What I think the authors were trying to say in vastly overstated English
is:
WLM managed inits are designed to ramp up more slowly than work is
arriving and ramp down more slowly than work is departing the JESPLEX.
HTH,
When to Continue Using JES-managed Job Classes
Snippage
1- When the
On Mon, 8 Mar 2010 21:03:06 -0600, R Hey wrote:
>goal-based initiator mngmnt
>
>http://www-
>03.ibm.com/servers/resources/servers_eserver_zseries_zos_wlm_pdf_cmgbatch
>_pdf_wlm_goal_based_initiator_management.pdf
>
>says:
>
>>
>
>When to Continue Using JES-managed Job Classes
>
>When the depth of
goal-based initiator mngmnt
http://www-
03.ibm.com/servers/resources/servers_eserver_zseries_zos_wlm_pdf_cmgbatch
_pdf_wlm_goal_based_initiator_management.pdf
says:
>
When to Continue Using JES-managed Job Classes
When the depth of the job class queue is unrelated to the
number of initiators
On Tue, 19 Jan 2010 18:21:20 -0600, R Hey wrote:
>I had a look & it seems
>%80+ JES inits
>%20- WLM inits
>
>Also a HOTBATCH SC is used, so 7 SC is used for all batch.
>
It seems like you should be working at getting this reversed. :-)
Seriously, you should focus on one way or the other. If W
IMO, that is too many. 3 SC sounds about right. WLM, JES, HOT. Again,
that is the technical viewpoint. The business might have a different
one.
One thing you may notice, depending on the actual workloads is a "round
robin" amongst the service classes. At the end of 15 minutes or so, you
will see t
I had a look & it seems
%80+ JES inits
%20- WLM inits
Also a HOTBATCH SC is used, so 7 SC is used for all batch.
Rgds,
Rez
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu wi
On Sun, 17 Jan 2010 23:20:05 -0600, R Hey wrote:
>I know WLM & JES inits should not use the same SC, but what would be
>the 'cost' of doing so?
>
>Like have 3 SC : BAThi/md/lo for both WLM & JES inits.
It depends. With WLM inits the queue delay is part of the equation in
determining the PI.
On Sun, 17 Jan 2010 20:54:52 -0600, R Hey wrote:
>
>> It's a side issue... but if they
>
>I didnt get your point here.
>Are you saying I should use less SC for JES inits alone?
>
My point was this: Most shops who convert to WLM INITs do it for all work
or the vast majority of their work.
I know WLM & JES inits should not use the same SC, but what would be
the 'cost' of doing so?
The results are unpredictable, and most likely detrimental to defined
performance specifications.
Under WLM managed inits, JES queue delay samples are part of the
calculations used to determine if the
I know WLM & JES inits should not use the same SC, but what would be
the 'cost' of doing so?
Like have 3 SC : BAThi/md/lo for both WLM & JES inits.
TIA,
Rez
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
se
Hi Mark,
> You shouldn't mix WLM and JES2 controlled inits in the same service class
They are not.
Jes inits use BATxx , WLM inits use BATWLMxx.
Both WLM & JES inits have 'historically' used HI/MD/LO SC.
Some even have tried to use for 3 more SC : BATTSTHI/MD/LO.
But so far I've mngd not to d
CICS/IMS *may* be managed at the AS level (as Mark pointed out, this
could be very bad) or at the transaction level (a rising tide lifts all
boats).
Most of the work performed by DB2, IIRC, is done under a "user" TCB
(transaction, enclave?, ddf?) and charged to the requestor, not the DB2
AS.
May
NO. 2 engines.
Just out of curiosity, is this a single engine LPAR?
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives
In my case, the WLM because that is how I have defined the SC to WLM.
Which Service Class takes the beating, the WLM managed one or the JES
managed?
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email
I have learned to live with the inevitable!
>Still haven't been able to completely eliminate the "alternating
distribution" entirely.
You won't be able to.
Removing MTTW was, in my opinion, a major mistake.
--
For IBM-MAIN su
On Fri, 15 Jan 2010 13:55:11 -0600, Staller, Allan
wrote:
>
>Assuming the system was 100% busy, those lower service classes might
>not get any service at all. Not just "switch between" one or more
>service
>classes.
>
>
>This is true. In my case there is enough for one or the other, but
>seldom
ansas City
(816) 760-7632
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On
> Behalf Of Staller, Allan
> Sent: Friday, January 15, 2010 1:38 PM
> To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
> Subject: Re: WLM BATCH rules
>
>
> This can
Which Service Class takes the beating, the WLM managed one or the JES managed?
Yea, I don't understand why IBM took out MTTW save Dis.
--- On Fri, 1/15/10, Staller, Allan wrote:
From: Staller, Allan
Subject: Re: WLM BATCH rules
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Date: Friday, January 15, 2010,
>Still haven't been able to completely eliminate the "alternating distribution"
>entirely.
You won't be able to.
Removing MTTW was, in my opinion, a major mistake.
-
Too busy driving to stop for gas!
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe /
Assuming the system was 100% busy, those lower service classes might
not get any service at all. Not just "switch between" one or more
service
classes.
This is true. In my case there is enough for one or the other, but
seldom both (usually about 2/3 of what the batch workloads "want").
Also
>Not only that, the "fair share algorithm" change to the dispatcher
in MVS/ESA V5 ensures that no address spaces at the same DP as other address
spaces will monopolize the CPU.
Yes, but getting rid of MTTW gave it a major hurt!
-
Too busy driving to stop for gas!
On Fri, 15 Jan 2010 13:38:05 -0600, Staller, Allan
wrote:
>
>This can't be right. Adjustments to goals / DPs are made every 10
>seconds.
>Could you imagine if online systems in different service classes with
>the same importance behaved this way? For example, CICSPROD with
>IMP=2 and DB2PROD w
On Fri, 15 Jan 2010 13:18:04 -0600, Mark Zelden
wrote:
>On Fri, 15 Jan 2010 10:58:46 -0600, Staller, Allan
>wrote:
>
>>I have recently been going through a similar situation with 2 different
>>service classes. Each has the same importance, but different velocities.
>>Each service class can consu
This can't be right. Adjustments to goals / DPs are made every 10
seconds.
Could you imagine if online systems in different service classes with
the same importance behaved this way? For example, CICSPROD with
IMP=2 and DB2PROD with IMP=2.
1) Generally (unless you are really really huge) CI
On Fri, 15 Jan 2010 10:58:46 -0600, Staller, Allan
wrote:
>I have recently been going through a similar situation with 2 different
>service classes. Each has the same importance, but different velocities.
>Each service class can consume all of the available CPU (after online,
>etc.) at any given
>What has been occurring is that during the RMF interval, the 1st service class
>will consume all available CPU and the 2nd will receive none.
>A short time later, WLM will adjust the dispatching priority and the 2nd
>service class will receive all available CPU, the first none.
This is an unfor
I have recently been going through a similar situation with 2 different
service classes. Each has the same importance, but different velocities.
Each service class can consume all of the available CPU (after online,
etc.) at any given time.
A review of my performance results has shown that over
On Fri, 15 Jan 2010 08:44:01 -0600, Tom Marchant wrote:
>
>It might make sense to look at response time goals. You can account for
>variability in run time with lower percentiles. It may be that your "LO"
>jobs should run in discretionary.
I should have added that if you insist on using velocity
> To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
> Subject: Re: WLM BATCH rules
>
> On Fri, 15 Jan 2010 08:27:11 -0600, Mark Zelden wrote:
>
> >On Thu, 14 Jan 2010 21:15:17 -0600, R Hey wrote:
> >
> >>Hi,
> >>
> >>For a heavy (100+ jobs) nightly batch runs,
On Fri, 15 Jan 2010 08:27:11 -0600, Mark Zelden wrote:
>On Thu, 14 Jan 2010 21:15:17 -0600, R Hey wrote:
>
>>Hi,
>>
>>For a heavy (100+ jobs) nightly batch runs, my client has 6 SC :
>>
>>BATHI ,BATMD , BATLO: JES init
>>BATWLMHI ,BATWLMMD ,BATWLMLO : WLM init
>>
>>Used by di
On Thu, 14 Jan 2010 21:15:17 -0600, R Hey wrote:
>Hi,
>
>For a heavy (100+ jobs) nightly batch runs, my client has 6 SC :
>
>BATHI ,BATMD , BATLO: JES init
>BATWLMHI ,BATWLMMD ,BATWLMLO : WLM init
>
>Used by different job classes.
>
>Is it better to use:
>
>1- same IMP for al
"R Hey" wrote in message
news:...
> Hi,
>
> For a heavy (100+ jobs) nightly batch runs, my client has 6 SC :
>
> BATHI ,BATMD , BATLO: JES init
> BATWLMHI ,BATWLMMD ,BATWLMLO : WLM init
>
> Used by different job classes.
>
> Is it better to use:
>
> 1- same IMP for all,
Hi,
For a heavy (100+ jobs) nightly batch runs, my client has 6 SC :
BATHI ,BATMD , BATLO: JES init
BATWLMHI ,BATWLMMD ,BATWLMLO : WLM init
Used by different job classes.
Is it better to use:
1- same IMP for all, & use different Velocity,
or
2- different IMP & Vel,
or ...
33 matches
Mail list logo
