RE: Odd pool assignments

Way back in the dark ages, I divided our workloads by business critical applications.

I gave a dedicated subsystem running out of *BASE with a second Private Pool of memory and all the job controls etc. for our customer facing authorization system. We provide real time transaction processing for thousands of businesses across the US. Then there is a second subsystem, using another private pool for our back end server jobs that handle putting together the reporting for our customer portal.

Then there are 3 shared pools for other non-critical server jobs and batch processing.

Finally we have the *Interact running in QINTER subsystem for all of the employees to log in via "Green Screen". (Not so green anymore.)

With the new Power 8's and Power 9 systems, this is all probably mute in today's systems with more memory and CPU than ever before, but we have never bothered to change it. I just allocate more memory to the private pools as necessary as we add more services.

He it works and our customer are happy.

Chris Bipes
Director of Information Services
CrossCheck, Inc.

-----Original Message-----
From: MIDRANGE-L <midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of Larry "DrFranken" Bolhuis
Sent: Tuesday, February 2, 2021 8:44 AM
To: Midrange Systems Technical Discussion <midrange-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Joe Pluta <joepluta@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Odd pool assignments

'Differing characteristics' is how I always looked at it. FOr example Interactive tasks typically sat Idle a fair bit. When the user got back to it, a big pause while it gets paged back in is bad. Batch jobs on the other hand had a tendency to use available memory and if in the same pool, elbow the interactive jobs out.

Today it's often SQL, loves to use what's available and that is logical.
But whether it's Java, SQL, web servers, interactive jobs. There are clearly jobs that shouldn't be in the same pool. But it needs to be done by someone who understands with workloads and their characteristics.

- L

On 2/2/2021 11:21 AM, Joe Pluta wrote:

It's been a little bit since I messed with this, but if I recall one
of the primary uses for separate pools was to separate Java VM load
from "standard" IBM i OS load. The paging for the two approaches
seemed to be incompatible, so separating them whenever possible seemed
to be helpful.  Not sure that's a thing these days.  :)

On 2/2/2021 8:26 AM, Larry "DrFranken" Bolhuis wrote:

Well that's the flip. How many systems have I seen with 10 or more
separate pools? Some private some shared often several that are not
used at all! Yes there are valid reason for separate pools but these
days not a much as in the past.

 - L

On 2/2/2021 7:41 AM, Rob Berendt wrote:

Good thought Larry.

Any chance they've went gonzo in breaking out stuff normally in
*base into different subsystems and pools?

Rob Berendt

--
IBM Champion for Power Systems

www.iInTheCloud.com - Commercial IBM i and Power System Hosting www.iDevCloud.com - Personal IBM i Hosting www.Frankeni.com - IBM i and Power Systems Consulting.
--
This is the Midrange Systems Technical Discussion (MIDRANGE-L) mailing list To post a message email: MIDRANGE-L@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options,
visit: https://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/midrange-l
or email: MIDRANGE-L-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives at https://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l.

Please contact support@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx for any subscription related questions.

Help support midrange.com by shopping at amazon.com with our affiliate link: https://amazon.midrange.com