|
An interesting variation of this is to put the subsystem monitor jobs into their own shared pool. This has a small but noticeable impact on job initiations if there's a lot of activity in the base pool. If the monitor jobs have their own pool with a sufficient size, they don't get swapped out to virtual storage and consequently don't need to be paged back in when they're required. This is especially helpful if you have a lot of users with group job capabilities - their group jobs start with fewer demands on system resources, hence more quickly when the box is busy. (Note: I got the idea for this from Richard Jackson, who has no doubt forgotten more about system internals than I'll ever know.) I've found that on a system with a lot of activity, it's best to move everything possible out of the base pool, so that only the immovable system jobs are left in there. It seems to make a machine more resilient under load. That batch job that reads and updates 2 million records may not run any faster, but the 0.8-cpu-second picklists and the casual user inquiries seem to get in and out better, even when the monster is running. Dave Shaw Spartan International, Inc. Spartanburg, SC > -----Original Message----- > From: Chris Bipes [mailto:rpg@cross-check.com] > > The subsystem monitor job, i.e. the subsystem runs in memory > pool 1 always. > Based on routing entries, you can place the application work into the > appropriate memory pool. It is best not to have your > subsystem taking up > resources you intended for the application to have. I try to > define all > subsystems with pool 1 as *BASE and Pool 2 as necessary. If > you look at the > routing entries for QINTER and QSPL and you will see them > using Pool 2. You > can then control what happens to a job that is reaching the > end of its time > slice. > > Christopher K. Bipes mailto:ChrisB@Cross-Check.com > Sr. Programmer/Analyst mailto:Chris_Bipes@Yahoo.com > CrossCheck, Inc. http://www.cross-check.com > 6119 State Farm Drive Phone: 707 586-0551 x 1102 > Rohnert Park CA 94928 Fax: 707 586-1884 > > If consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, only > geniuses work here. > Karen Herbelin - Readers Digest 3/2000 > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Allen, Stuart [mailto:sallen@fellowes.com] > Sent: Friday, April 14, 2000 7:40 AM > To: 'Midrange' > Subject: Question about subsystem pools > > > In the subsystem description for QINTER, it shows as > Pool Storage Activity > ID Size (K) Level > 1 *BASE > 2 *INTERACT > > Shouldn't this subsystem only go into *interact? > > Also, my QSPL sbsd shows: > > Pool Storage Activity > ID Size (K) Level > 1 *BASE > 2 *SPOOL > > Again, shouldn't this just be *spool? > > > Anyone have any ideas? +--- | 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.