HP3000-L Archives

December 1998, Week 3

HP3000-L@RAVEN.UTC.EDU

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
"Stigers, Greg [And]" <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Stigers, Greg [And]
Date:
Tue, 15 Dec 1998 17:23:47 -0500
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (17 lines)
X-no-Archive:yes
This could make for an interesting thread. There are list members who have
the expertise, IMAGE and otherwise, to appreciate the problem. What other
solutions are available? Suppose that your company inherited this problem,
and you had to propose solutions...

Can the process be improved, not to take 13 - 14 hours? Is the process or
the dataset poorly designed? By my math, this processes about 171 records
per second. Is it a performance problem, that could be addressed by
performance monitoring to find why this takes so long? Could it be a simple
matter of needing to upgrade disc or memory or processor?

Are there tools appropriate to this configuration that would allow shadowing
or replication of data, so that the same data could exist on both platforms,
either automatically kept in synch or replicated after the processing? FWIW,
I have seen the latter done elsewhere with SuprTool.

ATOM RSS1 RSS2