On Wed, 5 Mar 2008 23:45:02 -0800, Walter Marguccio
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Scott,
sorry for being persintent on this, but what would you then recommend for
RESMIL
on a basic sysplex with 3 LPARs :
a) 'hot potato' RESMIL=OFF (fast RSA on the ring, but CPU overhead)
b) RESMIL=0 on one LPAR
- Original Message
From: Scott Fagen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, 6 March, 2008 2:42:48 PM
Without knowing a whole lot more about your system, I really can't make a
'recommendation'. What I can do is give you several principles that might
help
you make a decision:
- Three
Anthony,
I read with interest your post because we have your same environment (3 z/OS
1.7 LPARs in a
basic sysplex) and the performance of GRS ring is not the best. Specifically, I
see XCF delays using
RMF PM, the average value is about 7-8% on the PROD lpar, on the others it goes
over 20 %.
On Tue, 4 Mar 2008 09:48:22 -0600, Anthony Fletcher
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We have a GRS environment using XCF (ie not using a CF) with three LPARS
connected. We had changed the RESMIL value to OFF to try and improve
responsiveness. That worked, but the XCFAS address space CPU consumption
went
On Wed, 2008-03-05 at 08:21 -0600, Scott Fagen wrote:
Some things that seemed to make sense.
Pretty good guess-work for some-one who doesn't work for IBM, I'd
reckon ... :0)
Shane...
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff /
On Thu, 6 Mar 2008 09:29:22 +1000, Shane [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 2008-03-05 at 08:21 -0600, Scott Fagen wrote:
Some things that seemed to make sense.
Pretty good guess-work for some-one who doesn't work for IBM, I'd
reckon ... :0)
Shane...
I was going to say that almost anyone could
On Wed, 2008-03-05 at 20:45 -0600, Scott Fagen wrote:
I was going to say that almost anyone could figure it out from the Planning:
GRS book, but
after reading 3.2.2.2.3 Residency time value (RESMIL), I can now understand
the confusion that was the genesis of this thread.
Do I have to
- Original Message
From: Scott Fagen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In the case where all of the systems had RESMIL=OFF,
GRS basically played 'hot potato' with the RSA, sending it off to
the next system as fast as it could.
Now, changing one system to RESMIL=0 turned on the tuning _for that one
We have a GRS environment using XCF (ie not using a CF) with three LPARS
connected. We had changed the RESMIL value to OFF to try and improve
responsiveness. That worked, but the XCFAS address space CPU consumption
went up. We decided to change the RESMIL value to 0 since that does leave
the
From what I remember, RESMIL 0 should adapt and be self-tuning. I think
that the last time I used it we set it to RESMIL of 3. At the time, we
were a bit distrustful of letting the system determine how things should
be done. The whole thing worked pretty well up until we started adding
more
-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
05/03/2008 05:34 a.m.
Please respond to
IBM Mainframe Discussion List IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
To
IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
cc
Subject
Re: GRS RESMIL SETTING
From what I remember, RESMIL 0 should adapt and be self-tuning. I think
that the last time I used it we set it to RESMIL of 3
11 matches
Mail list logo
