I'm just wondering about what you want to achieve. Do you want to meet your service levels or do you want consistency.
Without hard capping Bank 1 can use whatever capacity Bank 2 is not using, and vice versa. With hard capping any unused capacity in one LPAR cannot be used by the other. That means you batch goal will continue to be missed, and in all likelihood the completion time will blow out further. But at least you will consistently miss your goals :) Capping LPARs is a way of denying service to a workload. It doesn't create any extra capacity for the other LPARs as the share of MIPS is still governed by the weights. You need to be certain the weights are set appropriately before looking at capping. Ron > -----Original Message----- > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of gsg > Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2008 3:25 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: [IBM-MAIN] Capping LPARs > > We process for two banks and they each have their own Production and > Test > LPARs. We have a window that we would like to finish processing in, > but > periodically miss the goal by a few minutes. Management is pressing > for a > reason why we are missing it. There are sooooo many variables to > determine > this, so I'm suggesting that we cap our systems to hopefully create a > more > consistent environment. What are the Pros/Cons of capping the LPARs? > > TIA > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
