RE: CFINTnn tasks

Another interesting quote from the very end of that document:
" ...The entire server behavior is a partnership with customers to give
non-interactive jobs the bulk of the CPU while not entirely shutting out
interactive."
Yeah, right.

>From what I am reading from this document, there is nothing wrong
with us "tuning" the system ourselves to get better performance.
IBM is claiming that the CFINT is there to help us.  So what is
wrong with us doing what we would with it?

Regards,

Jim Langston

-----Original Message-----
From: Njål Fisketjøn [mailto:n.f@figu.no]
Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2001 1:11 PM
To: mi400@midrange.com
Subject: [MI400] CFINTnn tasks


http://www-912.ibm.com/s_dir/slkbase.nsf/1ac66549a21402188625680b0002037e/a1
5fc571478b82018625676900555dc1?OpenDocument

Quote:
"Microcode task CFINTnn (for all iSeries 400 or AS/400 models) is an
indication
of the time to handle interrupts and task switching. "


Isn't it strange that it takes more time to handle interrupts and task
switching
for interactive jobs/tasks than for client/server & batch jobs/tasks. :-)