|
When job does disk I/O, it is a short wait (disk I/O is relatively fast operation), so job will not leave activity level. But what is more important, is if disk I/O is synchronous or asynchronous. Asynch I/O is perfromed by system tasks out of line, so job does not need to wait for I/O completion. Asynch I/Os come in all flavours - asynch pageouts, prefetches etc. One should take all possible measures to make sure that most of I/Os are asynch - it makes *huge* difference in performance. Timeslice comes hand in hand with purge, because with PURGE(*YES) at timeslice end the whole PAG will be paged out. My opinion is that with memory size no longer a constraint (comparative to older times), PURGE should be always *NO. Generally making timeslice shorter will make response time more uniform between a multitude of jobs on system, but it will not decrease runtime of a long-running task. I would say, that most important tuning parameters are RUNPTY and size of memory pool, where job runs. Building of access path is aggressive memory user - in other words, the larger the memory pool, the better it performs. And the difference can be an order of magnitude. So if one often runs queries which build access paths, make sure that they have plenty of memory. Of course, one has to take into account other workload on system - there are trade-offs to be made. Best regards Alexey Pytel "Buck Calabro/commsoft" <mcalabro@commsoft.net> on 03/18/99 08:26:24 AM Please respond to MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com To: MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com cc: (bcc: Alexei Pytel/Rochester/IBM) 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 1997-2024 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.