[Info-vax] System parameters (and a marketing suggestion), was: Re: What Will Drive More OpenVMS Adoption?

[Dave Froble]

On 12/6/2021 10:20 PM, abrsvc wrote:
> On Monday, December 6, 2021 at 8:26:38 PM UTC-5, Dave Froble wrote:
>> On 12/6/2021 1:29 PM, Simon Clubley wrote:
>>> On 2021-12-03, Arne Vajhøj <ar... at vajhoej.dk> wrote:
>>>> On 12/3/2021 1:55 PM, Simon Clubley wrote:
>>>>> I think VSI have done some work with parameter defaults so at least
>>>>> some of them will not be an issue on x86-64 VMS.
>>>>>
>>>>> Is there any option in VMS where, if a system/process goes past some
>>>>> percentage (say 80% to 90%) of any system parameter designed to limit
>>>>> use of a resource, VMS will issue an OPCOM warning about that system
>>>>> parameter (and maybe log it elsewhere as well) ? If not, would this
>>>>> be a good option to add to VMS ?
>>>>
>>>> I think VSI should get rid of >95% of SYSGEN and SYSUAF limits.
>>>>
>>>> They made sense with a 256 KB VAX but not so much on a 256 GB x86-64.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Agreed, but it would be nice if they would retain an overall ability
>>> to stop a single runaway process from gobbling up all the resources
>>> without at the same time having to micromanage resources as needed to
>>> be done on the resource limited systems of old.
>>>
>>> Simon.
>>>
>> I see no reason to remove system parameters. I think that many parameters could
>> be evaluated from the perspective of the anticipated systems being used, and
>> where there is no reason to not do so, set defaults to take advantage of those
>> anticipated systems. This should get rid of much of the need for AUTOGEN. This
>> should get rid of most of the need for any tuning.
>>
>> However, getting rid of the parameters would then not allow specific tuning for
>> the perhaps handful of uses where such tuning might be necessary. I'm mainly
>> thinking of desired restrictions. Just because I cannot think of any such usage
>> doesn't mean it will never happen.
>> --
>> David Froble Tel: 724-529-0450
>> Dave Froble Enterprises, Inc. E-Mail: da... at tsoft-inc.com
>> DFE Ultralights, Inc.
>> 170 Grimplin Road
>> Vanderbilt, PA 15486
>
> It would seem to me that the cost to update VMS to remove the parameters would be more than VSI wants to pay.  Why remove them, make them arbitrarily high (or low) such that they are effectively "not there".  Why make all kinds of source changes just to remove something that has little overhead?  Do the values change over time, yes.  It is difficult to make those changes, NO.  Are changes made frequently, NO.  Seems to me that this is one case where "if it aint broke..."
>
> Haing the flexibility to alter how the system uses resources will always benefit someone somewhere.  I would rather have control than not.  But I have had the pleasure of using this system for 40 years and know it well enough to know how to use those controls effectively.  Yes, in the hands of people that don't know better, bad things can happen, but the same can be said of other areas too.
>

I'll always remember one event.  A customer decided to adjust default working 
set rather high, "for better performance".  Unfortunately, when starting up the 
process, the OS had to go and gather all that memory and assign it to the new 
process.  Not only was the login rather slow, but, the rest of the running 
processes got real slow.

Me: Did you read the manual before playing with the system parameters?
Marie: No.
Me: Did you think the manual should be ignored?
Marie: No.

Now women are never wrong, right?  I could see Marie was getting a bit upset 
with my attitude.  So I backed off, explained what she had done, and settled for 
a promise (do women keep them?) that she would ask me before doing such things, 
and saved my life.

:-)

-- 
David Froble                       Tel: 724-529-0450
Dave Froble Enterprises, Inc.      E-Mail: davef at tsoft-inc.com
DFE Ultralights, Inc.
170 Grimplin Road
Vanderbilt, PA  15486