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.