Thanks Matt -----Original Message----- From: Dave Canan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, February 17, 2003 1:58 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: OS390 SELFTUNEBUFPOOLSIZE yes/no?
If you do a "q status" command, look at the line titled BufPoolSize. This is the actual bufferpoolsize that has being used when using SELFTUNEBUFPOOLSIZE set to YES.. At 10:44 AM 2/17/2003 -0500, you wrote: >Paul, > How can I tell what size my BUFPOOLSIZE has grown to? I know I >start at 32MB but I don't know how much it grows/shrinks. >Matt > > > -----Original Message----- >From: Seay, Paul [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >Sent: Monday, February 17, 2003 10:12 AM >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: Re: OS390 SELFTUNEBUFPOOLSIZE yes/no? > >I like to set it about 10% higher than the happy point and set it to yes on >AIX. Then check it every once and a while to see if it needs adjusting. >The problem is you can create a lot of GETMAINs on MVS if you do not set it >high enough to begin with. On MVS, you are probably best to set it to NO so >that you do not get unpredictable memory usage on the machine. This is the >difference between using a dedicated machine for TSM and a general use >machine and needing to share with other workloads. You have to tune TSM on >MVS like you would a TP monitor like CICS, IMS, etc. > >Paul D. Seay, Jr. >Technical Specialist >Northrop Grumman Information Technology >757-688-8180 > > >-----Original Message----- >From: MC Matt Cooper (2838) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >Sent: Monday, February 17, 2003 9:28 AM >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: OS390 SELFTUNEBUFPOOLSIZE yes/no? > > >Hello all, > I have been reading the dialog on OS/390 performance tuning. I too >have found that lowering the size of the address space to 512MB has helped. >I have also seen improvements in my throughput by cycling TSM. (I just >don't do it as often.) One thing that I was wondering is if anyone has >done any research on an advantage to NOT USING SELFTUNBUFPOOLSIZE. Right >now I set BUFPOOLSIZE to 32760 and SELFTUNEBUFPOOLSIZE yes. From the looks >of things TSM seems to be able to cause some thrashing with MVS memory >management. SO I wonder if SELFTUNEBUFPOOLSIZE should be set to NO and just >allocate a bigger fixed BUFPOOLSIZE, (like the 128M that was suggested)? >Matt Dave Canan TSM Performance IBM Advanced Technical Support [EMAIL PROTECTED]
