RE: Object Access and Memory Pools

OK ... That's what I thought. This gets me to thinking about defining
several separate memory pools though. 

Unless you are certain that there is "real" separation between certain
kinds of work on the system, you would probably be better off just
running everything in *BASE, especially on today's systems with HUGE
amounts of memory.

What do you think?

Kenneth

-----Original Message-----
From: midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Simon Coulter
Sent: Monday, October 10, 2005 6:52 PM
To: Midrange Systems Technical Discussion
Subject: Re: Object Access and Memory Pools


On 11/10/2005, at 8:31 AM, Graap, Ken wrote:

> I assume that if a Lawson *FILE object is used in a process running in

> subsystem QBATCH and this *FILE is paged into the *SHRPOOL1 memory 
> pool... it is accessible by a process running in the Lawson subsystem 
> even though this subsystem is defined to use *SHRPOOL2. Is this 
> correct?

Yes. Otherwise techniques like SETOBJACC wouldn't work.

> Or is this *FILE object paged out of *SHRPOOL1 and paged back into 
> *SHRPOOL2 before it can be accessed by the process running in the 
> LAWPRD subsystem?

No.

Pages from DASD are paged into the storage pool of the requester. Once 
there they are in main storage and can be used by any other job. 
Storage management really only cares whether something is on DASD or in 
main storage. If on DASD it has to be paged into main storage. If in 
main storage it is simply used.

Regards,
Simon Coulter.