Mike, Sorry, my bad - I wasn't clear in my original note. I'm running both production and test work on both LPARs, but at different times. I can have any mix of production and test work running on both sides simultaneously. I was hoping for a way of dynamically swinging CPU resources to the LPAR running the production work and allowing the test work to wait, regardless of which LPAR each component is on.
Thanks for the suggestion, Rex -----Original Message----- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Mike Schwab Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2018 5:53 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [External] Re: cross LPAR priority and cycle stealing 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 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
