On Tue, 18 Dec 2007 21:08:27 +0000, Ted MacNEIL wrote: >>CPU percentages are a much better methodology. They adjust with processor changes. Very cool. > >I disagree for two reasons: > >1. Some shops wish to ensure the same service for a test workload, regardless of how many times the processor is upgraded. > >2. What does a percentage mean when there are multiple machines in a SYSPLEX with varying capacities? > >That's why I prefer SU based resource classes, which do not (necessarily) have to be changed when a processor is upgraded. >
I calculated my minimums and caps based on a percentage of the MSU's available on the machine. The last time we upgraded to the z9, I had to adjust all the minimums and maximums based on the new machine. So going to a percentage scale will fit nicely in that scheme. And I never have to change them again based on a machine upgrade. I'm a monoplex, so I haven't any idea how this would be addressed in a sysplex of varying performance machines. I'd expect something to be in the doc concerning this very question though. I'll have a look and see... ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
