On Sat, 23 Sep 2006 17:36:01 +0000, Ted MacNEIL <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Whether or not you feel WLM is somehow deficient at managing such >>segregated workloads is pretty >>much immaterial (again, IMO) and of course as usual, YMMV. > >When I implemented GOAL MODE at the Bank of Nova Scotia in 1999, there >were a lot of deficiencies. > >Mixing TSO, Onlines, and Batch were one! >We ended up moving TSO to two LPAR's (Generic Resource) and taking >Batch off of two, to guarantee throughput. > >One image was also restricted to no TSO using ACF2 resource rules. > >We have seen similar problems where I am now. >TSO does not work well with Onlines and Batch on a constrained environment. >(Yes, I know, but I can only recommend the upgrade, not approve it). Your experience. Mine differs. > >AND, don't get me started on MTTW. >We trip over this all the time. Don't you have any discretionary work? Hard to imagine. >We end up boosting some Batch to a higher Service Class, which hurts >those left behind. >AND, we end up with so much moved to high priority, that it doesn't >matter anymore. > >And, TSO just makes it worse. >If you have it high, so it is not erratic, you hurt everybody else. High? Are you talking about a velocity goal? Importance? IMHO, first period TSO should be high importance. Maybe not highest. Don't confuse importance with priority. >If you let it run low, you screw productivity. >Neither is a good thing. >So, it's better served on another LPAR without production. > What kind of resources does that LPAR have that are not available to other LPARs? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
