On Tue, 18 Dec 2007 14:09:52 -0600, Dave Kopischke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 11:22:56 -0600, Staller, Allan wrote: > >> >>I am generally opposed to resource groups, however, they do have their >>uses. I find them useful for your purpose (guaranteeing a minimum amount >>of service). I do not find them useful for "capping" a workload. >> <snip> > >We had similar issues. Test and development JOBs sitting in an initiator getting >no service for hours. Tying up an initiator that could be used for production >JOBs. And when they stack up, taking up more and more initiators, what do >you do ??? > Separate initiators between production / test job classes, add more initiators or convert to WLM controlled initiators for some, most or all the job classes. Unless you are *really* storage constrained (I don't know who is these days), there is no harm in an idle address space taking up an initiator. Unless of course it has a resource (ENQ) on something a production job needs... but that is a completely different issue. Mark -- Mark Zelden Sr. Software and Systems Architect - z/OS Team Lead Zurich North America / Farmers Insurance Group - ZFUS G-ITO mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] z/OS Systems Programming expert at http://expertanswercenter.techtarget.com/ Mark's MVS Utilities: http://home.flash.net/~mzelden/mvsutil.html ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
