On Wed, 9 May 2012 22:12:17 +1000, Andrew Rowley wrote: >I'm not completely convinced of the evils of over initiation anyway.
I used to scoff at the problem of over-initiation for many of the same reasons as you cite. Way back when I upgraded form MVS 3.1.3 to OS/390 2.4, we went directly to goal mode with WLM-managed initiators. The system was severely CPU constrained and we were s uffering form poor and erratic response time for CICS and TSO. Batch throughput wasn't good either. When I initially planned to go directly to goal mode, I had anticipated that there would be a CPU upgrade. That CPU upgrade never materialized. After we went production with the new system, CICS and TSO response times improved considerably and were much more consistent. Batch turnaround time did not seem to suffer, though I did not quantify it. The improvement was quite a surprise, especially given that in those days, every new release was expected to require more resources than the previous one, and this was a jump of seven or so releases. One big difference that I noticed was that WLM was running considerably fewer initiators than what we ran previously. I concluded that we had been suffering from the effects of over-initiation. -- Tom Marchant ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
