Re: Why not *SHRPOOL1?

[Vern Hamberg <vhamberg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Just curious, what is the paging setting for these pools?

I notice that *SHRPOOL1 already has more memory - is this the status before 
starting the big job?

Also, you have to have at least 3 pools - including *BASE. And probably 4, 
with *SPOOL.

Now it IS possible to change shared pools so they have a minimum size, 
using WRKSHRPOOL (F11). So  you could reserve a certain percentage of main 
memory, even if a subsystem becomes relatively inactive.

There's also a priority for shared pools, I assume for which gets memory or 
activity levels first.

Also, with so many activity levels in *INTERACT, it may take longer to get 
things going.

Now, if by experience witht the app, you have an idea how much it needs, do 
a CHGSBSD to adjust the pool size first.

HTH

Vern

At 09:10 AM 1/27/2003 -0500, you wrote:
> On our 840 12-way we have system value QPFRADJ set to "2=Adjustment at IPL
> and automatic adjustment".  And we have the following pools:
> System    Pool    Reserved    Max
>  Pool   Size (M)  Size (M)  Active  Pool
>    1     2618.98    655.60   +++++  *MACHINE
>    2     6307.05     55.12     530  *BASE
>    3     3935.35      <.01      80  *SHRPOOL1
>    4      303.44       .00      20  *SPOOL
>    5     1835.15       .20     227  *INTERACT
>
> Actually, this does a pretty good job.  However, if you start this big
> whopping job in one subsystem, or the other, then it takes awhile until
> QPFRADJ switches memory over.  In the Rochester lab (just last week) we
> had a Query take 3 minutes until we switched QINTER to run in *SHRPOOL1.
> They were still scratching their heads to figure out how often QPFRADJ
> adjusts.  After the switch it took only a very few seconds.
>
> So now my boss asked me a good question.  Why don't we just use two pools:
>  *MACHINE and *SHRPOOL1?  And avoid that time lag of QPFRADJ.
>
> Questions and comments appreciated.
>
> Rob Berendt