Jerry,
        ADSM takes it buffers from above the line....  if you wanted to take
the conservative route you could start out by bumping the bufpoolsize to
8192, monitoring the cache hit ratio, then raising it as necessary.  I
believe the minimum recommended cache hit ratio for ADSM is 98% (maybe
one of the IBM folks can verify this).  If you're running with the
REGION=40M that's included in the proc supplied with the ADSM code,
you'll probably have to increase that also.  We used to run fine with
REGION=96M but I believe the recommended minimum value is now 128M.   We
saw a significant improvement in performance when we increased the
bufpoolsize and got our cache hit ratio back in the high 90's so I
suspect you'll see the same kind of improvement.

Good luck !!!

Tim Pittson
tpittson AT himail.hcc DOT com

>----------
>From:  Jerry Lawson[SMTP:jlawson AT THEHARTFORD DOT COM]
>Sent:  Friday, August 08, 1997 4:19 PM
>To:    ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
>Subject:       Re: Reply to ADSM MVS Server Perf
>
>---------------------------- Forwarded with Changes
>---------------------------
>From: INTERNET.OWNERAD at SNADGATE
>Date: 8/8/97 10:08AM
>To: Jerry Lawson at ASUPO
>*To: *ADSM-L at SNADGATE
>Subject: Re: Reply to ADSM MVS Server Perf
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>--
>As I read the manual, the number specified in the bufpool and logpool
>statements is in kilobytes - thus my setting would indicate 1.5MB for the
>pool size (1536) that I specified.  Do I read your response to be that you
>recommend a 16MB, or better 32MB pool?  I was concerned that the buffer was
>"below the 16M line", but if I am correct, then this is obviously not a
>concern.  The manual is of no help - it says that "The maximum value is
>limited  only by available virtual memory size."
>
>Jerry Lawson
>jlawson AT thehartford DOT com
>
>______________________________ Forward Header
>__________________________________
>Subject: Re: Reply to ADSM MVS Server Perf
>Author:  INTERNET.OWNERAD at SNADGATE
>Date:    8/8/97 10:08 AM
>
>
>Jerry,
>        An 86% hit ratio is very low for ADSM...  Try bumping up the
>bufpoolsize to a minumum of 16384 or possibly 32768.  The logpoolsize
>seems a little low also.. if you do a  Q LOG F=D and notice any log pool
>pct. wait, increase this also
>
>>----------
>>From:  Jerry Lawson[SMTP:jlawson AT THEHARTFORD DOT COM]
>>Sent:  Friday, August 08, 1997 8:13 AM
>>To:    ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
>>Subject:       Reply to ADSM MVS Server Perf
>>
>>---------------------------- Forwarded with Changes
>>---------------------------
>>From: INTERNET.OWNERAD at SNADGATE
>>Date: 8/7/97 3:54PM
>>To: Jerry Lawson at ASUPO
>>*To: *ADSM-L at SNADGATE
>>Subject: Reply to ADSM MVS Server Perf
>>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>-
>>--
>>In response to my original posting, Mike Stewart responded:
>>
>><snip - removed original message text - snip>
>>
>>*** Comments From: STEWAJM - Stewart, Mike; 08/07/97 12:54pm
>>
>>You might check your bufpoolsize.  If your devices are staying
>>that busy you might be able to speed the process by
>>reducing db activity.
>>
>>My db size is about 5 gb, and expiration processing takes
>>about 30 minutes...that is on a 9672-R3 model, to give you
>>a processor speed reference.
>>
>>Yes, ADSM is a _big_ CPU consumer.  Your processor consumption
>>seems comperable to mine (assuming our processor speeds are
>>comperable).
>>
>>** end of response ***
>>
>>I forgot to put processor information in the original note - the
> >system is an Amdahl 5995M 8670 - an 8 engine processor with 60
>>MIP engines.
>>
>>Our Bufferpool is set at 1536K, and our LOGP is set at 256K
>>
>>Bufferpool stats usually shows aaround and 86% buffer cache hit
>>ratio.
>>
>>Jerry Lawson
>>
>