HP3000-L Archives

March 1997, Week 3

HP3000-L@RAVEN.UTC.EDU

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
ChipDorm <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Date:
Wed, 12 Mar 1997 00:43:34 GMT
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (34 lines)
I need some opinions.  During my career I have done some
processor schedule tuning on single processor 3000s.  The
current machine I am on has the tuning set this way:

                    ------QUANTUM-------
QUEUE  BASE  LIMIT  MIN    MAX    ACTUAL  BOOST  TIMESLICE
-----  ----  -----  ---    ---    ------  -----  ---------
 CQ    152    202   30     30     30      DECAY    200
 DQ    170    202   30     30     30      DECAY    200
 EQ    158    202   30     30     30      DECAY    200

HPCPUNAME = SERIES 995-500


I don't pretend to be any sort of expert here but this really
looks odd to me.  I have no access to be able to alter the
tuning, and the people who are responsible for this machine
say that this is the setting that HP recommended. {8-0

The response from the 3000 is at times poor, having long loader
times ( > 30 secs) and even longer file access problems.  There
are typically 650 user processes at any given time and most are
active.

Does this processor tuning look OK to y'all.  If so why or why
not?

Oddly, GLANCE does not seem to show that there are any problems.
Is it possible that GLANCE has a problem in a multiple-processor
machine?


Chip "I-Hate-Internal-Politics" Dorman

ATOM RSS1 RSS2