Re: Merge/Purge On Linux

Post #150,161 by lincoln 4/5/04 5:59:23 PM Reply	Re: Merge/Purge On Linux Hey Lincoln: Feel like telling me I'm full of shit again? I will at every opportunity you give me. lincoln "Windows XP has so many holes in its security that any reasonable user will conclude it was designed by the same German officer who created the prison compound in "Hogan's Heroes." - Andy Ihnatko, Chicago Sun-Times [link\|mailto:bconnors@ev1.net\|contact me]
Post #150,186 by broomberg 4/5/04 9:27:41 PM Reply	I'm trying!
Post #150,286 by lincoln 4/6/04 2:46:10 PM Reply	And notice that I didn't here? Because you started off admitting that you were doing an "apples to apples" versus "apples to oranges" comparison. I'd still like to see a true "apples to apples" comparison between the boxes: ONLY the same job running ( so the cpu(s) aren't giving cycles to other apps ), break the files up to equivalent sizes ( to overcome the limitations on a single file size on the mainframe - guess IBM shoulda known several years ago that people want to have files over 50 gig in size ), the code as identical as possible, hardware optimized in as similar a configuration, and then drop the starter flag and let 'em go. Remember: [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=150144\|if it weren't for this significant event], we probably wouldn't be here right now. lincoln "Windows XP has so many holes in its security that any reasonable user will conclude it was designed by the same German officer who created the prison compound in "Hogan's Heroes." - Andy Ihnatko, Chicago Sun-Times [link\|mailto:bconnors@ev1.net\|contact me]
Post #150,380 by broomberg 4/7/04 12:01:53 AM Reply	Pure apples to apples? I did it a while back, at least as best I could. I had the same software running on the MF and Linux. I seem to recall I was about 5 times faster. But now we are going to different software. So it will always be apples to oranges. No point in me installing the Linux version of the software we will not buy. Also, I just realized that about 80% of the time of the MP process is creating reports. Reports that we may not have been getting from the previous vendor. I can probably cut another hour or 2 for reports we weren't getting. Also, the IO wait time can be helped. I am going against RAID 10 disk for temp files. I should just have a pure RAID 0 stripe. Gotta reconfigure the disk for that one. Those type of optimizations will NEVER be done on the mainframe. RAID 0? Not on the big EMC array!
Post #150,644 by broomberg 4/9/04 11:11:07 AM Reply	Cut off an hour 9.5 hour process went to 8.5. Used RAID 0 disks for temp space. My bonnie++ write rate went from 80MB a second to 300MB per second. But my read read went down a bit, proving alternative reads on mirrored disks work. I won't keep it like this, too scary. It is pure temp, but I still don't want to have to recover from a failure.

Welcome to IWETHEY!