On Tue, 1 May 2012 10:28:33 -0500, Tom Marchant <m42tom-ibmm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 1 May 2012 07:33:49 -0500, Staller, Allan wrote: > >>I can see a techno-political use for a "penalty" service class. i.e. If >>a particular job exceeds the installation defined limits for a >>particular type of work, migrate to a service class just barely above >>discretionary, as a "punishment". > >IMO, most batch should be run in discretionary. The exception is >workload with turnaround requirements. These should be met with >response time goals. A "penalty" service class that is "just barely >above discretionary" makes no sense at all to me. > >When WLM has plenty of discretionary work to do, it is able to get >the most work out of the system. > 1) As someone already mentioned, there are legitimate applications where batch is every bit as important as online / interactive work. If you system is running at or near 100%, your not going to get that batch work done at all, or not within SLAs if it is discretionary. 2) While your idea may work fine in a 100% production LPAR only, most shops have LPARs where there is a mixture. If all batch is discretionary, what prioritizes production over test / development batch? I agree that test batch should usually be set to discretionary. I say usually because I'm sure there are some posts in the archives where people have removed discretionary and given it a low importance like 5 - and low velocity. You can search the archives for their reasons. Mark -- Mark Zelden - Zelden Consulting Services - z/OS, OS/390 and MVS mailto:m...@mzelden.com Mark's MVS Utilities: http://www.mzelden.com/mvsutil.html Systems Programming expert at http://expertanswercenter.techtarget.com/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
