You shouldn't make the maximum size too large. There is a somewhat new health check called XCF_CF_STR_POLICYSIZE that "Check that structures in the CFRM active policy do not have too large a difference between the value specified for INITSIZE and |the value specified for SIZE. All specifications of INITSIZE in the |active or pending CFRM policy should indicate an initial structure size of at least half the maximum structure size (as determined by the SIZE specification)."
Alan Schwartz ITO Global Services Operations and Engineering Xerox Business Services, LLC 1500 Towerview Rd. Eagan, MN. 55121-1346 p. 612.266.3150 m. 651.274.5819 f. 612.266.3196 -----Original Message----- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Bill Neiman Sent: Friday, April 12, 2013 11:32 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: CFRM policy size You should use the size that corresponds to your actual workload and configuration. If you use a structure that's too small, you'll get fewer lock table entries and may encounter more false contention (when distinct resources hash to the same lock table entry) and degraded performance. If you use a structure that's too large, you'll waste some CF storage. In the case of GRS, nothing disastrous is likely to happen, and you can always adjust the size on the fly by updating the CFRM policy and rebuilding the ISGLOCK structure. CFSizer provides a starting point. It's up to you to determine what size works for your installation. Bill Neiman Parallel Sysplex development IBM Poughkeepsie ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
