Re: Migration in reverse

2011-07-20 Thread Larry Barnes
st(ARSList) [mailto:arslist@ARSLIST.ORG] On Behalf Of Rick Cook Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2011 9:51 AM To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG Subject: Re: Migration in reverse ** Well, you should start with the 64-bit Java. BMC states that it is 40-45% slower than the 32-bit Java. Rick On Jul 20, 2011 8:22 AM, &qu

Re: Migration in reverse

2011-07-20 Thread Rick Cook
Well, you should start with the 64-bit Java. BMC states that it is 40-45% slower than the 32-bit Java. Rick On Jul 20, 2011 8:22 AM, "Larry Barnes" wrote: > I have a development server running ITSM 7.6.04 on a VM with 8 gig of > ram and is running SQL 2008 on a separate server. We are dealing wi

Re: Migration in reverse

2011-07-20 Thread strauss
of North Texas Computing & IT Center http://itsm.unt.edu/ -Original Message- From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto:arslist@ARSLIST.ORG] On Behalf Of Larry Barnes Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2011 10:22 AM To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG Subject: Migration in reverse I ha

Re: Migration in reverse

2011-07-20 Thread John Sundberg
This brings up a good question. What is acceptable performance??? Has anybody built a benchmark for people to try? Something like: 1000 inserts into a simple table (no workflow) 1000 inserts into a simple table (with complex workflow) (workflow like -- if field 1 > 100 && field 2 != NULL -- the

Migration in reverse

2011-07-20 Thread Larry Barnes
I have a development server running ITSM 7.6.04 on a VM with 8 gig of ram and is running SQL 2008 on a separate server. We are dealing with slowness with ITSM and I'm not sure where the bottle neck is. We are running (64 bit) Tomcat and Java; latest releases. Java has an Initial memory pool of