(Originally posted 2006-11-08.)
Well, I don’t know about that. Maybe this contribution to the debate won’t add much. But there must be at least one performance person out there who hasn’t heard of the discussion around RMPTTOM. But would I want such a person amongst my readership? 🙂
I’m not going to rehearse the whole story. It is pretty well understood that the old default was creaking somewhat.What I am pleased by is the way it happened…
Sitting on the sidelines of this one I saw.
- A customer reported experimenting with the RMPTTOM value and getting good results on MXG-L.
- Other customers experimented and also got good results.
- Bernie Pierce of SRM / WLM Development wrote a very fine piece on the matter in MXG-L. And I agree with everything he said in it.
- A WSC Flash on the subject, distilling Bernie’s thoughts.
- z/OS changes to the default.
You might argue that IBM should’ve been proactive in this matter. Personally, as I wasn’t involved, I can only guess that SRM / WLM developers had a hunch that the default value of RMPTTOM would benefit from revisiting. And that a customer coming along and providing proof was the catalyst. That’s genuinely a pure guess. In any case we do have to rely on input from the field and customers – to some degree. That’s what makes things like conference conversations and newsgroups (such as MXG-L) so much fun. 🙂
Of course, if you still want the technical guts do post a comment to that effect. But wait a while as I bone up on the issue. 🙂
Mainframe, Performance, Topics 