-----Original Message-----
From: Randy Keefer [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Monday, May 22, 2000 9:32 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: BS queue question


On Fri, 19 May 2000 13:23:25 -0700, Bruce Toback <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>Randy Keefer writes:
>
>>I propose
>>the following:
>>
>>CQ = 152,255        DQ = 190,250         EQ = 150,151
>>

Yes, the defaults do leave a lot to be desired on a heavily loaded system.

I took a system that was always pegged at 100% usage during working hours
down to 80% just by adjusting the Queues like this:

CQ = 152, 202   decay
DQ = 172, 222   oscillate
EQ = 212, 252   decay

This way heavy online users were dropped below the default batch jobs (DQ)
starting priority and stayed there until the transaction was complete. The
default batch jobs were set to oscillate so that even the heavy use jobs had
a chance to get back above the online user trying to hog the system.

The biggest benefit to this is it lets short batch jobs get in and out
quickly, without impacting the online users. It also prevented someone who
ran an online quiz or qtp from blocking all batch job execution until they
finished.

This also seemed to let our developers work either online or in batch
without a noticeable difference in system usage between the two methods.