Re: Why separate pools?

[Vernon Hamberg <vhamberg@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Rob, a couple ideas, as QPFRADJ is relatively slow to respond. There is 
benefit, usually, to separating resources into distinct pools. And it is 
usually, IMO, a good idea to get non-system activity out of *BASE, which 
has a lot of stuff in it.

1. Do a CHGSHRPOOL before each startup. Set the size to the 500 meg. Then 
let QPFRADJ go from there.

2. Get AutoTune from help Systems. It has much more control for you. You 
can have it be more aggressive for some pools, and you have some control 
over time-of-day configuration. Of course, it isn't free. QPFRADJ does a 
pretty good job much of the time, but sometimes you need more. They also 
have LPAR balancing stuff, IIRC.

Vern

At 03:19 PM 11/22/2004, you wrote:
> Since many people are setting QPFRADJ at 2 or 3 I think this begs the
> question:  "Why use separate memory pools?"  QPFRADJ is supposed to
> balance memory between pools.  However IBM puts some limits on it to make
> sure that not everything swings one way or the other too radically.  This
> causes a problem when you do have a major job shift and you do want a more
> radical shift.  If I am using QPFRADJ in this manner that why not just put
> everything into one or two pools?  I could still have numerous subsystems,
> (if that buys me anything), but why not run them all through the same
> pool(s)?
>
> For example, if I start up my eleven Domino partitions on the machine,
> each with a recommendation of 500mb, you know how long it takes for
> QPFRADJ to finally balance out???  But if I were running them in the same
> pool as QBATCH, QINTER, etc the memory would be available instantly.
> Processor doesn't seem to be a constraint on our machines.
> % CPU used . . . . . . . :       15.4
> Sys      Pool   Reserved    Max  ----DB-----  --Non-DB---  Act-
> Pool    Size M   Size M     Act  Fault Pages  Fault Pages  Wait
>   1    1541.48    476.43  +++++     .0    .0    3.1   3.1   75.5
>   2    4654.24     44.66   1156     .6    .6   19.2  60.7   6859
>   3    6019.41       .19    458     .0    .0   13.8  25.8  170.0
>   4    5903.89       .02     80     .0    .0     .0    .0     .0
>   5     183.01       .03     46     .0    .0     .0    .0   75.5
> Memory does.
> Seems a shame to have a big chunk tied up somewhere when other processes
> could be using it.
>
>
> Rob Berendt
> --
> Group Dekko Services, LLC
> Dept 01.073
> PO Box 2000
> Dock 108
> 6928N 400E
> Kendallville, IN 46755
> http://www.dekko.com
>
> --
> This is the Midrange Systems Technical Discussion (MIDRANGE-L) mailing list
> To post a message email: MIDRANGE-L@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options,
> visit: http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/midrange-l
> or email: MIDRANGE-L-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives
> at http://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l.