Technical solutions to system resource utilisation I can cope with. When it
comes to politics (small 'c') - that is another matter.
If the CPU(s) are not doing anything else, does the client want it to remain
idle just so they can say that this job or that job is not using more than
x% of the system resources? Good grief. What about a small CL program to
monitor the CPU% of the offending job(s) and slap a *HLD on the job - an
external wait :-) - DLYJOB for a few seconds, *RLS, wait a few seconds,
another *HLD ...
Completely stupid, but it could solve your problem, if you can't cure the
client :-)
I give up for free all the redundant CPU cycles on my twin-CPU pc to
SETI@Home, so it may cost me a few milli-watts of electricity, but why else
should I care?
Regards
Jeff Bull
iSeries Technical Consultant
NYCO Ltd - iSeries & AS/400 Automation Specialists
Tel: +44(0)20 8416 3778
Fax: +44(0)20 8416 3779
Mobile: +44(0)77 5692 3335
Email: jeff.bull@xxxxxxxxxx
Website: www.nyco.co.uk
-----Original Message-----
From: midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Thomas Garvey
Sent: 16 May 2012 19:10
To: 'Midrange Systems Technical Discussion'
Subject: best way to limit a job
I'm looking for the best and simplest way to limit how much of the system a
particular job will take. Ideally, we would be able to configure a job so
that it won't take more than x% of the CPU (as seen on a WRKACTJOB display).
We've tried using *CLS objects, defining Run Priority and Time slice
seconds, but it doesn't seem to limit the job. It still takes as much of
the CPU as it wants.
Suggestions?
Tom Garvey
--
This is the Midrange Systems Technical Discussion (MIDRANGE-L) mailing list
To post a message email: MIDRANGE-L@xxxxxxxxxxxx To subscribe, unsubscribe,
or change list options,
visit:
http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/midrange-l
or email: MIDRANGE-L-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx Before posting, please take a
moment to review the archives at
http://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l.
midrange.com
