×
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.
If an object is in memory from an interactive job, (*INTERAACT pool) and a batch job needs the same object, but batch runs in *SHRPOOL1, does the object have to be brought in to memory again because it's in a different pool?
Years ago, it made sense to keep interactive and batch in their own pool, for multiple reasons.
I'm thinking the rules could be changing.
Batch and Interactive now use many of the same objects.
We also now have many "service" jobs, which are receiving requests from either batch or interactive.
So wouldn't it make sense to now run them out of the same memory pool.
My thought is to collapse the batch pool *SHRPOOL1.
Interactive, Batch, "service" jobs would all run out of *INTERACT.
Result would be only 4 pools.
*MACHINE
*BASE
*INTERACT
*SPOOL
Any thoughts from the group?
Thank You
_____
Paul Steinmetz
IBM i Systems Administrator
Pencor Services, Inc.
462 Delaware Ave
Palmerton Pa 18071
610-826-9117 work
610-826-9188 fax
610-349-0913 cell
610-377-6012 home
psteinmetz@xxxxxxxxxx
http://www.pencor.com/
midrange.com
