Intel 170 Servers, 7xx Servers Version 5.0 of Webfacing, More in line with the other two machines

details on the number of I/O fields for each of these workloads. We ran the workloads on three separate machines (see table 6.5) to validate the performance characteristics with regard to CPW. In our running of the workloads, we tolerated only a 1.5 second server response time per panel. This value does not include the time it takes to render the image on the client system, but only the time it took the server to get the information to the client system. The machines that we used are in Table 6.5, and include the 800 and i810 (V5R2 Hardware) and the 170 (V4R4 Hardware). All systems were running OS/400 V5R2.

Some of the results that we saw in our tests are shown in Figure 6.8. This figure shows the scalability across different hardware running the same workload. A user is defined as a client that requests one new 5250 panel every 15 seconds. According to our tests, we see relatively even results across the three machines. The one machine that is a slight difference is the V4R4 hardware (1090 CPW). This slight difference can be explained by release-to-release degradation. Since the CPW measurement were made in V4R4, there have been three major releases, each bringing a slight degradation in performance. This

		results in a slight difference in CPW value. With
Name	Average number of I/O Fields / panel	this taken into effect, the CPW/User measurement is
Workload A	37	more in line with the other two machines.
Workload B	99
Workload C	612	Many 5250 applications have been implemented
Table 6.4 Average number of I/O fields for each workload		with "best performance" techniques, such as
defined in this section.		minimized number of fields and amount of data

exchanged between the device and the application. Other 5250 applications may not be as efficiently implemented, such as restoring a complete window of data, when it was not required. Therefore it is difficult to give a generalized performance comparison between the same application written to a 5250 device and that application using WebFacing to a browser. In the three workloads that we measured, we saw a significant amount of resource needed to WebFace these applications. The numbers varied from 3x up to 8x the amount of CPU resources needed for the 5250 green screen application.

Use the IBM Systems Workload Estimator to predict the capacity characteristics for IBM WebFacing This site will be updated, more often then this paper, so it will contain the most recent information. The Workload Estimator will ask you to specify a transaction rate (5250 panels per hour) for a peak time of

day. It will further attempt to characterize your
workload by considering the complexity of the panels				CPW / User
and the number of unique panels that are displayed by	6
the JSP. You’ll find the tool at:
	5
http://www.ibm.com/eserver/iseries/support/estimator.
	4
A workload description along with good help text is
	3
available on this site. Work with your marketing
	2
representative to utilize this tool (also see chapter 23).
	1
	0
		2700 CPW			1090 CPW		300 CPW
Version 5.0 of Webfacing
			WorkLoad C			WorkLoad B

There have been a significant number of enhancements delivered with V5.0 of Webfacing including:

Figure 6.8 CPW per User across the machines documented in table 6.5

•(Advanced Edition Only) Support for viewing and printing spooled files

IBM i 6.1 Performance Capabilities Reference - January/April/October 2008
© Copyright IBM Corp. 2008	Chapter 6 - Web Server and WebSphere	108