Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | |
Date: | Fri, 18 Jul 1997 08:58:59 -0700 |
Content-Type: | TEXT/PLAIN |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
On Fri, 18 Jul 1997, David Randall wrote:
> ------QUANTUM-------
> QUEUE BASE LIMIT MIN MAX ACTUAL BOOST TIMESLICE
> ----- ---- ----- --- --- ------ ----- ---------
> CQ 152 200 1 2000 18 DECAY 200
> DQ 202 238 2000 2000 2000 DECAY 200
> EQ 160 238 1 200 25 DECAY 200
>
> I have tried oscillating the DQ and EQ but it seemed to make
> things worse (fast performance for a period then nothing
> for several seconds)
A small overlap in the C and D queues is a great way to go. If you want
the batch processes to grab a little more CPU as they continue to run
then set the D queue to oscillate. You will see it execute in what could
be called a herky-jerky fashion but it will grab more cpu over the course
of the job. Newly introduced, and long running, batch jobs will grab
more CPU than long running C queue processes. Simple C queue tasks will
always get top priority (after system processes).
You can also overlap your E queue. If you push the top of the E queue
into the C queue region and leave the E queue on decay, then anyone
working in the E queue who performs a simple task will see good response
time. Anyone doing a larger task will wait........
Sort of like the following:
CQ --start---
DQ --start---
EQ --start---
CQ --decay---
DQ --oscill--
EQ --decay---
Slide the scale according to your specific needs and your observations
as to how it helps/hinders performance. Your mileage may vary.
If you've got some $$$ in the budget... might be worth looking into HP's
workload manager.
Good luck,
Jim
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
James R. Alton
Systems Analyst
Mohawk College phone: (905) 575-2281
135 Fennell Ave. W. Fax: (905) 575-2302
Hamilton, Ont., Canada L8N 3T2 Email: [log in to unmask]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|