BACKUP quotas - was Re: Willing to bet this is Windows at its best

In article <1175084652.862117.215430@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
"AEF" <spamsink2001@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Mar 27, 10:14 pm, "Richard B. gilbert" <rgilber...@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Paul Sture wrote:
In article <1175017679.774361.265...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
"AEF" <spamsink2...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

I think each site should do what's best for its particular situation.
What's appropriate for one site could be costly overkill at another.

I do, however, like the idea of a separate BACKUP account so you can
give it those special quotas to improve its performance (though they
don't seem to help much in my particular situation, and I find upping
WSQUOTA actually worsens performance a little. For some reason, 1024
works best on my systems.)

FWIW, the most important BACKUP optimization is BLOCKSIZE!

Oh yeah! I found that also. I routinely use 32256, though I've never
had the need to copy a save set from tape to disk, so maybe I should
try the maximum and see if it helps even more.

Having recently revisited the circa V5.5 DSNlink article on BACKUP
quotas, they were fine in the days when one could close all applications
and give all a machine's resources to the BACKUP process.

They aren't necessarily suitable for a system today which has to serve
applications 24 hours a day.

Today's machines tend to have far more memory, more CPUs, faster tape
drives and faster everything else, than the the antiques that ran V5.5.
I think I have faster hardware at home (Alphastation 600) than what I
ran VMS V5.5 or V5.5-2 on!

But these increased-quotas recommendations came out with VMS 5.2! I'm
still waiting to hear if anyone ***actually tested*** and found a
significant improvement in performance from using the huge quotas.


I've just remembered that I first came across the idea of elevated
BACKUP quotas in some TK70 documentation. I _think_ that was in 1989,
though may be wrong. One thing was that a VAXstation 2000 didn't have
large enough buffers so the WSQUOTA recommendation was lower for one of
those.

--
Paul Sture
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Willing to bet this is Windows at its best
    ... quotas, they were fine in the days when one could close all applications ... Today's machines tend to have far more memory, more CPUs, faster tape ... But these increased-quotas recommendations came out with VMS 5.2! ...
    (comp.os.vms)
  • Re: Non-WS Process Quotas not in Performance Manual
    ... BSD had process resource quotas back in 1983. ... VMS has today, including some of the downright defining characteristics ... Sounds like UNIX. ...
    (comp.os.vms)