RE: Keeping OS/400 objects permanently on main memory

Thanks Jim that was my recollection too (If a program is being used
quite a bit, I highly doubt that the memory page it occupies is getting
marked as "old" and flushed out of main storage at all. )

Chuck

-----Original Message-----
From: midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Jim Oberholtzer
Sent: Friday, September 09, 2011 8:44 AM
To: Midrange Systems Technical Discussion
Subject: Re: Keeping OS/400 objects permanently on main memory

Rob,

Certainly read up on SETOBJACC as has been suggested. I strongly urge
you to create a unique subsystem with a private memory pool to put those

object in. That will give IBM i storage management a fighting chance to

accomplish what you are after.

This all assumes of course that the 2.8Gb of memory is sufficient for
the entire system workload in the first place and there is not already
quite a bit of faulting/paging going on. I no longer have a V5R1 system

to try it with but I would proceed slowly ensuring that you do not
starve system resources. Storage management is really very smart about
managing memory. If a program is being used quite a bit, I highly doubt

that the memory page it occupies is getting marked as "old" and flushed
out of main storage at all. Check on the paging/faulting in the
subsystem that the ERROS runs in. If there is not quite a bit of non-DB

paging/faulting you may not need the SETOBJACC at all.

As mentioned before loading reference files that are not updated and the

like can enhance performance quite a bit.

Jim