Re: Timeslices

in my situation I have three interactive jobs (and no other jobs
doing real work - there is the usual 100 or so background jobs
running). Here are typical stats:
Job A  10% CPU timeslice 2000
Job B  20% CPU timeslice 1000
Job C  20% CPU timeslice 1000
now change the timeslices:
Job A 20% CPU timeslice 1000
Job B 20% CPU timeslice 1000
Job C 10% CPU timeslice 2000


----- Original Message -----
From: Michael Oakes <Michael.Oakes@eb.uk.com>
To: <midrange-l@midrange.com>
Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2001 7:30 PM
Subject: RE: Timeslices


> It also depends on the amount of work the system is doing. If it is heavily
> utilised the timeslice and run priority count very much. I would consider
> myself lucky that I had the same run times for jobs!
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: srichter [mailto:srichter@mail.autocoder.com]
> Sent: 30 August 2001 01:24
> To: midrange-l@midrange.com
> Subject: Re: Timeslices
>
>
> Hey Leif,
>
> I dont think timeslice matters any more.
>
> I work on a very fast 720 that uses the default qinter timeslice of 2000.
> 2000 milliseconds back in the s38 days meant something.  Now, you can
> probably run many batch jobs with 2 seconds of cpu time.
>
> I am thinking of saying that activity level matters more than timeslice,
> that it might be too low and jobs that want to run have to wait to get into
> the activity level. But jobs run so much faster now, that they leave enter
> and leave the activity level so fast that the actual activity level never
> gets very high and jobs are never waiting to get into it.
>
> Steve Richter
>
>
> ---------- Original Message ----------------------------------
> From: "Leif Svalgaard" <leif@leif.org>
> Reply-To: midrange-l@midrange.com
> Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2001 17:28:23 -0500
>
> >I have noticed that (interactive) jobs with a small timeslice
> >are more "reactive" than jobs with a large timeslice.
> >This seems to indicate that the OS/400 is not "truly"
> >preemptive. Is this observation correct, or am I missing
> >something, or should I even know?
> >
> >
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >This is the Midrange Systems Technical Discussion (MIDRANGE-L) mailing
list
> >To post a message email: MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com
> >To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options,
> >visit: http://lists.midrange.com/cgi-bin/listinfo/midrange-l
> >or email: MIDRANGE-L-request@midrange.com
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> This is the Midrange Systems Technical Discussion (MIDRANGE-L) mailing list
> To post a message email: MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options,
> visit: http://lists.midrange.com/cgi-bin/listinfo/midrange-l
> or email: MIDRANGE-L-request@midrange.com
> ******************************************************************
>
> This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential
> and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity
> to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in
> error please notify the system manager at:
>
>                    mailto:postmaster@eb.uk.com
>
> The recipient acknowledges that transmissions made via the Internet
> can be corrupted and therefore EB Plc and any of its subsidiaries
> do not give any warranty as to the quality or accuracy of any
> information contained in the message or assume any liability for
> it or for its transmission, reception or storage.
>
> This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept
> by Anti-Virus software for the presence of computer viruses.
>
> http://www.eb.uk.com
> http://www.game.uk.com
>
> ******************************************************************
> _______________________________________________
> This is the Midrange Systems Technical Discussion (MIDRANGE-L) mailing list
> To post a message email: MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options,
> visit: http://lists.midrange.com/cgi-bin/listinfo/midrange-l
> or email: MIDRANGE-L-request@midrange.com
>