<snip> This can't be right. Adjustments to goals / DPs are made every 10 seconds. Could you imagine if online systems in different service classes with the same importance behaved this way? For example, CICSPROD with IMP=2 and DB2PROD with IMP=2. </snip>
1) Generally (unless you are really really huge) CICS/DB2 are at the top of the CPU food chain and will *NEVER* perceive 100% utilization. I.E. to those address spaces, the CPU is *NEVER* 100% busy. There is adequate CPU for all. 2) Both CICS and DB2 (usually) are monitored for performance at the transaction level, not the address space level The workloads I discussed are 2 separate batch service classes (one for WLM inits and one for JES inits). They are behind the onlines, and thus *CAN* perceive 100% busy. Either can consume 100 percent of the available CPU (after the loved ones are taken care of). Actually during some of the early investigation, I had WLM L2 look at what was going on at the 10 sec level via a dump of the WLM address space. According to WLM L2, it took that long for enough delay samples to accumulate and convince WLM to make an adjustment. This was not shown by RMF II or RMF III. They made a suggestion to increase the performance objective to make WLM more responsive. I.E. MPL/DP adjustment made sooner rather than later. This has lead to more periods of "continuous distribution" and fewer of "alternating distribution". However, I have not been able to completely eliminate the "alternating distribution" phenomenon. This has been explained to my satisfaction and I feel this is an artifact of my particular workloads. I do concur with Ted, that the design choice made then may have been less than optimal but I have to live with it and get my work done. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
