Shane wrote:
Jacky Hofbauer wrote:
I think that it is not satisfactory but it is better than the Lpar single
Softcapping.
Also I noted a problem: if just one LPAR in a group undergoes a loop of CPU,
all the group can be "softcapped": It is dangerous!
This is inherent with any capping solution. Same thing happens with
resource groups under WLM - if one task "gets away" everyone else (in
the group) suffers.
What are you looking for - an ability to hard cap particular LPAR(s) (as
a member of a capacity group) ???.
Sounds reasonable to me - why don't you raise a requirement ???.
Is the individual LPAR defined capacity value now *ignored* when a
capacity group value is present???
--
Edward E Jaffe
Phoenix Software International, Inc
5200 W Century Blvd, Suite 800
Los Angeles, CA 90045
310-338-0400 x318
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.phoenixsoftware.com/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
