Re: Timeslices

The way I understand it, it is the activity level that matters. When a job is 
in the activity level, it is selected to run depending on its priority and how 
long it has been waiting.
An interactive job leaves the activity level when it hits timeslice end or goes 
into a long wait ( waiting for the user to press the entery key ).

But if the job hits timeslice end and there are no other jobs waiting to enter 
the activity level ( probably your situation since the qinter storage pool 
activity level is probably more than 2 ), than the job stays in the activity 
level.

Now hitting tse can bump up the run priority ( the "+" next to the pty in 
wrkactjob ), causing the tse job to be penalized compared to the other 
interactive jobs.  But the system has a real mind of its own with this and back 
when I spent some time with system tuning, I could never get the tse priority 
bump to make much of a difference. ( my theory was to set the interactive 
timeslice very low and the activity level high )

Steve


---------- Original Message ----------------------------------
From: "Leif Svalgaard" <leif@leif.org>
Reply-To: midrange-l@midrange.com
Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2001 19:37:01 -0500

>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
>>
>
>_______________________________________________
>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
>
>