Re: Subsystem and memory pools

The classic answer "it depends".

Do you have auto adjustment set on your pools? Some argue that it's a
good thing, why waste memory in a pool that's currently under utilized.
Some might argue that IBM's auto adjuster is not robust enough and
cautiously only moves small chunks at a time.
Some might argue that changing your pool sizes too often forces the query
optimizer to notice the environment changed and reoptimize your queries.
Some might say that if you're going to do this they you really need to
look at
WRKSHRPOOL
F11=Display tuning data
and set a minimum size to keep others from stealing too much from a
pool.

Where do activities fall in priority? For example, are you still using a
bunch of 5250 applications? Should they get priority over the
application? Do you lump 5250 in with "interactive" work performed by the
application?

Are there other tuning considerations which may cause consideration to
other pools? For example, fixed vs calc paging, max active, faulting
settings, etc.



Rob Berendt