|
That joblog / message thing is very true, many people are not aware that
if they turn off logging for jobs on a live machine, they can see a huge
increase in performance. I used to always ensure that logging was
switched off for users, by having separate job descriptions for users
and development staff (who get really peeved when they can't press F9 to
retrieve the previous command). The job log only tends to get looked at
when something goes wrong, so I think it logging should be only switched
on where it is appropriate.
-----Original Message-----
From: Buck Calabro/commsoft
[mailto:mcalabro@commsoft.net]
Sent: Thursday, March 18, 1999 2:26 PM
To: MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com
Subject: Timeslice/purge settings was: Suppress
Query Status Message
On 03/17/99 05:46:43 PM pytel wrote:
Alexey,
>Timeslice and Purge settings will not have any
noticable influence on
>long-running tasks.
This is a very interesting topic!
Doesn't TIMESLICE come into play when you have a
compute-bound job?
Something like creating large GDDM graphics? When the
job goes to disk to
get/put a record, it leaves the activity level, right?
Unless the job
occupies the activity level until timeslice end,
boosting the timeslice
makes no difference
The purge setting is mostly useful in a small-memory
system, if I recall.
It lets you tell the system if you want the entire PAG
paged in one
operation at timeslice end/enter long wait.
This leaves RUNPTY as the other parameter on the class.
Won't a job that
fetches thousands of pages of DASD at RUNPTY(20) will be
more of a resource
hog than the same job running at 50? It'll certainly
get returned to an
activity level before the RUNPTY(50) job will.
So, I guess the question here is: for a query, does the
processor time
required to build an access path get charged to the
interactive job, or to
an internal system task?
The batch/interactive debate extends into separate
memory pools and working
set size. Too often, the interactive memory pool is
sized for a smaller
working set that the batch pools. This makes it easier
for a batch-type
job to force other jobs' storage to be paged out. This
is not a Good Thing
for the interactive job's program pages that've been
paged out by DB pages.
>Suppressing status messages can help, because sending
message to display
>device incurs a relatively high overhead (especially
when there are many).
Absolutely! The same is true for writing messages to
the job log. Any
time a program/job does extra I/O is a place to look for
performance
improvements.
Buck Calabro
Billing Concepts Inc (formerly CommSoft), Albany, NY
mailto:mcalabro@commsoft.net
+---
| This is the Midrange System Mailing List!
| To submit a new message, send your mail to
MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com.
| To subscribe to this list send email to
MIDRANGE-L-SUB@midrange.com.
| To unsubscribe from this list send email to
MIDRANGE-L-UNSUB@midrange.com.
| Questions should be directed to the list
owner/operator: david@midrange.com
+---
+---
| This is the Midrange System Mailing List!
| To submit a new message, send your mail to MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com.
| To subscribe to this list send email to MIDRANGE-L-SUB@midrange.com.
| To unsubscribe from this list send email to MIDRANGE-L-UNSUB@midrange.com.
| Questions should be directed to the list owner/operator: david@midrange.com
+---
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2025 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact [javascript protected email address].
Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.