I can relate and sympathize with John on this. A while back I was asked to work with the installation team to *shoehorn* WAS V5 onto a G5 in 31 with 2 LPAR's, 1 sandbox/1 production/dev. The prod/dev. LPAR had 2.4 GB w/1.7 cs and .7 es. The machine was already running at 100% with latent demand. While my pre analysis stated that it would not work I was *asked* to make it happen. Of course being the good soldier I am I proceeded. I wish I could have seen the faces when we started the WAS cell groups up during prime time as I was working remote of the corporate site where the prod users were. I sure saw the faces of the support staff at our site when we cranked WAS up. The freakin' lights dimmed in Trevose at times. After about 6 weeks of causing my own performance problems it was decided it would not work. That and the fact that we did not really have the storage to support prod., acceptance, dev. and test WAS cell groups. It was an experience though and I did seem some performance numbers I have never saw before.
Rick Fochtman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: The whole situation sounds very much like "Management by Airline Magazine". Do as you're told, try and soak the very best performance you can get, watch for vacancies in the ranks of senior management and quietly prepare for a CPU upgrade. Your politicians are like most others; not all, but most. They don't know diddley squat about capacity management and they've let things deteriorate to the point where the only solution is to spend some money, a mortal sin in their eyes. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
