On 8/2/07, Anne Crabtree <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > We have five linux instances running, two of which aren't really being > used, two are production and one is test. In the test linux instance, > they are running a web app (which I know nothing about). At certain > times during the day, this test instance will take close to 100% of the > IFL. We want to back it off so that it can take no more than 50% to see > how that affects them. Would it be logical to issue SET SHARE linux > RELATIVE 50 since it is defaulting to REL 100? Will that do what I > think and limit it to half of what the other virtual machines "get"?
Really depends on what you want to achieve. * When you set REL 50 and others have REL 100, the one with smaller share will get only half of what another would get *if there is CPU shortage* It's something you do for test versus production servers * If you want to "kneecap" the virtual machine to see what the application behavior would have been when you did not have all that spare capacity, then a share with LIMITHARD is useful (and you want that absolute% because otherwise you have a moving target). And for virtual machines with multiple virtual CPU's, you need to realize share is divided by the number of virtual CPU's When a virtual machine is looping or doing useless work that you want to get rid of, then FORCE is more appropriate ;-) But yes, I have sometimes set virtual machines to REL 1 LIMITHARD to let them run until I have time to start diagnose the problem. Rob -- Rob van der Heij Velocity Software, Inc http://velocitysoftware.com/
