× 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.



To answer just the pool question:

Jim is right that 5400 is a very big number and if that's for an entire 5 or more minute time frame that needs addressing! Second your comment about numbers from a B10 being applicable to a POWER6 machine is also accurate. A B10 would have already died before it sustained 5400 faults a second for any amount of time.

The key to pools is that different work is kept apart. Domino has various processes that run, something like 20 jobs per sever as I recall and most if not all of them are threaded meaning the actual number of operating tasks is quite large. Each thread needs some memory and an activity level in order to run. NOT every thread is running at all times. By having Domino in its own pool there isn't any conflicting demand for memory resource there and Domino tasks don't get paged out (at least most of them won't.) Thus when they are needed they simply run without fanfare or additional system effort to bring them back into memory.

Meanwhile back in *BASE (or better yet your batch run pool) that AP check run (which we consultants are very fond of by the way :-) ) gets submitted. It also needs memory resources. If it uses SQL the query optimizer looks around to see how much memory is available and uses whatever it can to do its work. If there are jobs there in a wait state those jobs could get paged out for the AP job. Of course the jobs finishes and gives up it's memory to the next batch job. This is good, as you have a completely different type of task (Start, run hard, Done) in this pool -vs- the Domino subsystem (Start, run as needed forever,) So even if the AP job has a much higher run priority (remember I'm good with that!) It just gets done faster it doesn't shove Domino out of memory. And since you have lots of CPUs it may not make any difference to Domino performance at all.

That's why different memory pools for types of tasks is a good idea. It's the same reason you don't run you interactive jobs in *BASE.

- Larry "DrFranken" Bolhuis

On 7/22/2011 4:22 PM, rob@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
We do already have separate IP addresses for each domino server and a
separate one for i, (and another separate one with it's own card for
Mimix).

Back in the day we used to manage memory ourselves. We used to have two
job schedule entries NIGHT and DAY that would shift memory between batch
and interactive. We kind of like this theory of autonomics and having the
system fix itself.

Our concern with creating multiple pools is that you end up allocating
resources that are not available to other processes. For example, if I
bust *BASE into *BASE and DOMINO. I would allocate x memory to *BASE and
y memory to DOMINO. If one is not using it and the other is not (and
QPFRADJ is turned off) then I end up with a bunch of inventory not being
used, when other processes would love to have it.

I think one theory is that by busting out DOMINO from *BASE you can
control a spike in either from affecting the other. Is there some other
reason to do so? Like, "paging option"? I heard someone mention run
priority. I thought that was something at the job level. Upon further
review I do see that subsystems support "classes". From there you can
control run priority, time slices, threads, etc. I guess I just don't
know enough "why" as to why I would want to do this other work. Like
restricting down threads, etc.

In general "I thought" our performance was good. Throwing money at a
problem greatly simplifies management. There's a lot that I used to do on
AS/400's that I don't mess with so much anymore on Power equipment. Also,
our people thrive on Domino. If I throttled down a hundred Domino users
so one persons A/P check run would have priority it would not go over
well.

I have forgotton so much, like why faulting is bad, but even more so, the
guidelines as to what levels constitute high faulting. I can't believe
the number one used on a B10 is applicable to a 9117-MMA.

I am seeing that a separate partition for this is probably a bad idea. But
I am still trying the grasp why a separate pool might help.


Rob Berendt

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.