× 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.



We had a similar issue with an application running on a linux server making an ODBC connection to DB2 taking a lot of CPU. We could not find a way to limit CPU so we did what you are considering and created a subsystem for just these jobs and setup a class that ran them at a priority lower than any other job on the system and with a low timeslice. I didn't stop the high CPU use but did stop the impact the job had on other activity on the system
________________________________________
From: MIDRANGE-L [midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx] on behalf of Lance Gillespie [LGillespie@xxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, April 06, 2016 5:17 PM
To: 'midrange-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx'
Subject: IBM i work management

We are using a third-party tool (Cognos BI) to
allow end-users to develop custom reports.

As users will, they sometimes make an ill-formed
query that consumes excessive resources on our
IBM i (V7R1 going to 2 when the ERP vendor is ready).

By excessive I mean 98% cpu consumed by two or
three jobs.

We would like to isolate this task to a subsystem that
has limited CPU and/or IO max so other users are not
bothered.

The job is a QZDASOINIT prestart job and the user ID is
known. We don't have any experience working with
IBM i work management tools.

Where would I look and what would I have to do to
limit the impact of these jobs? It seems like maybe
create a subsystem (but CRTSBSD does not seem to
have a CPU MAX parameter) and direct the jobs to
it somehow?

They use the QDFTSVR job description, but CHGJOBD
does not seem to have a CPU MAX parameter either.

I see CPU mention in the class description, but it is
for CPU used. We don't care how long the jobs
take or how much CPU they eventually consume
doing it, just that at no time are they ever responsible
for more than say 25% of the CPU. All of these jobs
in aggregate. One by itself could consume 25%, but
if another one started up they would have to share
the 25%.

We don't have multiple cores so it does not seem that
we can use Workload Capping Groups.

Any ideas?

Thanks,
lance


--
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.

Please contact support@xxxxxxxxxxxx for any subscription related questions.

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.