FW: shared memory pools priority

["Shaw, David" <dshaw@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Steve,

The documentation that I've seen isn't too forthcoming about exactly how the
priority values are used.  The help text says about as much as any manual
I've looked at.  Based on experimentation, it appears that if there are two
pools running with higher fault rates than you've specified for them, the
one with the higher priority will get any available memory until its fault
rate falls back into line, at which time the lower-priority pool will start
getting additional memory, if there's any available from other pools.  That
seems to fit with what the documentation says and what logic would suggest.
The priority and fault-rate settings that I've made here for our memory
pools seem to have resulted in fairly rational behavior for the performance
adjuster.  Having the adjuster on gave us better response and throughput
than having it off when the machine was a 620 and periodically a bit
overloaded, which I like to interpret as success. <grin>  Since we upgraded
it to a 720 and doubled the memory, it runs great nearly all the time
regardless of tuning, but I'm sure we'll find a way to kill it in time.

Dave Shaw
Spartan International, Inc.
Spartanburg, SC

-----Original Message-----
From: STEVE FAIST [mailto:SFAIST@longaberger.com]

How well does shared memory pool priority work and what exactly does it do??
I'm looking at splitting the subsystems up by department, a separate shared
memory pool for each and using the associated priority so Performance tuner
will be quicker to act with those memory pools with higher priorites.  I may
be completely off base though.
+---
| 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
+---