× The internal search function is temporarily non-functional. The current search engine is no longer viable and we are researching alternatives.
As a stop gap measure, we are using Google's custom search engine service.
If you know of an easy to use, open source, search engine ... please contact support@midrange.com.



Ah ha, a System Value question!

When the System/38 was shipped, one of the ways that IBM theorized that
they could throttle performance was with the System Value QMAXACTLVL.  But
IBM never shipped a System/38 large enough to have 100 jobs concurrently
active.  By the time the AS/400 got large enough to support this, it
because immediately that this was a lousy metric.

So when you installed V2R2, this system value was changed from the old
default of 100 to *NOMAX.  The problem was that certain systems never had
the change take.  It's not clear who to me, possibly only the default
changed.

The word is out clearly, change this system value to *NOMAX.

Al


Al Barsa, Jr.
Barsa Consulting Group, LLC

400>390

"i" comes before "p", "x" and "z"
e gads

Our system's had more names than Elizabeth Taylor!

914-251-1234
914-251-9406 fax

http://www.barsaconsulting.com
http://www.taatool.com
http://www.as400connection.com



                                                                           
             Martin Rowe                                                   
             <dbg400.net@gmail                                             
             .com>                                                      To 
             Sent by:                  Midrange Systems Technical          
             midrange-l-bounce         Discussion                          
             s@xxxxxxxxxxxx            <midrange-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx>           
                                                                        cc 
                                                                           
             12/06/2005 10:04                                      Subject 
             AM                        QMAXACTLVL and system performance   
                                                                           
                                                                           
             Please respond to                                             
             Midrange Systems                                              
                 Technical                                                 
                Discussion                                                 
             <midrange-l@midra                                             
                 nge.com>                                                  
                                                                           
                                                                           




Hi folks

We've just had a repeat of an interesting problem - our production
iSeries[1] partition 'froze' for about 15 minutes, then carried on as
if nothing had been the matter. We had this two weeks ago (but a bit
earlier in the day) and from gaps in logs & response times analysis it
has happened at other times too. We couldn't find anything obvious
last time, and IBM just suggested we try to get into DST to force a
storage dump. Except that when the system is frozen not even the
console works.

This time I noticed a CPF0908 - 'Machine ineligible condition
threshold reached' in QSYSOPR's messages which refers to QMAXACTLVL.
The value on our system (140) has been migrated during the previous
upgrade (and probably several prior to that). Other partitions (for
WebSphere, mirroring, thin primary etc) that were created from scratch
all have the default *NOMAX.

>From IBM's documentation it seems that this is probably too low, but
it would (?) have been set for a reason (at some time in the dim &
distant past). I can't see any downside to making this *NOMAX - are
there any? We've upped it to 500 pending further discussion.

On our development partition that runs WebSphere it was set down to 50
and changing to *NOMAX has improved performance; anecdotally at least.

Oddly enough not everything was frozen. NFS shares to my Linux box
worked fine but NetServer shares to Windows stopped. I'm wondering if
part of the problem was the system TCP/IP server also suffering from
the low thread setting (NFS is UDP based, as are pings which worked as
well).

Regards, Martin
[1] i825, V5R2, up to date on PTFs
--
martin@xxxxxxxxxx  AIM/Gaim: DBG400dotNet  http://www.dbg400.net   /"\
DBG/400 - AS/400 & iSeries Open Source/Free Software utilities     \ /
Debian GNU/Linux | ASCII Ribbon Campaign against HTML mail & news   X

--
This is the Midrange Systems Technical Discussion (MIDRANGE-L) mailing list
To post a message email: MIDRANGE-L@xxxxxxxxxxxx
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options,
visit: http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/midrange-l
or email: MIDRANGE-L-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives
at http://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l.




As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

This thread ...

Follow-Ups:
Replies:

Follow On AppleNews
Return to Archive home page | Return to MIDRANGE.COM home page

This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2024 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact [javascript protected email address].

Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.