Your setup is also excellent and achives the same result.

Thanks,

Randy Keefer, Consultant


On Mon, 22 May 2000 10:21:31 -0500, Chuck Ryan <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>-----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.