In other words, there's a possibility that your work may be running slower...
> -----Original Message----- > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[email protected]] > On Behalf Of Timothy Sipples > Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2012 7:03 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [IBM-MAIN] zEC12 Performance Improvement > > You've doubled the number of engines but approximately halved the per- > engine speed in moving from a 2097-504 to a 2827-408. IBM LSPR indicates > that the PCI is exactly the same for those two capacity models -- quite a > coincidence, actually. > > It's theoretically possible to do substantially better than the PCI average, but > I strongly suspect a reporting problem. (I'd like to be wrong, > though.) > > Theoretically you could see that result if you only ever have a maximum of > 4 tasks that can be dispatched at any time -- half the engines in your new > zEC12 would thus be idle, and capacity utilization could never exceed 50% on > the new machine. (I'm oversimplifying but only slightly.) Do you have a lot of > single threaded batch, for example, that would skew the utilization reports? > > Did you increase the memory to give DB2 more room to play? That can make > a substantial difference. > > If you have a fair amount of Java code (as an example) that should do > substantially better than the PCI average. > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------ > ---------- > Timothy Sipples > Consulting Enterprise IT Architect (Based in Singapore) > E-Mail: [email protected] > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to > [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
