On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 11:22:56 -0600, Staller, Allan wrote: > >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. >
We had similar issues. Test and development JOBs sitting in an initiator getting no service for hours. Tying up an initiator that could be used for production JOBs. And when they stack up, taking up more and more initiators, what do you do ??? I added resource groups. Our service classes were fairly well aligned by development, test, QA and production, so adding resource groups was really easy. If you don't have this alignment, you'll probably want to work towards it before trying resource groups. In our case, I added minimums and caps to our test and development service classes. I didn't want development and test stuff just sitting there. I also added caps so those same JOBs can't take over the machine. I let some of the critical path in those QA streams step into production service classes to ensure they flowed, but only those things critical to flow. You'll have difficulties with this if your machine is heavily loaded. If this is the case, you're going to see test and development get in the way of your production work. It's a balancing act. There is no perfect solution, only minimizing the pain. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
