On Thu, 2006-10-12 at 10:47 -0400, Alan Altmark wrote: > The best measurement of performance is the one you use to determine how > much value you are getting from the box. You bought it for a reason. Are > you getting the number of transactions per second from YOUR applications > that you need to make the box worth the investment? Are you getting the > qualities of service you require? Is it helping you meet your IT spending > goals?
*bought* - that's past tense. Bit bloody late then. I always liked the idea of (customer) benchmarking. Run the customers workload on some new kit, and let them decide if it *really* is 1.8 times as good (or whatever is claimed) at delivering throughput. I'm talking real workload on real (o.k., these days semi-real) iron, not some simulated "equivalent" on a synthetic workload based on some ethereal "typical" job mix. Yeah I know it's expensive - but you can't argue with RMF. Also got me the odd trip to Cafilornia, but that's not strictly relevant ... ;-) Shane ... ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
