On Sat, 23 Sep 2006 00:25:39 +0000, Ted MacNEIL <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >If TSOP1 was not one of the highest priorities, response was erratic. >If the period was sized poorly, other workload (Production Batch, >Onlines, etc.) suffered. > >I used to do three periods, with the third as a MTTW. > >MTTW does not exist, except for DISCRETIONARY, under GOAL MODE.
Your point? I put third period TSO in discretionary. Long running FOCUS queries went there. So did some HCD transactions and big searches and compares. > >Also, with only 5 IMP's, there is a lot less granularity. Importance is not priority. It tells WLM who to take resources from when there are not enough to meet goals of higher importance work. > >Somebody said that the WLM does better with diverse workloads. >Due to my experience with it, I disagree. > >I have found that TSO is better served in a separate LPAR (within the >same SYSPLEX), rather than on with an IMS/CICS/DB2/etc workload. > >You either have to bump TSO up (hurting Production [especially Batch]), >or leave it so low that nobody is productive. > Trivial TSO should be high importance with an achievable good response time goal and a short duration. That won't hurt batch. Second period is probably lower importance. I'll bet it still doesn't use enough resources to appreciably hurt batch. Tom Marchant ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
