On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 11:27:43 -0600, McKown, John wrote: >> -----Original Message----- >> Sent: Monday, December 17, 2007 11:23 AM >> >> <snip> >> Two words: resource groups. >> </snip> >> >> I am generally opposed to resource groups, however, they do have their >> uses. I find them useful for your purpose (guaranteeing a minimum amount >> of service). I do not find them useful for "capping" a workload. >> >> The drawbacks I see are: >> >> 1) The specifications are in RAW service units( last I heard) rather >> than weighted service units. >> >> 2) They must be constantly adjusted whenever a processor changes. > >In z/OS 1.8, it appears that I can make an RG based on CPU% instead of >MSUs. Yes - and it works magically for the specific purpose you have in mind. (At least it did for us for the same kind of thing recently, also under z/OS 1.8.) The CPU% is of the total - if you have more than one processor then your total is more than a single engine, so adjust your calculations accordingly. (We have a 6-way and were off by a factor of 6 until we adjusted; then it hit spot-on and worked nicely since then.) Sorry to see your sysplex disappear over this... ;) -- Tom Schmidt
---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
