ca.portal.admin

XA Storage Question - release 14.1 & 16.0

Discussion created by ca.portal.admin on Sep 16, 2005
For XA Storage Pool defined in sysgen, what is the difference between
types (SHARED USER-KEPT) and (SHARED-KEPT USER)?

Thanks.
Mary Benson
Tufts University

"
IDMS Public Discussion Forum
IDMS-L@LISTSERV.IUASSN.COM
SMTP
IDMS-L@LISTSERV.IUASSN.COM
IDMS-L@LISTSERV.IUASSN.COM
SMTP








Normal

Normal
Re: Multitasking
"Turning on multitasking will solve your problem. I have not seen a negative
impact in the two or three environments that we have turned it on in.

Dick

Richard C Borman/GIS/CSC
CSC/GIS Idms System Support
9305 Lightwave Ave
San Diego, Ca 92193-9011
office 858-573-3265
rborman@csc.com



----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is a PRIVATE message. If you are not the intended recipient, please
delete without copying and kindly advise us by e-mail of the mistake in
delivery. NOTE: Regardless of content, this e-mail shall not operate to
bind CSC to any order or other contract unless pursuant to explicit written
agreement or government initiative expressly permitting the use of e-mail
for such purpose.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------





""Rozeboom, Kay
[DAS]"" To: IDMS-L@LISTSERV.IUASSN.COM
<KAY.ROZEBOOM cc:
@IOWA.GOV> Subject: Multitasking
Sent by: IDMS
Public
Discussion Forum
<IDMS-L


09/15/2005 12:37
PM
Please respond
to IDMS Public
Discussion Forum





Our mainframe is running at capacity, with 2 processors. IBM has
recommended an upgrade that will increase the total number of MIPs, but
divided into 3 processors. Each of the 3 processors will have fewer
MIPs available than each of the 2 that we have now. Our largest CV
currently uses an entire processor by itself. If we move to the
3-processor solution, it will not be able to get enough CPU.

1) Would turning on multitasking solve our problem?
2) How much overhead does multitasking generate?
3) Any advice about multitasking would be much appreciated.

Here is some more info about the large CV: It contains one very large
database. The primary online application is ADS, with CICS as the TP
monitor. It is a heavily-used OLTP system. The application is written
in such a way that adding a retrieval-only CV would not help much.

Kay Rozeboom
State of Iowa
Information Technology Enterprise
Department of Administrative Services
Telephone: 515.281.6139 Fax: 515.281.6137
Email: Kay.Rozeboom@Iowa.Gov

"
IDMS Public Discussion Forum
IDMS-L@LISTSERV.IUASSN.COM
SMTP
IDMS-L@LISTSERV.IUASSN.COM
IDMS-L@LISTSERV.IUASSN.COM
SMTP








Normal

Normal
What software is available for IDMS for data-encryption ro security purposes.
"Edward A. Timm
Sallie Mae, Senior Database Analyst
ETIMM@salliemae.com
(317) 596-1182
Fax (317) 595-1494

"
IDMS Public Discussion Forum
IDMS-L@LISTSERV.IUASSN.COM
SMTP
IDMS-L@LISTSERV.IUASSN.COM
IDMS-L@LISTSERV.IUASSN.COM
SMTP








Normal

Normal
Re: Multitasking
"Hi Lutz,

We looked at response times primarily within IDMS and then contacted the
users as well to get there perspective. Plus systems watched the overall
usage on the system using TMON. We were somewhat apprehensive as well since
we were going to a z890 processor with 3 smaller processors in terms of
mips. So far we have had very good results. I have not done a study in
relationship to the DC cobol programs vs Ads or Cics type of activity; we
just watched overall response time.

We did not have to adjust anything from a systems perspective such as
storage pools etc; we left everything alone and just turned on the
multitasking functionality.

The customers were really happy with the response times.

Dick

Richard C Borman/GIS/CSC
CSC/GIS Idms System Support
9305 Lightwave Ave
San Diego, Ca 92193-9011
office 858-573-3265
rborman@csc.com



----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is a PRIVATE message. If you are not the intended recipient, please
delete without copying and kindly advise us by e-mail of the mistake in
delivery. NOTE: Regardless of content, this e-mail shall not operate to
bind CSC to any order or other contract unless pursuant to explicit written
agreement or government initiative expressly permitting the use of e-mail
for such purpose.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------





""Petzold, Lutz""
<PetzoldL To: IDMS-L@LISTSERV.IUASSN.COM
@AETNA.COM> cc:
Sent by: IDMS Subject: Re: Multitasking
Public
Discussion Forum
<IDMS-L


09/16/2005 05:50
AM
Please respond
to IDMS Public
Discussion Forum





Dick, what positive impact have you seen? And what are you monitoring
to determine that there is no negative impact? In other words, what
does one look at to tell that it's doing good and no harm?

Lutz Petzold


-----------------------------------------
This e-mail may contain confidential or privileged information. If you
think you have received this e-mail in error, please advise the sender
by
reply e-mail and then delete this e-mail immediately. Thank you.
Aetna

"
IDMS Public Discussion Forum
IDMS-L@LISTSERV.IUASSN.COM
SMTP
IDMS-L@LISTSERV.IUASSN.COM
IDMS-L@LISTSERV.IUASSN.COM
SMTP








Normal

Normal
Re: Multitasking
"When we turned on MT we just added 1 to the number of processors so if you
were running 3 processors we set the mt parm at 4.

We did not see cpu utilization like what you referred to. We have turned
on multiprocessing only when we have installed a new z890 cpu and we were
going to smaller processors in turns of mips . The same situation that
started this discussion.

Dick

Richard C Borman/GIS/CSC
CSC/GIS Idms System Support
9305 Lightwave Ave
San Diego, Ca 92193-9011
office 858-573-3265
rborman@csc.com



----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is a PRIVATE message. If you are not the intended recipient, please
delete without copying and kindly advise us by e-mail of the mistake in
delivery. NOTE: Regardless of content, this e-mail shall not operate to
bind CSC to any order or other contract unless pursuant to explicit written
agreement or government initiative expressly permitting the use of e-mail
for such purpose.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------





Jerry Cooke
<Cooke.Jerry To: IDMS-L@LISTSERV.IUASSN.COM
@DOC.STATE.SC.US cc:
> Subject: Re: Multitasking
Sent by: IDMS
Public
Discussion Forum
<IDMS-L


09/16/2005 06:28
AM
Please respond
to IDMS Public
Discussion Forum




Lutz Petzold wrote:

In other words, what does one look at to tell that it's doing good and no
harm?


Good question, Lutz. Since we upgraded processors several weeks ago CPU
usage has gone up 35% on our multitasking CV while other benchmark jobs
have remained relatively stable. There were no changes in our user base or
with applications. One MVS guy fingered multitasking, so I am trying
different MT depth settings; currently:

d V MT Q DE 10
MT Queue Depth varied from 002 to 010

Moving from 2 to 10 has had no noticeable effect. (Even though CA's
recommended range is 0-9). Response time is still excellent, and CPU usage
is still sky-high. My questions are: how high can I go before effectively
turning off MT?, Has anyone done benchmarks to optimize MT settings?, and
what besides MT could cause this jump?

Jerry

"
IDMS Public Discussion Forum
IDMS-L@LISTSERV.IUASSN.COM
SMTP
IDMS-L@LISTSERV.IUASSN.COM
IDMS-L@LISTSERV.IUASSN.COM
SMTP








Normal

Normal
Re: Multitasking
"We went to MT when we started hitting the single TCB limit pretty hard. Response time during peak periods was seriously degraded, and due to the sluggishness of the system there were significant issues with DBKEY contention.

We have two primary DB/DC systems that run a mix of ERUs (both batch and CICS), DC COBOL, and ADS/O. Probably an ideal mix to take advantage of the Multitasking facility.

When we turned it on, marvelous things happened to online response time. The added boost also appeared to cut down on DBKEY wait and deadlocks (as expected).

On a CPU-per-task basis we saw around a 10-15% increase in CPU consumption.

We have since gone to a new mainframe, with fewer but faster processors.

Recently we started maxing out on total capacity on the mainframe, since we were now running on faster processors, we temporarily turned MT off. We measured around a 10-15% reduction in CPU consumption; again on a per-task basis.

The systems are running fine, peaking in the 70%-of-an-engine range (as measured by RMF over two minute periods). Response times are up slightly (but still within SLAs), as are DBKEY waits. As workload increases we expect we will need to turn on MT again (after adding an engine to the box).

No significant issues seen.

Don Casey
APL Limited

Outcomes