If NOLIMIT is set then it's possible for the share leftover when everyone has had their SHARE satisfied can be consumed by a single virtual machine. Using LIMITSOFT means this leftover will be shared according to the value set. Imagine an apple pie. After everyone has had 1 slice and there's some left over, then with NOLIMIT a greedy individual can gobble the whole lot. However, with a soft limit they have to be nice and share it with the other hungry souls (if there are still hungry people).
-----Original Message----- Our current workload consists of a dozen Linux Oracle servers in a 1-cpu LPAR. CPU usage stays around 50% with very occasional spikes to 100%. I feel we have good resource allocation for these servers via SHARE REL. Default MAX is NOLIMIT and my question is whether LIMITSOFT would be of any benefit. Documentation I have read so far indicate that CPU will be limited unless unused resources are available, which seems to be the same as NOLIMIT, where other servers are getting their allocated minimums satisfied first. I'm sure its more involved - can anyone expand on this? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For LINUX-390 subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: INFO LINUX-390 or visit http://www.marist.edu/htbin/wlvindex?LINUX-390
