installing the latest Tomcat, in which it 
recommended to compile and optimize the JAR files. Does anyone know whether 
what we get from IBM is compiled and optimized? Is that a useful exercise? 
I just tried it on a copy of /qibm/proddata/httpa/java/lib/jasper.jar, one 
of the Tomcat JARs. Result was a little strange - size of object data 
remained the same, but allocated size was around 200kb and is now over 3mb. 
Message says that the compiled object is associated with the JAR.

/home/VERN/jasper.jar
Size of object data in bytes . . . . . :   186292
Allocated size of object . . . . . . . :   3485696

Vern

At 06:04 AM 9/25/2003 -0700, you wrote:
> > Martin Rowe wrote:
> >
> > > What's response like from it, after the initial
> > load?
> >
> > S-l-o-w.  As a replacement for Access for Windows,
> > it's got a ways to
> > go.  At least if the user is actually using the 5250
> > screen
>
> I'm getting fairly decent response time, about 1-2
> seconds between screens. I'm running a 820 dual
> processor, WAS 4.0 advanced, V5.1, 8 gig memory.
>
> My main complaint is that the screen blanks on reload.
>  This is also true of my webfaced apps (which are not
> many).
>
> Don M