Ah, when you said "97% Utilization" I though you meant page space
utilization... that would have been bad...
But, if you are only running 3% in use, then the problem is elsewhere.
Beginning to sound like you may have a real processor cycle shortage....
Mike
C. M. (Mike) Hammock
Sr. Technical Support
zFrame & IBM zSeries Solutions
(404) 643-3258
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Horlick,
Michael"
<michael.horlick@ To
cgi.com> "IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU"
Sent by: The IBM <IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU>
z/VM Operating cc
System
<[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject
ARK.EDU> Re: Using SET SHARE, performance
problem
04/23/2008 02:17
PM
Please respond to
The IBM z/VM
Operating System
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]
ARK.EDU>
Hi,
Yes, they all have
OPTION QUICKDSP in their directory entry
In terms of page space utilization:
q alloc page
EXTENT EXTENT TOTAL PAGES HIGH %
VOLID RDEV START END PAGES IN USE PAGE USED
------ ---- ---------- ---------- ------ ------ ------ ----
520PAG E202 1 3338 600840 19566 23852 3%
------ ------ ----
SUMMARY 600840 19566 3%
USABLE 600840 19566 3%
Ready;
I have to take a look at SRM STORBUFF.
Thanks
Mike
-----Original Message-----
From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Mike Hammock
Sent: April 23, 2008 2:07 PM
To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
Subject: Re: Using SET SHARE, performance problem
If all the VSE guests are in Q0, then someone has probably set them as
quickdsp (quick dispatch, to keep them in Q0.)
Using quick dispatch for this 'problem' is usually considered a bandaid
approach and should not be a permanent solution. SRM STORBUFF is a
much
better 'fix'.
But, if they are in Q0 then the eligible list is probably not your
problem...
But, page space utilization at 97% can certainly cause a problem, even
at
low (average) page rates. Your should aim for around 50- 60% full...
consider it a potential cause for problems if greater than about 90%.
I
would suggest adding another volume for page space as quickly as
possible.
This may or may not be the cause of your response time problems, but
will
definitely cause a problem soon, if not now.
Mike
C. M. (Mike) Hammock
Sr. Technical Support
zFrame & IBM zSeries Solutions
(404) 643-3258
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Horlick,
Michael"
<michael.horlick@
To
cgi.com> "IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU"
Sent by: The IBM <IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU>
z/VM Operating
cc
System
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject
ARK.EDU> Re: Using SET SHARE, performance
problem
04/23/2008 01:55
PM
Please respond to
The IBM z/VM
Operating System
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]
ARK.EDU>
The VSE guests are usually 'Q0 PS', sometimes 'Q0 RUN'.
Paging at 2/sec. Right now at 97% utilization.
Thanks,
Mike
-----Original Message-----
From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Mike Hammock
Sent: April 23, 2008 1:49 PM
To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
Subject: Re: Using SET SHARE, performance problem
Did you perhaps increase the size of the virtual machines when going to
zVSE 4.1??
In any case, I'd check for an eligible list. (do #CP IND Q and look
for any of your guests in E3).
If any VSE guest is in E3, I'd suggest (carefully) adjusting the SRM
STORBUFF setting to allow more overcommittment of real storage.
Monitor
your paging activity and page space usage carefully.
Mike
C. M. (Mike) Hammock
Sr. Technical Support
zFrame & IBM zSeries Solutions
(404) 643-3258
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Horlick,
Michael"
<michael.horlick@
To
cgi.com> "IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU"
Sent by: The IBM <IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU>
z/VM Operating
cc
System
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject
ARK.EDU> Using SET SHARE, performnace
problem
04/23/2008 01:38
PM
Please respond to
The IBM z/VM
Operating System
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]
ARK.EDU>
Cross-posted to both VMESA-L and VSE-L mailing lists
Greetings,
We have just converted the last of our 5 VSE machines to z/VSE 4.1.0
(from
VSE/ESA 2.6.1) and are experiencing performance issues. My peak times
are
98-100% utilization and people are complaining about poor response
times.
I don't know whether it's because I am using CICS data tables more now
or
because of the additional CPU utilization for z/VSE.
Anyways, one question I have is the usage of the SET SHARE.
I have been using the 'SHARE ABSOLUTE' directory control statement for
each
of my VSE machines (giving say 38% to one machine, giving 29% to
another,etc...) with maximum share nolimit.
The problems seem to occur when batch jobs are run in these
predominately
CICS/TS systems.
I was wondering if maybe a SET SHARE RELATIVE technique would be more
effective and what you do in prioritizing virtual machines within the
physical machine?
Thanks,
Mike
__________________________________________________________
This email may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole
use of the intended recipient(s). Any review, use, distribution or
disclosure by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended
recipient (or authorized to receive for the recipient), please contact
the sender by reply email and delete all copies of this message. To
reply to our email administrator directly, send an email to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
__________________________________________________________
This email may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole
use of the intended recipient(s). Any review, use, distribution or
disclosure by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended
recipient (or authorized to receive for the recipient), please contact
the sender by reply email and delete all copies of this message. To
reply to our email administrator directly, send an email to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
__________________________________________________________
This email may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of
the intended recipient(s). Any review, use, distribution or disclosure by
others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient (or
authorized to receive for the recipient), please contact the sender by reply
email and delete all copies of this message. To reply to our email
administrator directly, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
