Leland,
I used it for over a year but recently turned it off and went back to using
staticly-defined share settings. I found it to be generally sluggish to
respond to changing workloads (although I made some mods to make it
moreso). In practice, my observation was that when the system got busy, it
tended to raise every managed virtual machines' SHARE setting to REL 10000
(because they weren't getting the resources they needed). Conversely, if
the system was running fine, it tended to lower the managed virtual
machines' SHARE settings to REL 1 (for the opposite reason). The latter
situation was even worse because if some virtual machine with a SHARE REL
100 decided to get busy all of a sudden, it could be a long time before
VMRM reacted to raise the important workload back up (in the meantime,
running at a 100-to-1 disadvantage). I moderated this effect with mods
which set limits on the SHARE setting changes so as not to go lower than 50
or higher that 5000.
In the end, the downsides (significant) outweighed the benefits (if any).
Best regards,
Mark Wheeler, 3M Company
Leland Lucius
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]
NET> To
Sent by: The IBM IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
z/VM Operating cc
System
<[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject
ARK.EDU> Anyone use VMRM?
06/08/2006 03:37
PM
Please respond to
The IBM z/VM
Operating System
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]
ARK.EDU>
So, how do you folks feel about VMRM? Does it work as advertised? Like
David B., I'm "fundamentally lazy" and don't want to have to sit around and
baby sit these funny looking birds. Sure, initial hand holding would be
required, but after that I want the system to take care of things for me.
Thanks,
Leland
