You raise some good points. I always start with file sizes because it is usually easy to diagnose and frequently a quick win to get some speed back. André needs to also look at the complexity of the application. The 430 might be doing little more than they could do on a spreadsheet and the 190 might be doing complex sales analysis, stock modeling, JIT manufacturing, and logistics. Just because they are in the same business does not mean the software has similar abilities.
The fact is, they may have done something brilliant with their system and your 'mileage' might be completely typical while they are experiencing atypically good results. Just because we are mv doesn't mean no one else is working at exploiting the efficiencies of those other systems.
- Charles "Right-Sized" Barouch
Timothy Snyder wrote:
André Nel wrote on 03/23/2004 04:07:09 AM:
Comparing the 2 boxes, the amount of users on each box, any reason
why we are struggling with the 190 users? The transaction volumes of
the company running 430 users are considerably higher than ours?
You haven't provided enough information to say for certain; evaluating performance bottlenecks can be quite involved. How many disks are being used, and what type of RAID is employed? What are you seeing as far as CPU utilization? You can use sar or topas to determine this. Naturally, there are many, MANY metrics to consider, but seeing the way user, system, and I/O wait time are represented is a good place to start.
Tim Snyder IBM Data Management Solutions Consulting I/T Specialist , U2 Professional Services
Office (717) 545-6403 (rolls to cell phone)
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- Sincerely, Charles Barouch www.KeyAlly.com [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
