Re: AS/400 tuning question

[KirkG@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]

IBM has not yielded on the server vs interactive. Once you exceed your 
interact quota the system will start a task/job called CFINITxx, XX being 
the CPU # if I remember correctly. This job(s) will take more and more cpu 
resource as the interactive work climbs. The penalty get pretty stiff. I 
don't remember the numbers but I'm sure some here has them handy. Example 
would be if your machine has 100 CPW and it's divided 80/20 
server/interactive and your load was 0/40 the cpu would be maxed out 
running at 100% with that CFINITxx hogging the system.



---------------------------------
Kirk Goins
IBM Certified AS/400 Technical Solutions
Pacific Information Systems - An IBM Premier Business Partner
503-290-2104              kirkg@pacinfosys.com
"WE KNOW TECHNOLOGY"
---------------------------------





Pete Hall <pbhall@execpc.com>
Sent by: owner-midrange-l@midrange.com
06/24/00 05:23 PM
Please respond to MIDRANGE-L

 
        To:     MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com
        cc: 
        Subject:        Re: AS/400 tuning question

At 17:00 06/24/2000 , Joe Teff wrote:
>I have not done any real AS/400 tuning for a couple of years and I've 
never
>tuned one of the server models. A friend asked me today if tuning a 
server
>model was any different than a regular model and I couldn't answer him.
>Other than looking for a blue stripe, I'm not sure if I could even 
identify a
>server model. I know that their is a governor of some type that punishes
>interactive jobs. Is that done with software in OS? Will it stop you from
>allocating more memory to certain subsystems or setting high priorities 
to
>interactive jobs. TIA.

All I can tell you is that based on my recent experience with tuning and 
S30, and later a 730 (we upgraded the S30), there is no difference. I 
watched IBM install the governor during the upgrade. At least on a 730, I 
don't think it has anything to do with interactive vs batch load. It is a 
hardware device that communicates with the CPU, and it determines the 
processor feature code. Without it, the processor doesn't function at all. 

My subjective impression is that there is definitely an improvement in 
throughput in batch as opposed to doing the same things interactively, but 

I can't guess why this would be. I have never observed the cycle gobbling 
behavior that many complained about when the server models were first 
introduced. My theory is that IBM yielded to customer pressure and no 
longer enforces interactive limitations by running jobs that eat CPU 
cycles. You can control memory pools and priorities on server models just 
as you can on any other AS/400.


Pete Hall
pbhall@execpc.com
http://www.execpc.com/~pbhall
+---
| This is the Midrange System Mailing List!
| To submit a new message, send your mail to MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com.
| To subscribe to this list send email to MIDRANGE-L-SUB@midrange.com.
| To unsubscribe from this list send email to 
MIDRANGE-L-UNSUB@midrange.com.
| Questions should be directed to the list owner/operator: 
david@midrange.com
+---





**********************************************************************
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they
are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify
the system manager.

This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by
MIMEsweeper for the presence of computer viruses.

www.mimesweeper.com
**********************************************************************
+---
| This is the Midrange System Mailing List!
| To submit a new message, send your mail to MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com.
| To subscribe to this list send email to MIDRANGE-L-SUB@midrange.com.
| To unsubscribe from this list send email to MIDRANGE-L-UNSUB@midrange.com.
| Questions should be directed to the list owner/operator: david@midrange.com
+---