Hi Dave,

It's very difficult to tell you where the bottlenecks are when I can't see the 
values for myself, but generally, you can get away with some things in a lake 
than you can in a swimming pool.  The velocities are all relative, so 90 is 
still 90, just like if you were using the old IPS/ICS, where you were dealing 
in dispatching priorities, the numbers are meaningful relative to themselves.  
As long as the system doesn't still "think" it has 20% more than it actually 
does (i.e. still thinks it has 15) :) 

When you downgraded, did you have (and do you still have) any specialty 
processors?  They continue to run full speed even after the downgrade.  Since 
you have a 5-way, is it possible that not every one of the processors was 
downgraded equally?  I'm pretty sure you can check it in RMF to be sure.  One 
of our clients had a 6 way z13 that was downgraded and there was an error that 
resulted in 4 REALLY slow processors and 2 (much) faster ones.  Luckily it was 
an error we discovered in the benchmarking, but IBM had already left for the 
day.  (we called them back in:))  Strangely enough, we didn't discover the 
error until multiple really heavily loaded tests were started.

Assuming IBM got better at the process by now, but you never know.  Anyway, if 
Adabas is at 90/1 and I assume that your com-plete (or CICS) follows closely 
behind (Maybe 85 or 80/1?), and any brokers and/or natural servers are (at 
least) higher than production and/or normal batch, and of course your TSO users 
are also lower than the SAG stuff, then things should be okay.  It also could 
be something simple like you have things losing the thread before they were 
ready and you end up re-doing a lot of work when they come back in.  

Is the slowdown apparent in just the on-lines or is it noticeable across the 
whole system?  Does batch also seem to be affected (i.e. you dropped 20% of the 
system, but how badly was batch affected?  You can compare some jobs from 
before and after the downgrade that are fairly constant to tell.  Your weekly 
Adabas backups would be a good indicator of the batch processing effects.  The 
way to "fix" things could be wildly different if depending on who is affected 
and how.  It could be that you had REALLY BIG buffers defined for Adabas and 
when you had a lot of extra capacity it didn't matter, but maybe now it's 
spending more time shuffling things around and reading really far ahead for 
tasks that just won't be able to take advantage of it, so more busywork ends up 
happening than actually productive work.  Again, it's really hard to tell 
without more information.  

Sometimes what happens is that people keep running SQL queries and pound the 
system just as hard as they would when you had the capacity to spare.  Maybe 
they didn't get the word that they have 20% less to work with.  It helps if you 
can limit them by splitting them away from the normal "good guy" regular Joe 
users.

Can you tell who the big users are that are getting you?  Do you run REVIEW or 
TRIM so that you can see who is causing the (most) overhead?

If you want to contact me offline, please feel free to do so.  I'll try to help 
you all I can.

Brian


On Tue, 13 Oct 2020 21:27:30 +0000, Gibney, Dave <[email protected]> wrote:

>It has been quite some time since I had to worry about my WLM policy. We've 
>had ample capacity since 2007. Now, as We begin to wind down, we have reduced 
>our contracted MSU capacity.
>We dropped from 15 to 12 on an 5 way z13S-N05. My WLM policy, last seriously 
>adjusted in 2007 when we moved to a z9-L03 has velocities ranging from a high 
>of 90 (Adabas, Imp 1)   down to 5 (BATCH Imp 5)
>We are experiencing just a minor amount of performance pain. It strikes me 
>that perhaps some of my higher velocity goals (90, 70, 60, 50) may be 
>unattainable under the now reduced capacity.
>
>What is the high end for possible, single threaded (Adabas) velocity here? Or, 
>where should I be reading in current manuals. I was better at this 15 years 
>ago.
>
>Dave Gibney
>Information Technology Services
>Washington State University
>
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
>send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Reply via email to