I really despise the "system defaults" of REL 1500, or REL 5000. They seem (were) provided by someone ignorant of how the scheduler actually works. Rob has a nice paper showing the damage. Though ibm might try and code around how this damage impacts your system, changing these defaults to realistic (ABSolute) values will minimize impact when there is a problem. Of course, none of this matters when you have too much money, too much resource, and no problems. Benchmark systems comes to mind.
And my vote is de-prioritizing. Dean, David (I/S) wrote:
Is there a rule of thumb on setting relative shares for zVM users? Default has them at 100, we have
increased important ones to 200. I noticed the system users have very high shares, e.g. 1500. So, when you are prioritizing, or de-prioritizing should you go in small incremental (25-50) or larger (say 100, 200)?
David M. Dean Information Systems BlueCross BlueShield Tennnessee ----------------------------------------------------- Please see the following link for the BlueCross BlueShield of Tennessee E-mail disclaimer: http://www.bcbst.com/email_disclaimer.shtm ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For more information on Linux on System z, visit http://wiki.linuxvm.org/
---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For more information on Linux on System z, visit http://wiki.linuxvm.org/
<<attachment: BARTON.vcf>>
