Thanks
Matt

 -----Original Message-----
From:   Dave Canan [mailto:ddcanan AT ATTGLOBAL DOT NET]
Sent:   Monday, February 17, 2003 1:58 PM
To:     ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
Subject:        Re: OS390  SELFTUNEBUFPOOLSIZE  yes/no?

If you do a "q status" command, look at the line titled BufPoolSize. This
is the actual bufferpoolsize that has being used when using
SELFTUNEBUFPOOLSIZE set to YES..


At 10:44 AM 2/17/2003 -0500, you wrote:
>Paul,
>         How can I tell what size my BUFPOOLSIZE has grown to?  I know I
>start at 32MB but I don't know how much it grows/shrinks.
>Matt
>
>
>  -----Original Message-----
>From:   Seay, Paul [mailto:seay_pd AT NAPTHEON DOT COM]
>Sent:   Monday, February 17, 2003 10:12 AM
>To:     ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
>Subject:        Re: OS390  SELFTUNEBUFPOOLSIZE  yes/no?
>
>I like to set it about 10% higher than the happy point and set it to yes on
>AIX.  Then check it every once and a while to see if it needs adjusting.
>The problem is you can create a lot of GETMAINs on MVS if you do not set it
>high enough to begin with.  On MVS, you are probably best to set it to NO
so
>that you do not get unpredictable memory usage on the machine.  This is the
>difference between using a dedicated machine for TSM and a general use
>machine and needing to share with other workloads.  You have to tune TSM on
>MVS like you would a TP monitor like CICS, IMS, etc.
>
>Paul D. Seay, Jr.
>Technical Specialist
>Northrop Grumman Information Technology
>757-688-8180
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: MC Matt Cooper (2838) [mailto:Matt.Cooper AT AMGREETINGS DOT COM]
>Sent: Monday, February 17, 2003 9:28 AM
>To: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
>Subject: OS390 SELFTUNEBUFPOOLSIZE yes/no?
>
>
>Hello all,
>         I have been reading the dialog on OS/390 performance tuning.  I
too
>have found that lowering the size of the address space to 512MB has helped.
>I have also seen improvements in my throughput by cycling TSM.  (I just
>don't do it as often.)   One thing that I was wondering is if anyone has
>done any research on an advantage to NOT USING SELFTUNBUFPOOLSIZE.  Right
>now I set BUFPOOLSIZE to 32760 and SELFTUNEBUFPOOLSIZE yes.   From the
looks
>of things TSM seems to be able to cause some thrashing with MVS memory
>management.  SO I wonder if SELFTUNEBUFPOOLSIZE should be set to NO and
just
>allocate a bigger fixed BUFPOOLSIZE, (like the 128M that was suggested)?
>Matt

Dave Canan
TSM Performance
IBM Advanced Technical Support
ddcanan AT us.ibm DOT com