On Wed, 23 Apr 2014 04:56:28 -0500, Anthony Fletcher wrote: >It is a while since there had been any discussion of appropriate values of >RESMIL and its effect on CPU consumptiom. It appears that there was general >concensus that RESMIL(OFF) would be a bad idea, and that RESMIL(0) would be >best since it should be managed dynamically. >In a 3-LPAR plex with GRS linking the 3 (not via VF) then surely whatever >happens in one LPAR will happen in the other two, but does that mean that if >GRS dynamically sets the RESMIL to 0 it will cause increased CPU consumption >in all 3 LPARS? Might it be better to set RESMIL to, say 5 so that it never >goes too far down?
Hmmmm. From a long association of messing with GRS ring, I've come to the conclusion that it doesn't pay to screw with GRS ring. Given your employer, you may have better access to any (apparently non-existent) lower level tools to see what is actually happening in a ring, but otherwise, it may be best to leave well enough alone. Changes to ring parameters can be difficult to remediate in need - although 3-system is certainly better than some I've seen. If you are seeing increased CPU consumption in GRS address space(s), treat that as a symptom of some other (major ?) problem, not the base problem. Rings can be very sensitive to things like small partitions - sandpit getting single digit CPU share say due to weights. And maybe even just one CPU to make it worse. Empirical evidence suggests capping events can severely adversely impact all the systems in a ring. I had protracted discussions with GRS support about this, but they were unable/unwilling to provide tools that would allow evidence to be collected. Maybe you will have better luck. Shane ... ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
