> -----Original Message----- > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Gibney, Dave > Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 2009 1:02 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: additional processor? > > Few faster maybe, but when few becomes one, it is time to run > :) away,. > > Dave Gibney > Information Technology Services > Washington State University
I'd say that 2 is the minimum number of CPs that I could ever live with. I've had too many times when a SYSSTC process went 100% CPU and locked up one CP. As to how many is "best", if there are few processes (address spaces), then fewer, faster, CPs are good because each process can get a lot of CPU power (e.g. legacy CICS work). But if you're running 100s of TSO users, it might actually be nicer to have more, less powerful, CPs. My reasoning (and it may well be wrong) is that there will be fewer task switches to service the larger number of processes. This should keep the cache and TLB "fresher". But, again, I don't know this for sure. -- John McKown Systems Engineer IV IT Administrative Services Group HealthMarkets(r) 9151 Boulevard 26 * N. Richland Hills * TX 76010 (817) 255-3225 phone * (817)-961-6183 cell [email protected] * www.HealthMarkets.com Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message may contain confidential or proprietary information. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. HealthMarkets(r) is the brand name for products underwritten and issued by the insurance subsidiaries of HealthMarkets, Inc. -The Chesapeake Life Insurance Company(r), Mid-West National Life Insurance Company of TennesseeSM and The MEGA Life and Health Insurance Company.SM ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
