RE: CPU Percentage Flex, Lies, and Usage Measuring Tape

["Rob Berendt" <ROB@xxxxxxxxx>]

Have you checked out system value
QDYNPTYSCD  *SYSCTL  Dynamic priority scheduler
This probably has no effect since you are kicking the priority up to 10.
 ----------
From:  DAsmussen[SMTP:MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com]
Sent:  Sunday, July 27, 1997 11:18 PM
To:  ROB; midrange-l
Subject:  CPU Percentage Flex, Lies, and Usage Measuring Tape


Hey Folks,

Now it's my turn to ask a couple of questions.  Since our upgrade to 3.7
(production) and 3.2 (development system), jobs no longer seem to get the   
CPU
that they deserve when running independently of the users.  Case in   
point,
I'm running our BPCS shop order purge this weekend which removes data   
from
approximately 23 files.  Prior to our upgrade from 3.1, this job (and
rightfully so) consumed about 80% of available CPU at normal batch   
processing
priority on our production 320.  This weekend, I'm running the purge on   
both
our new production 530 (3.7) and our newly annointed development 320   
(3.2).
 Despite my upping both jobs to priority 10, setting purge for both to   
*NO,
and setting both timeslices to 100,000, neither is consuming more than   
18%
CPU with nobody else on the systems.

Last week, we asked our Systems Engineering department for some help with   
our
BPCS conversion program's performance under the same circumstances, and   
they
did _something_ to make it run with more CPU percentage.  I'm not sure   
that
our manager actually asked, but we were not informed of what Systems
Engineering actually DID to make this program perform better.  In   
addition, a
program with a loop that was being tested on the (formerly development)   
310
took over the CPU, but had negligible impact when we moved to the new 320
CPU.  Does anyone know of anything on the new OS versions that limits CPU
percentages (none of the old limits were in place)?

Secondly, I heard a NASTY rumor that clouds my former anticipation of   
IBM's
August announcements.  In addition to the 12-way processor, I also hear   
that
IBM is dropping user-based pricing (which helped the AS/400 get as big as   
it
is) in favor of returning exclusively to tier-based pricing.  Anyone have
information on this?

TIA,

Dean Asmussen
Enterprise Systems Consulting, Inc.
Fuquay-Varina, NC  USA
E-Mail:  DAsmussen@AOL.COM

"Genius begins great works; labor alone finishes them." -- Joseph Joubert
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* This is the Midrange System Mailing List!  To submit a new message,   *
* send your mail to "MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com".  To unsubscribe from     *
* this list send email to MAJORDOMO@midrange.com and specify            *
* 'unsubscribe MIDRANGE-L' in the body of your message.  Questions      *
* should be directed to the list owner / operator: david@midrange.com   *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
umidr

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* This is the Midrange System Mailing List!  To submit a new message,   *
* send your mail to "MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com".  To unsubscribe from     *
* this list send email to MAJORDOMO@midrange.com and specify            *
* 'unsubscribe MIDRANGE-L' in the body of your message.  Questions      *
* should be directed to the list owner / operator: david@midrange.com   *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *