On Wed, 19 Jun 2019 13:34:09 -0500, Horst Sinram wrote:
>The OP's question was about DB2 workloads. Resource group capping for DB2
>workloads would be pretty risky unless you could really guarantee that you do
>not share resources with your production work.
>
Although I haven't counted them
The OP's question was about DB2 workloads. Resource group capping for DB2
workloads would be pretty risky unless you could really guarantee that you do
not share resources with your production work.
An RFE for period level resource groups has been rejected in the past for both
technical
Sounds like my original idea has no chance of working. But maybe Scott's
idea for resource groups at the SC period level has a better chance ?
On Wed, 19 Jun 2019 at 16:48, Tom Marchant <
000a2a8c2020-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Jun 2019 10:55:13 +0300, Mike Shorkend
On Wed, 19 Jun 2019 10:55:13 +0300, Mike Shorkend wrote:
>How about submitting a requirement to IBM that would add a control to WLM
>This control would re-classify a ZIIP eligible workload to a different
>service class if it spills over to a GCP because you are running your ZIIPS
>hot (or hit
>How about submitting a requirement to IBM that would add a control to WLM
>This control would re-classify a ZIIP eligible workload to a different
>service class if it spills over to a GCP because you are running your ZIIPS
>hot (or hit the "generosity factor" for DB2 work). This service class
ot
> busy it seems to me that the parameter will hurt more than it helps.
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On
> Behalf Of Scott Chapman
> Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2019 7:26 AM
>
it
seems to me that the parameter will hurt more than it helps.
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf
Of Scott Chapman
Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2019 7:26 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: honorpriority=no in WLM
True, relative to the zIIP workload. But if that zIIP workload is relatively
low importance and crossing over to the GCPs and raising your R4HA, it may make
sense to restrict the low importance work instead of increasing the R4HA,
depending on what your business requirements are. And keeping
Duncan,
why do you believe that HonorPriority=No could help? You will only be confining
work to the already potentially overloaded zIIPs by disallowing help from the
CPs. So, HonorPriority=No can only make things worse.
I assume that you don't want to go so far and configure all zIIPs offline
We are considering using honorpriority=no for some of our DB2 workload, batch
and online, and I'm wondering if anyone else has turned it on. In other
threads many have talked about running zIIP processors hot - 'Why are highly
busy zIIPs worse than highly busy CPs. The last thing that I want
10 matches
Mail list logo
