On Jan 17, 2006, at 12:06 PM, Hal Merritt wrote:
Point is that it does. More, it makes its decisions pragmatically
based
on the reality at that point in time.
No such process can get it 100% right %100 of the time. But it should
consistently do it far better than a human after the fact. For one
thing, it is difficult for a human to weigh all of the factors in a
constantly shifting environment.
Consider: SORT A kicks off, talks a look at the environment, and
elects
to use x resources. Process B kicks off and drives up the system
paging
rate. Sort C now kicks off, sees the problem, and elects to use a
different mix of resources. Again, SORT C is looking at the
environment
and the nature of the task at hand and will try to make the most
efficient use of the resources available. Enter Process D which again
drives up the system page rate. Now SORT E has a completely new
challenge.
After the fact, we might second guess what SORT A did. But is that
really what we want to do? Or should we consider the collective
behavior
of all of the sorts in the mix?
Just my thoughts.
HTH and good luck.
---------------------------------SNIP------------------------
Excellent and to add to things there are politics (why isn't my job
done? (NOW!)) and there is also issue when it comes to arm stealing
(or other performance DASD items.
I agree you have to find a middle ground and then raise the shields.
Ed
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
