RE: Interactive Feature -vs- Total System CPW (%CPU)

 Thanks Al.

 I know I got long winded and you likely gave up before getting to the
bottom.
 Here is what I ended with.  8^)

>  The system details are:
>  720-2064-1504 4-way 6Gig mem CPW 1600/560.
>  The next interact step to a 1505 changes 560CPW up to 1050CPW or roughly
> from 1/3 to 2/3 of the total system.
?

> [mailto:midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Al Barsa

>
>
>
> It looks like you have done a good job.  What QMODEL/QPRCFEAT are you
> coming from???
>
> What are you looking at going to???
>
> Al
>
> Al Barsa, Jr.
> Barsa Consulting Group, LLC
>
> 400>390
>
> 914-251-1234
> 914-251-9406 fax
>
> http://www.barsaconsulting.com
> http://www.taatool.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>                       "Doug Hart"
>
>                       <doughart@xxxxxxxxxx        To:
> "Midrange Systems Technical Discussion" <midrange-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
>                       om>                         cc:
>
>                       Sent by:                    Subject:
> Interactive Feature -vs- Total System CPW (%CPU)
>
>                       midrange-l-bounces@x
>
>                       idrange.com
>
>
>
>
>
>                       03/28/2003 09:31 PM
>
>                       Please respond to
>
>                       Midrange Systems
>
>                       Technical Discussion
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>  I have a customer this is maxing out his Interactive Feature.  I want to
> ensure that if he upgrades this feature he will come out of his
> performance
> problems.  The problem I have is separating the interactive %CPU from the
> total system %CPU.  This is because when he reaches the interactive
> capacity
> threshold the dammed CFINT0n tasks kick in and the total system craps out.
> I know all about what IBM kindly calls "speed bumps" are and how
> they work.
> I prefer to call them "curbs" as in how the automatic breaks are
> applied to
> the stock market.
>
>  I have looked at performance reports but don't see a clear definition of
> total system -vs- interactive when CFINT0n is consuming 90+% CPU.   The
> bottom line is I don't want them to spend big bucks on the interactive
> upgrade and then find out that the total system is under powered.  My
> review
> saw no problems with processors or memory, and DASD usage is fine.  I'm
> suggesting a number of tuning adjustments but they are likely to only
> smooth
> out some of the current "feel" and not expected to fix the big picture.
> Summer is their peek season and they'll die if this is not resolved very
> quickly.
>
>  I know about the 2 SYSVALS QDYNPTYADJ & QDYNPTYSCD.  They have
> them set on
> (1) and I'm going to have them turned off (0).  I'm also considering using
> FAST400 as a diagnostic tool to help define the problem.  However FAST400
> is
> not a solution (many issues, don't ask) and the client is willing to pay
> the
> IBM price for the upgrade if that's the fix.  They will investigate a full
> replacement to a new 825 but business issues prevent it at this time.
>
>  The system details are:
>  720-2064-1504 4-way 6Gig mem CPW 1600/560.
>  The next interact step to a 1505 changes 560CPW up to 1050CPW or roughly
> from 1/3 to 2/3 of the total system.
>
>  With the cost of the upgrade being almost $100k this decision must be
> backed by proven evidence.   If the total system is truly being maxed out
> this is not the correct solution.
>
>  Your comments please.
>
>
> _______________________________________________