On Wednesday, October 30, 2019, 05:50:04 AM PDT, Peter Relson <rel...@us.ibm.com> wrote: ,> If the two parties are running in different address spaces then a
> complaint could only be that the address space is consuming a lot of CPU > and that is exactly what WLM goals and priorities are for. Only true if you ignore mixed workload address spaces (E.g. DB2, MQ, databases, automation, Websphere, Unix, IMS, CICS and probably others). WLM and priorities do not automatically deal with these situations. DB2 solved this problem by implementing WLM enclaves into the product. Other products have implemented strategies that don't involve WLM. > And the on-point responses were not to worry because time-slicing and WLM > etc etc would deal with that.. I have to disagree. Cheryl Watson and her team exist because time-slicing and WLM don't magically solve every issue. Instead you must be proactive. The OP has a known rogue TCB in a multi-tasking address space otherwise why did he ask the question. At the very least, he needs to consider it's impact when CPU approaches 100%. Jon. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
