u] On
Behalf Of Norman Hollander on DesertWiz
Sent: Friday, June 25, 2010 12:51 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Subject: Re: WLM question that I'm afraid I know the answer to
Need to make a correction. MAX has to be 1 (WLM won't allow zero).
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Di
That is correct, I should have said MIN=0, or just leave it blank.
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf
Of Greg Shirey
Sent: Friday, June 25, 2010 Friday 8:07 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Subject: Re: WLM question that I'm afr
Need to make a correction. MAX has to be 1 (WLM won't allow zero).
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf
Of Pommier, Rex R.
Sent: Friday, June 25, 2010 Friday 9:43 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Subject: Re: WLM question tha
: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Subject: Re: WLM question that I'm afraid I know the answer to
>Is there any way to force a job to swap out, even if the computer has
lots of spare CPU cycles? I think the answer is "no", but thought it
was worth asking.
E ,QUIESCE
Or:
E ,Q
But, the re
-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Subject: Re: WLM question that I'm afraid I know the answer to
QUIESCE the task will work, if it is swappable. If non-swappable,
create a
ServiceClass
(such as SWAPOUT) that points to a Resource Group (such as RG_SWAP) with
a
maximum of ZERO
Service Units specified. Then
If you attempt to create a Resource Group with a maximum of zero service
units, message IWMAM515 is generated:
Maximum capacity must be an integer in the range 1 - 999,999. (IWMAM515)
Greg Shirey
Ben E. Keith Co.
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:ibm-m.
>Is there any way to force a job to swap out, even if the computer has lots of
>spare CPU cycles? I think the answer is "no", but thought it
was worth asking.
E ,QUIESCE
Or:
E ,Q
But, the real question is why is there a contention when there is spare
capacity.
The above addresses the symptom
ssage-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf
Of Pommier, Rex R.
Sent: Thursday, June 24, 2010 Thursday 8:31 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Subject: WLM question that I'm afraid I know the answer to
Hello list,
Is there any way to force a job to swap out, e
Yes, just QUIESCE the job.
Adam
--
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 at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main
Hello list,
Is there any way to force a job to swap out, even if the computer has
lots of spare CPU cycles? I think the answer is "no", but thought it
was worth asking.
We are having major slowdown problems trying to run disk-based cloning
of Oracle databases on a DMX-4 that is being shared with
"Jim McAlpine" wrote in message
news:...
> On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 11:16 AM, Jim McAlpine
wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 10:54 AM, Jim McAlpine
wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>>
> >>
> >> So can I still have the response time goals and add the resource
cap or
> >> is it one or the other.
> >>
You can do as Kees said. But in WLM you put your goals according to your
business objectives. I have worked and work on Dallas systems (or
P390 / FLEX) also and the most important work in that environment
(other than the OS tasks) is usually TSO.
So you might want to consider changing TSO to Im
>Is there a way to limit the cpu resources used by CICS in this scenario.
Yes.
Use region goals, and a resource group.
I assume it's not production, or else you have to live with it.
-
Too busy driving to stop for gas!
--
For IBM
On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 11:16 AM, Jim McAlpine wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 10:54 AM, Jim McAlpine wrote:
>
>>
>>>
>>
>> So can I still have the response time goals and add the resource cap or
>> is it one or the other.
>>
>> Jim McAlpine
>>
>
> It's OK, I've found what I wanted.
>
> Jim
On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 10:54 AM, Jim McAlpine wrote:
>
>>
>
> So can I still have the response time goals and add the resource cap or is
> it one or the other.
>
> Jim McAlpine
>
It's OK, I've found what I wanted.
Jim McAlpine
--
On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 10:44 AM, Vernooij, CP - SPLXM wrote:
> "Jim McAlpine" wrote in message
> news:...
> > We use the Dallas RDP for development so our guest z/OS system has
> only 1
> > cpu assigned. This doesn't cause a problem for most circumstances
> except
> > when one of our develope
"Jim McAlpine" wrote in message
news:...
> We use the Dallas RDP for development so our guest z/OS system has
only 1
> cpu assigned. This doesn't cause a problem for most circumstances
except
> when one of our developers is running a debugging application in CICS
that
> CICS system can be using 9
We use the Dallas RDP for development so our guest z/OS system has only 1
cpu assigned. This doesn't cause a problem for most circumstances except
when one of our developers is running a debugging application in CICS that
CICS system can be using 95% of the cpu and all other applications are very
"McKown, John" wrote in message
news:...
> > -Original Message-
> > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
> > [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of Patrick Falcone
> > Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2009 2:22 PM
> > To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
>
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
> [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of Patrick Falcone
> Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2009 2:22 PM
> To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
> Subject: Re: WLM question - delayed due to CPUCAPPED
>
> Yes, some of
for
myself, as I find going back I'm asking myself sometimes why I did what I did.
I have Mainview, what was the screen name that you saw this in?
--- On Tue, 9/22/09, McKown, John wrote:
From: McKown, John
Subject: Re: WLM question - delayed due to CPUCAPPED
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
> [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of Patrick Falcone
> Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2009 1:20 PM
> To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
> Subject: Re: WLM question - delayed due to CPUCAPPED
>
> Hmm
Hmmm, you're probably right.
John, go to the field descriptor and hit PF1 and you should get the description
for the field.
--- On Tue, 9/22/09, Kelman, Tom wrote:
From: Kelman, Tom
Subject: Re: WLM question - delayed due to CPUCAPPED
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Date: Tuesday, Septemb
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On
> Behalf Of McKown, John
> Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2009 12:01 PM
> To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
> Subject: WLM question - delayed due to CPUCAPPED
>
> There is a field in Mainview for z/OS which shows me that a
and 0.81.
This is in SG24-6472-03 Systems Programmers Guide to WLM.
--- On Tue, 9/22/09, McKown, John wrote:
From: McKown, John
Subject: WLM question - delayed due to CPUCAPPED
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Date: Tuesday, September 22, 2009, 5:00 PM
There is a field in Mainview for z/OS which
There is a field in Mainview for z/OS which shows me that a slow running job
was delayed to "CPUCAP". Does anybody really know exactly what that means? We
are using Group Capacity to control our software costs. Is this PRSM and WLM
working together to cap the LPAR? Or is this just some WLM delay
On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 00:20:51 +, Ted MacNEIL wrote:
>>I calculated my minimums and caps based on a percentage of the MSU's
available on the machine. The last time we upgraded to the z9, I had to adjust
>all the minimums and maximums based on the new machine. So going to a
percentage scale wil
wed for a 100% increase in fluid storage."
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Ted MacNEIL
Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2007 3:08 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: WLM question.
>CPU percentages are a much better methodolog
On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 21:05:38 +1000, Shane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I have a bit of empathy with both Dave and Ted.
>Personally I like the idea of a percentage - even in an asymmetric
>sysplex. Much easier.
>Isolating specific work to a particular CEC ain't that hard. Setting
>meaningful sysplex
On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 09:09:19 +0100, Vernooy, C.P. - SPLXM
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"Mark Zelden" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>> On Tue, 18 Dec 2007 14:09:52 -0600, Dave Kopischke
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> >On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 11:22:56 -0600, Stall
I have a bit of empathy with both Dave and Ted.
Personally I like the idea of a percentage - even in an asymmetric
sysplex. Much easier.
Isolating specific work to a particular CEC ain't that hard. Setting
meaningful sysplex-wide goals gets interesting, but that's really a
different issue and has b
"Mark Zelden" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> On Tue, 18 Dec 2007 14:09:52 -0600, Dave Kopischke
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 11:22:56 -0600, Staller, Allan wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>I am generally opposed to resource groups, however, they do h
>I calculated my minimums and caps based on a percentage of the MSU's available
>on the machine. The last time we upgraded to the z9, I had to adjust
all the minimums and maximums based on the new machine. So going to a
percentage scale will fit nicely in that scheme. And I never have to change
On Tue, 18 Dec 2007 21:08:27 +, Ted MacNEIL wrote:
>>CPU percentages are a much better methodology. They adjust with
processor changes. Very cool.
>
>I disagree for two reasons:
>
>1. Some shops wish to ensure the same service for a test workload,
regardless of how many times the processor i
>CPU percentages are a much better methodology. They adjust with processor
>changes. Very cool.
I disagree for two reasons:
1. Some shops wish to ensure the same service for a test workload, regardless
of how many times the processor is upgraded.
2. What does a percentage mean when there are m
On Tue, 18 Dec 2007 14:09:52 -0600, Dave Kopischke
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 11:22:56 -0600, Staller, Allan wrote:
>
>>
>>I am generally opposed to resource groups, however, they do have their
>>uses. I find them useful for your purpose (guaranteeing a minimum amount
>>of ser
On Tue, 18 Dec 2007 14:14:24 -0600, Staller, Allan wrote:
>Dave,
>Check the archives for my subsequent post. It seems IBM has addressed
>these issues in z/OS 1.8
>
I saw that. CPU percentages are a much better methodology. They adjust
with processor changes. Very cool.
I'm working on an upgrade
Dave,
Check the archives for my subsequent post. It seems IBM has addressed
these issues in z/OS 1.8
See also:
ftp://ftp.software.ibm.com/eserver/zseries/zos/wlm/WLM_zOS_Release_8_Upd
ate.pdf
HTH,
>I am generally opposed to resource groups, however, they do have their
>uses. I find them useful
On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 11:22:56 -0600, Staller, Allan wrote:
>
>I am generally opposed to resource groups, however, they do have their
>uses. I find them useful for your purpose (guaranteeing a minimum amount
>of service). I do not find them useful for "capping" a workload.
>
>The drawbacks I see are
ehalf Of Tom Schmidt
> Sent: Monday, December 17, 2007 11:36 AM
> To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
> Subject: Re: WLM question.
>
>
> Sorry to see your sysplex disappear over this... ;)
>
> --
> Tom Schmidt
The parallel sysplex disappeared when nobody wanted to pony up for the
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tom Marchant
> Sent: Monday, December 17, 2007 3:08 PM
> To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
> Subject: Re: WLM question.
>
>
> On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 10:53:28 -0600, McKo
On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 10:53:28 -0600, McKown, John wrote:
>... I want to ensure that non-production work will receive CPU
>cycles. What is really wanted to to say that production batch will
>receive 60% of the cycles, Model office about 20% and test about 10%.
Yuck! What kind of goal is that?
I w
On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 12:07:10 -0500, Dave Thorn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> However, if the minimum is too
>large you may still impact production. (If it's on the same LPAR)
>
As will a weight that is too high on another LPAR if you don't have enough
CPU resources.
If the biggest reason to s
On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 11:16:00 -0600, Aaron Walker wrote:
>http://www.ibm.com/support/techdocs/atsmastr.nsf/WebIndex/FLASH10609
>
>Abstract: z/OS 1.9 introduced new support to improve z/OS availability.
>The support, called blocked workload support, is intended to allow
>small amounts of CPU to be
It seems like IBM has addressed my both of concerns in z/OS 1.8.
Unfortunately, I am still at 1.7 and haven't reviewed (until now) the
new
Capabilities.
Thanks for prompting me to review the info.
> I am generally opposed to resource groups, however, they do have their
> uses. I find them usefu
So, my question is, suppose we are in a high CPU use situation. In fact,
the CPU is running 100% and some jobs are not receiving any CPU.
Everything is running behind in service. That is, the PI for all batch
work is >1 . I want to ensure that non-production work will receive CPU
cycles. What is r
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tom Schmidt
> Sent: Monday, December 17, 2007 11:36 AM
> To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
> Subject: Re: WLM question.
>
>
> Sorry to see your
>The drawbacks I see are:
>1) The specifications are in RAW service units( last I heard) rather than
>weighted service units.
For years IBM has recommended that you no longer use the old SDC's. Rather, use
1 for SRB/CPU, .5 for IOC & 0 for MSO.
Resource classes use unnormalised CPU, only.
So,
On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 11:27:43 -0600, McKown, John wrote:
>> -Original Message-
>> Sent: Monday, December 17, 2007 11:23 AM
>>
>>
>> Two words: resource groups.
>>
>>
>> I am generally opposed to resource groups, however, they do have their
>> uses. I find them useful for your purpose (gua
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Staller, Allan
> Sent: Monday, December 17, 2007 11:23 AM
> To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
> Subject: Re: WLM question.
>
>
>
> Two words: resource groups.
>
Two words: resource groups.
I am generally opposed to resource groups, however, they do have their
uses. I find them useful for your purpose (guaranteeing a minimum amount
of service). I do not find them useful for "capping" a workload.
The drawbacks I see are:
1) The specifications are in RAW
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tom Schmidt
> Sent: Monday, December 17, 2007 11:14 AM
> To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
> Subject: Re: WLM question.
>
>
> John,
>
> Two words: resource gro
When you figure it out let me know. : )
Seriously, don't even try. Instead, look into defining a Resource
Group(s) for work that is at the bottom of the pile. If you REALLY want
it to get some CPU, define a minimum amount of service you want it to
get and WLM will try to do it for you. Howeve
On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 10:53:28 -0600, McKown, John
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>This vaguely relates to my previous sysplex questions. One of the
>reasons given to split our single image was to guarantee that the
>non-production work would receive some CPU cycles during high use
>periods (basically
John,
Two words: resource groups.
--
Tom Schmidt
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua
This vaguely relates to my previous sysplex questions. One of the
reasons given to split our single image was to guarantee that the
non-production work would receive some CPU cycles during high use
periods (basically month end). If was felt that using LPAR weights was a
way to do this. I am sure th
e, common sense
dictates the provider run at a higher priority than the requester.
db
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Ted MacNEIL
Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2007 8:43 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: WLM Question
>Ac
>usually set up service agreements to give the
customer a certain response time that it would be easier to manage to response
time goals.
Yes, but are you going to 'guarantee' sub-0.1?
And, when we looked into it, we were ending up with one CICS transaction class:
90% within 0.5.
You can't real
<< From John Chase >>
We run only around 6 - 7 million txns/day, and we haven't yet tried
transaction goals for CICS. Don't really see any need to try; velocity
goals seem to work fine. Especially since installing the z9, we've
consistently seen response times under 0.05 seconds.
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of Ted MacNEIL
>
> >You say your using "region mode" for CICS. Does that mean
> you haven't set up CICS for transaction response time
> processing? I would recommend that you do that. CICS will
> run a lot better th
>Actually I feel your IRLM should run in SYSSTC. Every request is going to go
>through that. You don't want to take a chance on it waiting for some TSO user
>for CPU.
Actually, that's what I said in my post (... all three address spaces in SYSSTC
...).
Also, what I said was that it all runs
>You say your using "region mode" for CICS. Does that mean you haven't set up
>CICS for transaction response time processing? I would recommend that you do
>that. CICS will run a lot better that way - in my opinion.
I would first 'clean up' the DB2 issues first.
And, when I first implemented
ailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Ted MacNEIL
Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2007 4:32 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: WLM Question
>For example, your IRLM address space must have higher priority than the
other DBMS address spaces.
That's not entirely accurate.
With the WLM, you have
2007 3:02 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: WLM Question
Hi
We work with CICS DB2 and IMS DBCTL
At the moment we use region mode for CICS.
Should I have one service class for CICS DB2 and IMS
Or one for CICS and one for DBMS's
Thanks in ad
>For example, your IRLM address space must have higher priority than the other
>DBMS address spaces.
That's not entirely accurate.
With the WLM, you have little (or no) control over priorities.
The WLM can/does figure out who/what is using what as a 'server', and creates
pseudo-service classes
eldon Davis
Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2007 11:02 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: WLM Question
Hi
We work with CICS DB2 and IMS DBCTL
At the moment we use region mode for CICS.
Should I have one service class for CICS DB2 and IMS
Or one for CICS and one for DBMS's
Th
Hi
We work with CICS DB2 and IMS DBCTL
At the moment we use region mode for CICS.
Should I have one service class for CICS DB2 and IMS
Or one for CICS and one for DBMS's
Thanks in advance
Sheldon Davis
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe
Yes, Shane had mentioned that he specifies it both ways also. Seems like a
sound approach to me. I plan to do the same. Should save on future headaches.
On Fri, 24 Mar 2006 11:28:22 -0500, Porowski, Ken <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Depending on the application (we have PeopleSoft Financials) so
: Friday, March 24, 2006 10:23 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: [IBM-MAIN] WLM Question
Eureka!
If one digs deep enough (couple miles should do), RMF III will report
what service class a DDF thread was classified into.
The reason I wanted this was because I had a strong suspicion one of my
prod
On Fri, 2006-03-24 at 09:23 -0600, Terry Linsley wrote:
> Eureka!
>
> I discovered that the CI was being sent by the AIX
> system in lower case*. Changed the sub-rule back to type CI and specified
> the name in lower case, taking care to specify "N" for "fold qualifier name"
> (they sure could ha
Timothy,
Thanks. That is very good information and I am saving a copy for future
use. Unfortunately manglement is dragging it's collective heels in letting
us move z/OS 1.4 to production. So any solutions involving z/OS are pretty
far out on the radar right now. Our currently contrained hardwa
Eureka!
If one digs deep enough (couple miles should do), RMF III will report what
service class a DDF thread was classified into.
The reason I wanted this was because I had a strong suspicion one of my prod
DDF workloads was still falling out of the ruleset to default (suspicion
based on indirec
Terry Linsley writes:
>Our DDF traffic is 1/3 MS Access,
>1/3 DB2 connect, and 1/3 locally developed java apps. Of the three, MS
>Access causes the most pain hands down.
Off on a slight tangent here, there are some things you can do to take the
DDF temperature down. I'll list these in order of t
On Thu, 2006-03-23 at 12:04 -0600, Terry Linsley wrote:
> Is there a straight forward method of determining if an enclave is
> dependant? Would an example of one be when a DB2 utility spawns multiple
> threads to build an index during a table load or recovery?
RMFIII has an indicator - I think t
ps: bit.listserv.ibm-main
>To:
>Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2006 9:54 AM
>Subject: WLM Question
>
>
>> Greetings,
>>
>> We have recently suffered some pain due to logic error in our subsytem DDF
>> classification rules. I have made corrections to those rules and
>p
( todd dot burch at asg dot com )
- Original Message -
From: "Terry Linsley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ibm-main
To:
Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2006 9:54 AM
Subject: WLM Question
> Greetings,
>
> We have recently suffered some pain due
Owie. Thanks, will watch out for that.
On Thu, 23 Mar 2006 12:57:38 EST, Ed Finnell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>In a message dated 3/23/2006 11:49:34 A.M. Central Standard Time,
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
>Thanks. As soon as I get RMF III up and running, I will investigate that
>report.
>
That last comment is a little alarming! Our DDF traffic is 1/3 MS Access,
1/3 DB2 connect, and 1/3 locally developed java apps. Of the three, MS
Access causes the most pain hands down.
Is there a straight forward method of determining if an enclave is
dependant? Would an example of one be when
In a message dated 3/23/2006 11:49:34 A.M. Central Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Thanks. As soon as I get RMF III up and running, I will investigate that
report.
>>
Don't forget to define RMFGAT! It may be in the instructions, but
I missed it in the test system and it locks up
Like Gary, I also heavily use report groups.
If memory serves, SDSF ENC support appeared at z/OS 1.2, and so is
unavailable to Terry.
As of 1.4 it's still severely limited.
Everything I've seen posted in this thread has been true for
*independent* enclaves - dependant enclaves, whilst rare can be
e Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Behalf Of Terry Linsley
>Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2006 9:54 AM
>To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
>Subject: WLM Question
>
>
>Greetings,
>
>We have recently suffered some pain due to logic error in our subsytem
>DDF
>classification
Thanks. As soon as I get RMF III up and running, I will investigate that
report.
On Thu, 23 Mar 2006 10:42:57 -0600, Staller, Allan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Rob Scott Wrote:
>
>What does RMF III on OS/390 R10 provide?
>
>
>
>I am currently z/OS 1.4 and at that level the RMF Overview Detail
>
Thanks for the response. Would like to avoid RYO for this. And I can well
imagine it would be a hog. But, I don't really need this info continuously.
Basically I just want to report on a busy one hour period during our
business day. Don't know what RMF III will give me at this level. We are
no
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Behalf Of Terry Linsley
Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2006 9:54 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: WLM Question
Greetings,
We have recently suffered some pain due to logic error in our subsytem
DDF
classification rules. I have made
Rob Scott Wrote:
What does RMF III on OS/390 R10 provide?
I am currently z/OS 1.4 and at that level the RMF Overview Detail
reports provide report ENCL
Enclave resource consumption and delays (option 1.6 from the RMF III
primary menu). ISTR this
Same option available at OS/390 2.9 (where I did
The trouble with enclaves is that they can be very short lived things
and catching the tiddlers with the SDSF or MXI "ENC" commands is a
matter of luck or furious "enter" pressing.
I don't think that SDSF "ENC" was available for OS/390 R10 - however I
believe that the MXI "ENC" command will work (
I believe this information is available in RMF III...
In a former life, I had this information (os/290 2.9).
I do not currently process any work that uses DDF, so I can't point you
to specifics.
I believe this information is also available in SYSRPTS(WKL)? In the RMF
post processor.
If nothing el
ure if it
>was available at 2.10 level though.
>
>-Original Message-
>From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
>Behalf Of Terry Linsley
>Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2006 10:54 AM
>To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
>Subject: [IBM-MAIN] WLM Question
: [IBM-MAIN] WLM Question
Greetings,
We have recently suffered some pain due to logic error in our subsytem
DDF classification rules. I have made corrections to those rules and
performance has improved. But I would like to see concrete proof that
all DDF threads are being classified to the
Greetings,
We have recently suffered some pain due to logic error in our subsytem DDF
classification rules. I have made corrections to those rules and performance
has improved. But I would like to see concrete proof that all DDF threads are
being classified to the service classes I expect.
Is t
90 matches
Mail list logo
