> I've seen earlier items about Healthchecker and its ESQA checking, but I > have a general question to which I haven't been able to find the > information in the manuals. > > Given that ESQA will just overflow into ECSA is there any real reason > not to allocate ESQA fairly low so that it is always at 100%, and then > size/monitor ECSA for the combined requirements? I am aware that that > would not be a good thing below the line, but I haven't read of any > clear reason to 'tune' ESQA rather than ESQA/ECSA as a combined area.
Since CSA/ECSA does not overflow to SQA/ESQA, a sufficiently sized SQA/ESQA prevents CSA/ECSA exhaustion from causing SQA/ESQA exhaustion. So a storage leak in CSA/ECSA or runaway allocator of CSA/ECSA wouldn't cause SQA/ESQA exhaustion. Whether or not this provides any signicant benefit to system reliability is difficult to say. My guess would be that if you exhaust CSA/ESCA your system is likely to be doomed anyway. Also, overflow of SQA/ESQA to CSA/ECSA may result in slightly longer pathlengths for some request to allocate and free SQA/ESQA storage. Whether this would result in any measurable performance degradation with your workload would be difficult to say. My guess would be that the degradation would be insignificant. It might be possible to construct an artificial testcase workload where the degradation is measurable. Jim Mulder z/OS System Test IBM Corp. Poughkeepsie, NY ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
