Matt, I have always had SELFTUNEBUFPOOLSIZE no By the way I run with buffpool 48mb against 28 gb database 70% full. Experiment with some different settings against same workloads to see which gives you best results.
cheers, John "MC Matt Cooper (2838)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on 02/17/2003 02:28:15 PM Please respond to "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] cc: (bcc: John Naylor/HAV/SSE) Subject: OS390 SELFTUNEBUFPOOLSIZE yes/no? Hello all, I have been reading the dialog on OS/390 performance tuning. I too have found that lowering the size of the address space to 512MB has helped. I have also seen improvements in my throughput by cycling TSM. (I just don't do it as often.) One thing that I was wondering is if anyone has done any research on an advantage to NOT USING SELFTUNBUFPOOLSIZE. Right now I set BUFPOOLSIZE to 32760 and SELFTUNEBUFPOOLSIZE yes. From the looks of things TSM seems to be able to cause some thrashing with MVS memory management. SO I wonder if SELFTUNEBUFPOOLSIZE should be set to NO and just allocate a bigger fixed BUFPOOLSIZE, (like the 128M that was suggested)? Matt ********************************************************************** The information in this E-Mail is confidential and may be legally privileged. It may not represent the views of Scottish and Southern Energy plc. It is intended solely for the addressees. Access to this E-Mail by anyone else is unauthorised. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it, is prohibited and may be unlawful. Any unauthorised recipient should advise the sender immediately of the error in transmission. Scottish Hydro-Electric, Southern Electric, SWALEC and S+S are trading names of the Scottish and Southern Energy Group. **********************************************************************