RE: Accessing a file in memory

[Rob Berendt <rob@xxxxxxxxx>]

I bet my users are happier with the response on my machine than they 
are with the response on yours.
As we consolidate more divisions on to this 400 the biggest support call 
we get is that they can't find their job running.  It always turns out 
that the job has already completed and they can't believe that it ran 
that fast.





RaikovL@mki.com.au on 07/25/2000 03:06:18 AM
Please respond to MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com@Internet
To:     MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com@Internet
cc:      
Fax to: 
Subject:        RE: Accessing a file in memory

Rob,

I'm afraid I'd have to disagree. Maybe I'm stretching it a bit, but if you
have inherently long-running batch jobs in the system and your overall CPU
utilization is less than 100%, it means you are underutilizing your
equipment! If a batch job does not devour all that's left after all
high-priority jobs are served, it can only have two explanations: either the
job is not designed to efficiently use CPU or there is a bottleneck
somewhere in the system (e.g. the system is thrashing). As I said, I
exaggerated it a bit, but the principle still stands.

Lo

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rob Berendt [SMTP:rob@dekko.com]
> Sent: Monday, July 24, 2000 11:16 PM
> To:   MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com
> Subject:      RE: Accessing a file in memory
> 
> You're right.  Basing a purchasing decision on a one time peak is probably
> 
> not good.  But, to come up with reasons why constantly running at 70-90%
> is 
> acceptable when you should be upgrading is not good either.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RaikovL@mki.com.au on 07/20/2000 08:38:48 PM
> Please respond to MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com@Internet
> To:   MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com@Internet
> cc:    
> Fax to:       
> Subject:      RE: Accessing a file in memory
> 
> No if he has extra $ to spend. The trouble is a decision like that is very
> often taken just on the basis of the peak CPU utilisation. 
> 
> Lo
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From:       Rob Berendt [SMTP:rob@dekko.com]
> > Sent:       Friday, July 21, 2000 1:17 AM
> > To: MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com
> > Subject:    RE: Accessing a file in memory
> > 
> > <SNIP>
> > There is nothing wrong with 90% CPU utilization as such. It only becomes
> a
> > problem when app.. 70% is used by response-time critical jobs. 
> > <ENDSNIP>
> > 
> > There's also nothing wrong with a boss which upon noticing a system
> > hitting 
> > 40% of CPU, and planning for future growth, doubles the number of
> > processors 
> > and adds a ton of memory.
> > 
> +---
> | 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
> +---
+---
| 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
+---