Thank you for the report ... appreciated.

Just curious ... have you tried/is your prefetch user member of the 
Administrator group ?

>From my understanding all groups are cached, if using an admin user.

Other then that what is important at our environment, that we need to configure 
each locale used. Meaning we have to repeat the whole <user></user> part with 
every locale (en_US, de_DE, and so on).

In addition we use dummy applications at our servers (prefetch file is using 2 
servers at the moment) and put/remove single forms over there (by just adding 
the application at the file, without any form named, alle forms of the 
application are cached).

So far the response from the field is good (escpecially increased performance 
from Mexico ... servers are at Germany). But we just recently started using 
prefetch... let's see.


Best greetings (und Helau),

Robert

Mit freundlichen Grüssen
Robert Kern

Siemens AG
GIO IT SHS SBA
Sodener Str. 9
65824 Schwalbach, Germany
Tel.: +49 6196 87-2546
Fax: +49 6196 87-792546
Mobil: +49 170-8522515
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Siemens Aktiengesellschaft: Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrats: Heinrich v. Pierer; 
Vorstand: Klaus Kleinfeld, Vorsitzender; Johannes Feldmayer, Joe Kaeser, 
Rudi Lamprecht, Eduardo Montes, Jürgen Radomski, Erich R. Reinhardt, 
Hermann Requardt, Uriel J. Sharef, Klaus Wucherer
Sitz der Gesellschaft: Berlin und München
Registergericht: Berlin Charlottenburg, HRB 12300, München, HRB 6684
WEEE-Reg.-Nr. DE 23691322

Wichtiger Hinweis: Diese E-Mail und etwaige Anlagen können Betriebs- und 
Geschäftsgeheimnisse, dem Anwaltsgeheimnisunterliegende oder sonstige 
vertrauliche Informationen enthalten. Sollten Sie diese E-Mail irrtümlich 
erhalten haben, ist Ihnen der Status dieser E-Mail bekannt. Bitte 
benachrichtigen Sie uns in diesem Falle sofort durch Antwort-Mail und löschen 
Sie diese E-Mail nebst etwaigen Anlagen aus Ihrem System. Ebenso dürfen Sie 
diese E-Mail oder ihre Anlagen nicht kopieren oder an Dritte weitergeben. 
Vielen Dank! 
Important Note: This e-mail and any attachments are confidential, may contain 
trade secrets and may well also be legally privileged or otherwise protected 
from disclosure. If you have received it in error, you are on notice of its 
status. Please notify us immediately by reply e-mail and then delete this 
e-mail and any attachment from your system. If you are not the intended 
recipient please understand that you must not copy this e-mail or any 
attachments or disclose the contents to any other person. Thank you.



 

-----Original Message-----
From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
On Behalf Of strauss
Sent: Sunday, February 18, 2007 9:35 PM
To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG
Subject: Re: Remedy 7 Performance Inquiry

I wish I had good news, but our testing has shown otherwise. IMHO, the
mid-tier 7.x has severe problems with effectively caching the
applications from the AR server. On our highest-powered test box we have
mid-tier on an 8-core Win2K3 server with 12 gb RAM and both the Tomcat
servlet and web server as installed by mid-tier 7.01. It is a 64-bit
machine, but Tomcat and mid-tier cannot take advantage of that being
32-bit. IIS is not involved, although on the 64-bit Win2K3 where I have
installed IIS and ServletExec they are not noticeably slower. IIS and
ServletExec are 64-bit capable, but mid-tier is still 32. The 32-bit OS
installs of either combo (Tomcat/Tomcat web or IIS/SE) are somewhat
slower, but they are also mounted on half the hardware.

The ITSM 7 application consoles and forms take over one minute to load
the first time they are accessed - up to 1.5 minutes for the bigger
ones. Almost all of the CPU load while this is happening is on the AR
server (dedicated 4-core with 10 gb RAM). You can usually see one very
quick db access to the SQL Server (also a dedicated 4-core with 10 gb
RAM). The AR Server appears to max out one CPU, so it must be the single
admin thread, and stays that way for the full time of the form load - up
to 1.5 minutes. If you manage to get the barely documented prefetch
configuration working, the initial load times for those forms
successfully prefetched drops into the 15-20 seconds range. With or
without prefetching, after the form loads the first time, it loads
within 2-3 seconds afterwards - but only for users with the exact same
permissions groups (a joke in ITSM 7, where everyone is going to have a
different combination of the dozens of permissions required for all of
the applications). Other users may still get the 1.5 minute initial load
time if their permissions are too different. If they work in the
application a while and happen to open a form that was not prefetched or
cached, they will go from a 2-second response time on forms they were
accessing to a minute or more on the new one. The reactions of our test
users to this irregular and laggy work environment has _not_ been
favorable. Throwing more hardware at it is not the answer - the 32-bit
apps can't use what I have now effectively - and we are already split
out to 3 separate servers, one for each function, with gb NICs on their
own gb switch.

By the way, the initial cost of a prefetch after the web server restarts
is about 15 minutes of continuous load on the AR server, during which
the application displays degraded response times even in the User tool.
Normally, the "footprint" on the AR server of opening forms in the User
Tool is a single CPU spike at 15-20% for a second and the form loads in
2-3 seconds based mostly on complexity. The AR server takes an even
smaller hit once the form is being loaded from a cache on the mid-tier,
but when it misses the cache (not cached yet, not prefetched, different
permissions of user) the load is HUGE - and the delay again exceeds 1
minute on large forms.

I have been unable to obtain prefetch scripts from BMC that have been
designed to properly support the ITSM 7 application and its permissions
model, and I refuse to do the work of their entire benchmarking
organization (that they were so proud of at UserWorld) and try to figure
it out for myself. I have been told by support that this will be
addressed in the next release, but they could not tell me if that meant
maintenance release or product point release. At this point, we are very
disappointed in the inconsistency of mid-tier performance, and are
disinclined to inflict it on our user community (~300 support staff and
45K active customers with read licenses). My hope is that BMC will
address these issues in whatever maintenance releases come out between
now and out target implementation date this summer.

Christopher Strauss, Ph.D.
Remedy Database Administrator
University of North Texas Computing Center
http://remedy.unt.edu/
-----Original Message-----
From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList)
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Todd Pasterski
Sent: Friday, February 09, 2007 9:13 AM
To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG
Subject: Remedy 7 Performance Inquiry

I have read the Sizing paper but that fails to address reality. We are
in a Windows environment and are moving to 7 with a potentially large
customer base in a Tenancy model where there may well be 1200-1500+
licensed users. 
Most will be floating licensed/casual users with 6-10% fixed heavy
users. 

In our testing the mid-tier seems very slow but we do have a single
server sharing IIS, SQL and Apps for this test box, we plan to push the
web client. In classes the systems with 2 GB RAM choked on some
processes.

Can someone please share real experiences, good or bad, with regards to
performance of the mid-tier and what might be suggested as hardware
sizing suggestions for the system? Large or small designs, we just need
information.

________________________________________________________________________
_______
UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org ARSlist:"Where
the Answers Are"

_______________________________________________________________________________
UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org ARSlist:"Where the 
Answers Are"

_______________________________________________________________________________
UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org ARSlist:"Where the 
Answers Are"

Reply via email to