Bill Lancaster said some interesting things:
When I originally evaluated the 3k, I foolishly asked if it had a spooler
and then checked the box (IBM'res know what a spooler is and assume the rest
do also).  A year or so later, I joined the HP field team and submitted a
lengthy enhancement request detailing how the IBM spooler handled multiple
input queues and suggesting that this might be a good model.  No response
since late 1970's.
 
It seems to me that this would be the spooler's job, not the
scheduler/dispatcher.  If I could stream a job and specify input-class=AP
while at the same time, the operator could say streams 10;input-class=AP,max=1
then when the input spooler went to get the next job to be activated, it
could honor these specs.  Seemed a simple model to me and still does.
 
 
>This is a particularly interesting topic to me.  I have contended for
>sometime that the capability to have multiple stream queues is *very*
>desirable.  That way, you can limit, for example, how many AP jobs are
>running with a separate control over how many GL jobs are running.  This
>has always struck me as a fundamental requirement.  To that end, I had
>extensive conversations with various CSY'ers regarding the possibility of
>us adding value to MPE with a cooperative relationship regarding our
>Q-Xcelerator (mild plug alert).
...snip...
>
>Why am I saying all of this now?  It's not just a fit of pique.  Rather,
>as a warning to the user to not expect the Workload Manager to go any
>further that it already does.  It doesn't make sense, from a technical
>perspective, for WM to receive much more in the way of enhancements.
>Also, don't expect HP to enhance the dispatcher to specifically perform
>multiple STREAM queue's.
>
>Bill Lancaster
>Lund Performance Solutions
>[log in to unmask]
>
>
Brian Duncombe  [log in to unmask]