On Wed, 9 May 2012 22:12:17 +1000, Andrew Rowley <[email protected]> wrote:
>I'm not completely convinced of the evils of over initiation anyway. >I've seen the charts showing increased elapsed time but they didn't seem >to count queue time. With most jobs what counts is the time between job >submission and job end - not starting execution and job end. > Some over initiating used to be what I (and others) wanted to do prior to WLM managed initiators. At last going back to the days when memory started becoming "cheap" and paging was little to none. There was no problem having a bunch of low priority batch jobs executing even when the CPU was 100% (or "greater" based on IEAOPTxx RCCCPUT) just waiting for any momentary drop in CPU utilization so they could suck up the cycles. But with WLM controlled initiators, running at or near 100% can keep initiators from being started - even for important batch jobs. The answer to that is to keep some JES2 JOBCLASS(es) in place with initiators for those critical batch jobs. I've had to do that for most environments I've worked in with WLM initiators (but not all of them). The scenario is often some batch job that gets submitted / triggered from a CICS or MQ region that is really part of an online transaction more than it is a batch job. You don't want these sitting around in the input queue waiting for initiation when the system as at or near 100%. Mark -- Mark Zelden - Zelden Consulting Services - z/OS, OS/390 and MVS mailto:[email protected] Mark's MVS Utilities: http://www.mzelden.com/mvsutil.html Systems Programming expert at http://expertanswercenter.techtarget.com/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
