|
I understand the arguments against QPFRADJ because of granularity,
timeliness of change, or it doing changes when you don't want it to
because you'd rather it be tuned for process "x". However we're going to
continue to use that. IBM is recommending we change it from 2 to 3. Their
argument is your system spends quite some time getting it tuned for normal
production, why should you let an IPL throw that all out of whack? Seems
to make sense to me. Questions I ponder though include:
What about new memory adds? Adjustment at IPL would surely help that. The
counter to that is are you changing memory often enough that you can't
just change it manually the few times you do that? Mightn't you also
change your max/min's on WRKSHRPOOL at that same time also? To me, those
counter questions kill the new memory exception.
Is your system still tuned for production anyway at IPL time? Let me
explain. Let's say you bring your system down to restricted state. You
run RCLSTG for 14 hours. You do a full system save for 8-10 hours. You
IPL. Was that a good snapshot of your production memory usage anyway? Why
not let the IPL readjust it? Let's say that just about every time you IPL
these are your normal steps.
Rob Berendt
-- Group Dekko Dept 1600 Mail to: 2505 Dekko Drive Garrett, IN 46738 Ship to: Dock 108 6928N 400E Kendallville, IN 46755 http://www.dekko.com
--
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
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.