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

>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.

 Check the system value QDNYPTYSCD.  The default setting is on (=1).  The
scheduler is fairly intelligent and overall I have been pleased with it.
However, I would surmise that it may be having a less than beneficial
affect on your purge job.  Also, make sure you check your pool settings as
well as QPFRADJ.  The only thing that should have 'changed' from v3r1 is
the QDNYPTYSCD value.  If I remember your position you don't use QPFRADJ
:-) and probably won't use QDNYPTYSCD......

 I was trying to find a handout from Atlanta that covered the topic of the
dynamic priority scheduler but I can't - hopefully I can get a refresh at
San Antonio!  The manuals carry absolutely no information of any use about
QDNYPTYSCD and what it does.  Essentially it makes micro-adjustments to the
jobs priority within a given range.  It helps minimize the risk of an
abusive job becoming a real annoinance.  I've never had an experience with
it having a negative affect on a high profile job especially in batch but
there is always a first.


>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?

I've heard that to but I don't know the new pricing structure so it might
be premature to call it nasty....I'm sure we will know soon.  FYI - most
IBMers and BP's have already attended preannouncement seminars (we had one
scheduled here in INDY on 7/22 - funny thing is they wouldn't let me one of
their best customers attend :-) and should know this information but you
will probably have a hard time getting it out of them.....

Worst case we should know by announcement day.





* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* 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   *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *