Take a look at VMRMSVM it is included in z/VM 5.3 and later.. It is simple to setup and worked quite well for us...
On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 12:27 PM, Hughes, Jim <jim.hug...@doit.nh.gov> wrote: > Thanks for the reply Marty. Long time, no see. > > > > Our VSE systems are mainly interactive CICS or IDMS/DC systems during the > day. Night time they become batch machines. > > > > The CICS and IDMS/DC systems are mainly accessed via VTAM. > > > > Our three production systems are each set to ABSOLUTE 20% with no defined > target maximum. The sum of our ABSOLUTE SHARE users does total 100%. > > > > With that said, we’ve asked ourselves is ABSOLUTE 20% enough? > > > > The manual says once you have defined the minimum target ABSOLUTE SHARE to > total 100%, the scheduler reserves 1% for the RELATIVE SHARE users. It goes > on to say that once an ABSOLUTE SHARE user has reached its minimum target > share it only gets more if system resources are available. > > > > What I am looking for is a way to keep the production systems behaving if a > production vse system(absolute share), test vse system(relative share) or a > cms user(relative share) begins to loop. > > > > The more I read about CP SET SHARE the more I suspect it isn’t designed to > be a panacea for smooth performance in time of trouble. > > > > Maybe I should be investigating the VM Performance Monitor to assist with > dynamic performance adjustment in a time of trouble. Comments? > > > > ____________________ > Jim Hughes > Consulting Systems Programmer > Mainframe Technical Support Group > Department of Information Technology > State of New Hampshire > 27 Hazen Drive > Concord, NH 03301 > 603-271-5586 Fax 603.271.1516 > > Statement of Confidentiality: The contents of this message are > confidential. Any unauthorized disclosure, reproduction, use or > dissemination (either whole or in part) is prohibited. If you are not the > intended recipient of this message, please notify the sender immediately and > delete the message from your system. > ------------------------------ > > *From:* The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU] *On > Behalf Of *Martin Zimelis > *Sent:* Monday, February 07, 2011 3:01 PM > > *To:* IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU > *Subject:* Re: SET SHARE ABSOLUTE/RELATIVE > > > > Catherine, > > I don't think your understanding of SHARE is backwards, but your > expectation of what the performance manager will do might be. I suspect > it's trying to keep heavy CPU users from hogging the processors. > > To get back to the original question, Jim, I think you need to describe > what the z/VSE guests are doing. If they're supporting interactive users > (e.g., CICS), you'd want one answer from the assembled masses. If they're > true batch workloads, the answer should be quite different. Since your > system's perceived responsiveness likely depends on how quickly TCPIP (and > VTAM) gets serviced, a high share is called for. In your situation, is the > same true for RSCS? Regardless, my experience with the conventional wisdom > of whether to use relative or absolute shares is dated, so I'll leave > detailed recommendations to those with more recent experience. > > Marty Zimelis > > On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 2:13 PM, McBride, Catherine <cmcbr...@kable.com> > wrote: > > A while ago a very experienced VM person from IBM suggested that we not > use ABSOLUTE unless you "absolutely" must cap off a guest to keep it > from running away with your real processors. We used that setting on > our test system only. > Our VSE TOR and VM guest TCPIP both had high relative shares (10000 > versus 3000 for regular production guests). > Then we started using a performance manager feature of VM Toolkit, it > managed share values for us. > It set everything the same after VM IPL, but by the end of a normal > production day our busiest guests had dropped to the lowest relative > share, the ones seldom used had the highest. Meaning my understanding > of how relative share worked was backwards or the gizmo in VM Toolkit > was. Hopefully Alan or Kris will expound. > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU] On > Behalf Of Hughes, Jim > Sent: Monday, February 07, 2011 12:57 PM > To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU > Subject: SET SHARE ABSOLUTE/RELATIVE > > I've read the CP COMMAND manual and the PERFORMANCE manual regarding the > SET SHARE command and how it works. > > Would someone care to comment on how you have used them for your z/VSE > production and guest machines? > > What would suggest for TCPIP/RSCS/VTAM SET SHARE values? > > Thanks in advance. > > > ____________________ > Jim Hughes > Consulting Systems Programmer > Mainframe Technical Support Group > Department of Information Technology > State of New Hampshire > 27 Hazen Drive > Concord, NH 03301 > 603-271-5586 Fax 603.271.1516 > > Statement of Confidentiality: The contents of this message are > confidential. Any unauthorized disclosure, reproduction, use or > dissemination (either whole or in part) is prohibited. If you are not > the intended recipient of this message, please notify the sender > immediately and delete the message from your system. > > >
