Hard cap the test system, soft cap the production system? Then the test system can't exceed its percent, even if the CPU is not 100%. The soft cap would allow the production system to get extra cycles if the test system isn't using its full share. On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 4:13 PM Martin Packer <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Then the two WLMs can’t cooperate - and aren’t even aware of each other’s > state. :-( > > Manual shifting the weights - via BCPii - might be doable. > > Cheers, Martin > > Sent from my iPad > > > On 28 Aug 2018, at 22:11, Pommier, Rex <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Hi Martin, > > > > Sorry, no sysplex. > > > > Rex > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[email protected]] On > Behalf Of Martin Packer > > Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2018 3:59 PM > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: [External] Re: cross LPAR priority and cycle stealing > > > > > > > > Are these LPARs in the same Sysplex? Two beneficial effects if they are: > > > > 1) You could - with IRD Weight Management - have weights shifted between > > the LPARs. > > > > 2) Sysplex PI for important works comes into play. > > > > Cheers, Martin > > > > Sent from my iPad > > > >> On 28 Aug 2018, at 21:52, Pommier, Rex <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> Hello list, > >> > >> Hypothetical scenario is a single machine with 2 LPARs on it, each LPAR > > is defined as having 50% of the capacity of the entire machine, uncapped > > across the board. In this scenario, if both LPAR1 and LPAR2 are running > > flat out, each LPAR will take 50% of the machine. If one of the LPARs is > > busy and the other isn't doing anything, the busy LPAR will "steal" > cycles > > from the not busy one. That's the easy part. Here's where my thoughts > get > > fuzzy. Is there a way to differentiate between high priority work on one > > LPAR and low priority work on the other LPAR. Here's what I'd like to > do: > > Say I'm running a bunch of production on one LPAR and a bunch of test > work > > on the other one. I'd like to be able to steal cycles from the test LPAR > > and give them to the production one. I know WLM handles this within an > > LPAR, making sure the high priority work gets the cycles it needs, but is > > there a mechanism where I can do this across multiple LPARs? If there > is, > > can somebody point me to the right place for learning how to configure > this > > to happen automatically? > >> > >> I have higher and lower priority work alternating between multiple LPARs > > and would like the machine to be able to better balance the workloads so > > that regardless of which LPAR the high priority work is on, it gets the > CPU > > necessary. > >> > >> TIA, > >> > >> Rex > >> > >> > >> The information contained in this message is confidential, protected > from > > disclosure and may be legally privileged. If the reader of this message > is > > not the intended recipient or an employee or agent responsible for > > delivering this message to the intended recipient, you are hereby > notified > > that any disclosure, distribution, copying, or any action taken or action > > omitted in reliance on it, is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. > If > > you have received this communication in error, please notify us > immediately > > by replying to this message and destroy the material in its entirety, > > whether in electronic or hard copy format. Thank you. > >> > >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, > >> send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN > >> Unless stated otherwise above: > > IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number > 741598. > > Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 > 3AU > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, > > send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN > > > > The information contained in this message is confidential, protected from > disclosure and may be legally privileged. If the reader of this message is > not the intended recipient or an employee or agent responsible for > delivering this message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified > that any disclosure, distribution, copying, or any action taken or action > omitted in reliance on it, is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If > you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately > by replying to this message and destroy the material in its entirety, > whether in electronic or hard copy format. Thank you. > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, > > send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO > > IBM-MAINUnless stated otherwise above: > IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number > 741598. > Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, > send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
-- Mike A Schwab, Springfield IL USA Where do Forest Rangers go to get away from it all? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
