subsystem vs shared pools

WRKSBS
Sbs Pools
Subsystem 1 2
PMEDH 2 Quick-EDD (H/A)
QBATCH 2 3
QCMN 2
QCTL 2
QHTTPSVR 2
QIDRJW 2
QINTER 2 5
QSERVER 2
QSPL 2 4
QSYSWRK 2
QUSRWRK 2
Q1ABRMNET 2
ZHALPROD 2 Halcyon Messenger Plus

At this time little web serving is being done. Mostly ADMIN. Some jobs in there for Infor's Webtop but I don't think it is being used at all.

When a job says:
Subsystem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : QBATCH
Subsystem pool ID . . . . . . . . . . . . : 2
This means it is running in subsystem pool 2, which is system pool 3 which is *SHRPOOL1, right?

Defined Max Allocated Pool
Pool Size (M) Active Size (M) ID
*MACHINE 7262.97 +++++ 7262.97 1
*BASE 40964.66 7987 40964.66 2
*INTERACT 67607.35 2863 67607.35 5
*SPOOL 1331.03 87 1331.03 4
*SHRPOOL1 15937.97 558 15937.97 3
*SHRPOOL2 11796.46 512
*SHRPOOL3 25.00 7

Subsystem Jobs
PMEDH 62
QBATCH 2
QCMN 7
QCTL 3
QHTTPSVR 31
QIDRJW 0
QINTER 461
QSERVER 21
QSPL 212
QSYSWRK 218
QUSRWRK 82
Q1ABRMNET 3
ZHALPROD 15

I wonder if we had one or more of these subsystems going to *SHRPOOL2 before but ran into problems and switched it back to *BASE?

From IBM:

<snip>
All batch processing appears to be running out of the default pool, *BASE. This is not efficient for processing high value jobs, as there is a large contention for memory and activity level resource in the one pool. There is also a mixture of job types which run out of *BASE, so expert cache is not able to effectively tune the memory page size for any particular type of job.
High value jobs should run out of a dedicated assigned pool, a shared pool with expert caching turned on. This will ensure the jobs do not contend for resource, and can run optimally.
</snip>


Rob Berendt
--
IBM Certified System Administrator - IBM i 6.1
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