Anyway, I decided to define a resource group with just 100 SUs to force
batch down. Surprisingly batch still used up to 2000 SUs, because WLM
promoted the batch workload due to any blockings, enqueues or locks batch
held. So promotion by WLM might be another reason at your site that batch
: werner.kueh...@mannheimer.de
IMD-Gesellschaft für Informatik und Datenverarbeitung mbH
Sitz Mannheim, Amtsgericht Mannheim HRB 7460
Geschäftsführer: Norbert Koch
Von:Horst Sinram sin...@de.ibm.com
An: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Datum: 26.02.2013 09:22
Betreff:Re: Low priority
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU]
On Behalf Of Gerhard Adam
Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2013 2:46 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Low priority workload
I have to disagree. I often hear this, but there's no resources to
give
Thank you all for comments.
Joel, this is exactly what happens: if our rolling 4-hour MSU average starts
with too high numbers in the morning, we are in trouble at noon. Of course that
we monitor it and manage it, and constantly working on prevention (Werner,
thank you for the idea of assigning
this effect
may be significant in your particular situation.
Don
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU]
On Behalf Of Gerhard Adam
Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2013 2:46 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Low priority
-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Datum: 19.02.2013 20:03
Betreff:Re: Low priority workload
Gesendet von: IBM Mainframe Discussion List IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
It would admittedly be an unusual case where manual micro-management
might do a better job than WLM, but just be aware that on a tight
, they managed to get
some CPU seconds. We would prefer that those seconds were allocated to
important online transaction.
There are two opinions amoung our sysprogs: one is that we should cancel all
low priority workload in order to help our online get all the resources, the
other
We use LPAR Group Capacity to cap our system to 35 MSUs, for cost reasons.
We often have our LPARs capped by WLM. Sometimes for hours. But it is
mainly during cycle, when we have little CICS demand. However, on month
end, we experience this capping during the day. We have never had a CICS
is slow
On Tue, 2013-02-19 at 04:53 -0600, Natasa Savinc wrote:
There are two opinions amoung our sysprogs: one is that we should
cancel all low priority workload in order to help our online get all
the resources, the other is that that is not necessary, as batch isn't
getting any online's CPU
-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf
Of Natasa Savinc
Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2013 2:54 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Low priority workload
Hello!
From time to time (certain days in a month) we hit group or system limit. We
have
goes up.
Adam
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf
Of Natasa Savinc
Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2013 2:54 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Low priority workload
Hello!
From time to time (certain days in a month) we
I have to disagree. I often hear this, but there's no resources to give.
Other than MPL adjustments, almost all of the major WLM decisions are simply a
matter of setting dispatching priorities. There can never be a situation of
where a lower priority [lower DP] unit of work can pre-empt a
: Low priority workload
Hello!
From time to time (certain days in a month) we hit group or system limit. We
have different types of workload defined in WLM. Among others, most batch jobs
have the lowest priority. At the peek times they apparently get no CPU
resources, but when we make report
Geschäftsführer: Norbert Koch
Von:Natasa Savinc natasa.sav...@unicreditgroup.zaba.hr
An: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Datum: 19.02.2013 11:53
Betreff:Low priority workload
Gesendet von: IBM Mainframe Discussion List IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Hello!
From time to time (certain days in a month
14 matches
Mail list logo
