RE: Upgrading to V5R1 -- WEB400

I've been out of the loop for a couple of days or I would have chimed in
earlier...

The only thing I can say is that I have had no problems, performance or
otherwise, with the "pbA" version.  I can't really provide a benchmark
because the 170 I ran the Classic server on and the 270 I'm now running
Apache on are too disparate.  I've never had a problem with the pbA server
creating extra jobs.  Performance is unbelievable... I can return thousands
of records in just a few seconds over a 700+ DSL line.  We got this machine
in July and it was probably mid-August before we went live on the web.

And now some CYA: I am not making any further recommendations, simply
sharing my positive experience.

Joel R. Cochran
Director of Internet Services
VamaNet.com
(800)480-8810
mailto:custservice@vamanet.com

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mel Rothman [mailto:mel@rothmanweb.com]
> Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2002 3:56 PM
> To: web400@midrange.com
> Subject: Re: [WEB400] Upgrading to V5R1
>
>
> Brad, I simply stated what the developer said, since
> it is based on current information and could be helpful
> to the iSeries CGI programming community.
>
> You apparently haven't rerun your tests on the HTTP
> Server Powered by Apache server with the current
> PTFs.
>
> I respectfully urge you to withhold your criticism of
> the server's CGI performance until you have had a chance
> to evaluate the current version.
>
> I encourage others to either accept the developer's
> statement at face value, draw their own conclusions
> based on their own experience (and perhaps share it
> with the list), or stick with the classic
> server until they have sufficient confidence in
> the HTTP Server Powered by Apache.
>
>
>
> Mel Rothman
> IBM eServer Custom Technology Center (CTC), Rochester, Minnesota
> http://www-1.ibm.com/servers/eserver/iseries/service/ctc/
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Brad Stone wrote:
> >
> > I'd love to do a load test.  Do you have a small CGI that I
> > could test?  I don't think we have the PTFs applied, and
> > don't plan to.  Just wait for V5R2.
> >
> > I find this hard to believe since the tests I did previously
> > were so bad.  I could tell it was a resource management
> > problem, so if it has been fixed, I can see.
> >
> > Feel up to providing a CGI (really simple, just returning
> > Hello World or something) on classis and pbA that I can load
> > test on?  50, 100, then 150 hits?
> >
> > Brad
> >
> > On Thu, 21 Feb 2002 12:27:49 -0600
> >  Mel Rothman <mel@rothmanweb.com> wrote:
> > > Brad, a couple of days ago the lead developer of the HTTP
> > > Server Powered by
> > > Apache told me that since the PTFs released last
> > > September and October, CGI
> > > performance of the pbA server has been at least equal to
> > > that of the classic
> > > server.
> > >
> > > My subjective experiences on lightly loaded machines is
> > > that the two servers'
> > > CGI performance is comparable.
> > >
> > >
> > > Mel Rothman
> > > IBM eServer Custom Technology Center (CTC), Rochester,
> > > Minnesota
> > > http://www-1.ibm.com/servers/eserver/iseries/service/ctc/
> > >
> > >
> > > Brad Stone wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I reccomend to stay away from the pbA server until they
> > > get
> > > > the CGI performance up to par.  It's horrific compared
> > > to
> > > > Classic.
> > > >
> > > > just my .02.
> > > >
> > > > Brad
> > > > www.bvstools.com
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, 20 Feb 2002 23:10:02 -0500
> > > >  "Joel R. Cochran" <jrc@masi-brac.com> wrote:
> > > > > If you do this (which we did some time ago) be sure
> > > you
> > > > > have absolutely ALL
> > > > > available cumulative PTFs and Group PTFs for the HTTP
> > > > > server.  When you
> > > > > configure it, go ahead and switch over to the
> > > "Powered by
> > > > > Apache" Server.
> > > > > It's not that you really get any immediate benefit,
> > > but
> > > > > as I understand it
> > > > > that is where all the future enhancements will be and
> > > a
> > > > > new OS is the
> > > > > easiest time to switch.  Also it will open the door
> > > for
> > > > > using Tomcat and you
> > > > > no longer have to track seperate Server Instance and
> > > > > Server Configuration
> > > > > names.
> > > > >
> > > > > Our V5R1 Internet Server box is a real champ... no
> > > > > significant problems here
> > > > > once configured properly (it is a little pickier than
> > > the
> > > > > previous version).
> > > > >
> > > > > Best Luck,
> > > > >
> > > > > Joel R. Cochran
> > > > > Director of Internet Services
> > > > > VamaNet.com
> > > > > (800)480-8810
> > > > > mailto:custservice@vamanet.com
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > This is the Web Enabling the AS400 / iSeries (WEB400)
> > > mailing list
> > > To post a message email: WEB400@midrange.com
> > > To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options,
> > > visit: http://lists.midrange.com/cgi-bin/listinfo/web400
> > > or email: WEB400-request@midrange.com
> > > Before posting, please take a moment to review the
> > > archives
> > > at http://archive.midrange.com/web400.
> > >
> >
> > Bradley V. Stone
> > BVS.Tools
> > www.bvstools.com
> > _______________________________________________
> > This is the Web Enabling the AS400 / iSeries (WEB400) mailing list
> > To post a message email: WEB400@midrange.com
> > To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options,
> > visit: http://lists.midrange.com/cgi-bin/listinfo/web400
> > or email: WEB400-request@midrange.com
> > Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives
> > at http://archive.midrange.com/web400.
> _______________________________________________
> This is the Web Enabling the AS400 / iSeries (WEB400) mailing list
> To post a message email: WEB400@midrange.com
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options,
> visit: http://lists.midrange.com/cgi-bin/listinfo/web400
> or email: WEB400-request@midrange.com
> Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives
> at http://archive.midrange.com/web400.
>