RE: Interactive Feature Upgrade Theory

["Andy Nolen-Parkhouse" <aparkhouse@xxxxxxxxx>]

Nathan,

I believe that what you're saying is very true, but it is not what I
meant.  Yes, if you partition your system, exceeding the interactive
threshold in one partition would have no effect on the other partitions.

My point had to do with IBM's implementation of the interactive
governor.  In its first appearance, CFINT would trash the entire system
when you exceeded the threshold.  This affected both interactive and
non-interactive jobs.  As time has passed, they have attempted to limit
interactive work to the agreed-upon CPW threshold while still allowing
batch work to proceed without as great an effect.  That's been their
stated goal, and they say they've improved.  How well, I don't know.

Regards,
Andy Nolen-Parkhouse

> On Behalf Of Nathan M. Andelin
> Subject: Re: Interactive Feature Upgrade Theory
>
> > From: "Andy Nolen-Parkhouse" <aparkhouse@attbi.com>
> > My understanding is that with each generation, they have lessened
> > the impact of the CFINT jobs on the batch CPW.
>
> My understanding is that the impact of CFINT on batch jobs depends on
> whether they run in the same partition as the interactive jobs, or
not.
> To
> lessen the impact on batch workload, I heard that you could dedicate a
> separate partition to "non-interactive".  Is that correct?
>
> Nathan M. Andelin
> www.relational-data.com