Bruce Toback <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>Clint Schwartz writes:
>>  1.  We changed our "queues" so that the job "queue" and the session "queue"
>>did not overlap because of some known problem with sessions that wait on
>>message files.  Evidently if a session drops down to the bottom of its
>>"queue," it doesn't get bumped back up to the top of its queue like 4.0 did.
>
>In dealing with a similar problem, our interrim solution was to shorten the
>CS queue and set it to "oscillate", making the scheduling algorithm more
>round-robin than priority queue. This prevented a lot of short transactions
>from monopolizing the CPU at the expense of those processes that should
>have been bumped up but weren't any longer.
>
>   TUNE;CQ=152,160,100,1000,oscillate
>
>Of course if you DO have a real CPU hog in the queue, it'll get a lot more
>of the CPU than it would with the default parameters. But then you
>shouldn't be running CPU hogs in the C queue in any case.
>
>Our final solution was to make the application run faster, but you may not
>have that option :-).
>
-
I've been watching all the feedback on 5.0.  I'm on 4.0 and moving to 5.0
shortly.
I have a 955 with 128 meg ram.  I'm getting worried.  It seems 5.0 is pushing
the
'old' CPU's off the chart coupled with additional system administration tasks.
Majority of feedback concerned with the upgrade was positive with the normal
problems here and there.  Maybe its easier for everyone to discuss the
negatives,
but has 5.0 helped anyone post installation?  I'm a shop that will have many
9000's
and currently RS6000's and VAX's.  I hope to be able to port minor items back
and
forth in UNIX, but to be honest I just need the MPE system to be,
well,.....MPE.
Main task:  to support a legacy MRP system.   Feedback?
 
 
 
 
[log in to unmask]
 
 
 
 
       The contents of this message express only the sender's opinion.
       This message does not necessarily reflect the policy or views of
       my employer, Merck & Co., Inc.  All responsibility for the statements
       made in this Usenet posting resides solely and completely with the
       sender.