Control over activation of every defined LPAR has been available in the
'RESET' or POR profile since the first 9672 of the mid 90s.
That's what I had thought, but three years ago we had problems on 3-4 z/900's
where it didn't work.
-
-teD
O-KAY! BLUE! JAYS!
Let's PLAY! BALL!
Ted MacNEIL wrote:
Here's how you do it on a z800. On the Partitions tab of the Reset Profile,
you specify the order in which the partitions are activated. If no order is specified for
a partition, it is not activated.
That makes sense!
Simple!
We didn't have the option on the z/900's of
Skip Robinson wrote:
[...]
An interesting question is the degree, if any, to which all defined LPARs
whether activated or not actually consume HSA storage. That is, if you
have one or five or ten LPARs defined, will HSA as some point increase
simply by virtue of those LPARs' existence
I don't understand two things:
1. Who needs hundreds of linux servers on a single IFL, even if it is
possible?
2. Inactive partitions allocate no physical memory, but if I want to
activate them I must have memory available to accomodate their needs. That
means I must have the capacity although
TISLER Zaromil [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:[EMAIL
PROTECTED]...
I don't understand two things:
1. Who needs .
2. Inactive partitions allocate no physical memory, but if I want to
activate them I must have memory available to accomodate their needs. That
means I must have
Ted MacNEIL wrote:
We didn't have the option on the z/900's of three years ago.
You had the option. You just didn't notice it.
Not true.
Since it was available on the 9672's, when we started having problems after
defining our GDPS LPARs, I asked our hardware people to set it
No, until they need the memory, you can give it to other LPARs.
We haven't reconfigured the storage element offline in an active lpar for a
long time, but years ago we had a need once and it did not work, because
that was a CICS allocated storage and stopping it was the same as IPL.
TISLER Zaromil wrote:
No, until they need the memory, you can give it to other LPARs.
We haven't reconfigured the storage element offline in an active lpar for a
long time, but years ago we had a need once and it did not work, because
that was a CICS allocated storage and stopping it was the
You were right. They were wrong.
Being right has never endeared anybody to management.
-
-teD
O-KAY! BLUE! JAYS!
Let's PLAY! BALL!
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL
I had a Technology guru test running SQUID under Linux under z/VM and he
used most of our z890 IFL.
And almost any Oracle application programmer can write a bad query that will
get Oracle to eat an IFL.
With better application choices, tens, hundreds of Linux images can run
nicely on an IFL
Thomas Kern wrote:
I had a Technology guru test running SQUID under Linux under z/VM and he
used most of our z890 IFL.
And almost any Oracle application programmer can write a bad query that will
get Oracle to eat an IFL.
With better application choices, tens, hundreds of Linux images can run
R.S. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
Thomas Kern wrote:
I had a Technology guru test running SQUID under Linux under z/VM and he
used most of our z890 IFL.
And almost any Oracle application programmer can write a bad query that will
get Oracle to eat an
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tuesday, April 25, 2006 3:39 pm
Subject: Re: Adding LPARs without POR
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Hal Merritt wrote:
Any SWAG's on the MSU cost of an inactive IFL LPAR?
Zero.
--
Edward E Jaffe
Phoenix Software International, Inc
5200 W Century Blvd, Suite 800
Los
Eric Bielefeld wrote:
Thats not quite true. You have memory tied up in the Lpar definition,
unless you can define it to use shared memory. (I don't know how to do
that).
No. Memory is allocated to _active_ LPARs only. Inactive LPARs use no
memory or CPU resources.
--
Edward E Jaffe
Thats not quite true. You have memory tied up in the Lpar definition, unless
you can define it to use shared memory.
If the LPAR is de-activated, the memory doesn't count.
The problem can be:
ES/9000, 9672, and prior you can have the LPAR's come up de-activated at POR.
Our experience (3 years
: Adding LPARs without POR
Here's how you do it on a z800. On the Partitions tab of the Reset
Profile, you specify the order in which the partitions are activated. If
no order is specified for a partition, it is not activated.
That makes sense!
Simple!
We didn't have the option on the z/900
Ted MacNEIL wrote:
Here's how you do it on a z800. On the Partitions tab of the Reset Profile,
you specify the order in which the partitions are activated. If no order is specified for
a partition, it is not activated.
That makes sense!
Simple!
We didn't have the option on the z/900's
Did I read somewhere that z/os 1.7 or perhaps one of the new boxes
support adding LPAR's without a POR?
The business mission is a kilo boat load of Linux images, not real z/os
images. My knee jerk plan is to shrink a z/os image, and redistribute
the resources across a large number of small
] On
Behalf Of Hal Merritt
Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2006 12:59 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Adding LPARs without POR
Did I read somewhere that z/os 1.7 or perhaps one of the new boxes
support adding LPAR's without a POR?
The business mission is a kilo boat load of Linux images, not real z/os
I agree with Mark, but I think you are referring to reserved lpars - I
thing you have to
do a POR at least once to define them.
I tried to make a couple of ours that we no longer used reserved but it
meant taking
all the channel definitions away which seemed like a lot of work only to
have to
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Hal Merritt
Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2006 11:59 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Adding LPARs without POR
Did I read somewhere that z/os 1.7 or perhaps one of the new boxes
support
Subject: Adding LPARs without POR
Did I read somewhere that z/os 1.7 or perhaps one of the new boxes
support adding LPAR's without a POR?
The business mission is a kilo boat load of Linux images, not real z/os
images. My knee jerk plan is to shrink a z/os image, and redistribute
the resources
Neubert, Kevin (DIS) wrote:
I believe what you're referring to, adding LPARs dynamically, began with
the z890/z990 and z/OS 1.6.
Right software, right hardware, wrong function! The enhancement was not
to allow *adding* LPARs dynamically, the function was to allow
*renaming* LPARs
pressures to put each application instance on its own
server.
Thanks.
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Edward Jaffe
Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2006 12:50 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Adding LPARs without POR
Neubert
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Hal Merritt
Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2006 1:16 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Adding LPARs without POR
Well, I guess that will have to do.
Any SWAG's on the MSU cost
On Tue, 25 Apr 2006 10:49:33 -0700, Edward Jaffe
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Neubert, Kevin (DIS) wrote:
I believe what you're referring to, adding LPARs dynamically, began with
the z890/z990 and z/OS 1.6.
Right software, right hardware, wrong function! The enhancement was not
to allow *adding*
On Tue, 25 Apr 2006 13:16:28 -0500, Hal Merritt wrote:
There are guesstimates of perhaps 3 or 4 hundred Linux images.
...
In addition, there are audit pressures to put each application instance
on its own server.
Okay there's your problem: You CANNOT have anywhere near 3 or 4 HUNDRED
LPARs on
And you should definately join the IBMVM and Linux-390 lists.
http://listserv.uark.edu/scripts/wa.exe?A0=ibmvm
http://www2.marist.edu/htbin/wlvindex?LINUX-VM
/Tom Kern
On Tue, 25 Apr 2006 13:35:25 -0500, Tom Schmidt
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 25 Apr 2006 13:16:28 -0500, Hal Merritt wrote:
-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Adding LPARs without POR
Huh? There is no MSU cost for an IFL LPAR. IFLs do not count towards
your z/OS software cost at all. If an LPAR is DEACTIVATED, then it has
no cost at all. It does not take up CPU cycles (PR/SM ignores it) and
it does not have any memory
Subject: Re: Adding LPARs without POR
On Tue, 25 Apr 2006 13:16:28 -0500, Hal Merritt wrote:
There are guesstimates of perhaps 3 or 4 hundred Linux images.
...
In addition, there are audit pressures to put each application instance
on its own server.
Okay there's your problem: You CANNOT have
In addition, there are audit pressures to put each application instance on its
own server.
With z/VM and IFL's, you can do just that.
But, does your auditor consider each virtual instance a new server?
-
-teD
O-KAY! BLUE! JAYS!
Let's PLAY! BALL!
McKown, John wrote:
[...]
IMO, using LPARs for Linux is not a wise decision. z/VM is the only real
way to manage a boat load of images. z/VM manages better than PR/SM,
again IMO.
Why ?
IMHO it *depends*. Is it so common to run few z/OS LPARs and hundreds
Linux images ? I know datacenters
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of R.S.
Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2006 3:04 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Adding LPARs without POR
snip
Why ?
IMHO it *depends*. Is it so common to run few z/OS LPARs
Hal Merritt wrote:
Any SWAG's on the MSU cost of an inactive IFL LPAR?
Zero.
--
Edward E Jaffe
Phoenix Software International, Inc
5200 W Century Blvd, Suite 800
Los Angeles, CA 90045
310-338-0400 x318
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.phoenixsoftware.com/
One of the datacenters is using Linux under IFL. 2-4 images. Is it really cost
effective to buy z/VM for this poor z/800 machine ? Is it really needed at all
?
I think it is.
4 images isn't worth $125,000 USD for an IFL.
I don't think you can drive the IFL very high with just that few.
-
Any SWAG's on the MSU cost of an inactive IFL LPAR?
The specialty engines cost $125K USD each; there are no software costs, yet.
-
-teD
O-KAY! BLUE! JAYS!
Let's PLAY! BALL!
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access
Ted MacNEIL wrote:
One of the datacenters is using Linux under IFL. 2-4 images. Is it really cost
effective to buy z/VM for this poor z/800 machine ? Is it really needed at all ?
I think it is.
4 images isn't worth $125,000 USD for an IFL.
How do you work that out? Surely the number of
How do you work that out?
$125K is what an IFL costs.
Surely the number of Linux images is
irrelevant, the only real purpose of an IFL is to reduce SW costs when
you have other LPARS with z/OS etc...
No. There is more than that.
LINUX on any z-box still is 'free'.
The IFL just gives a better
Ted,
How do you work that out?
$125K is what an IFL costs.
I wasn't referring to the purchase cost, I meant how do you calulate
that 4 images isn't worth $125,000 USD for an IFL. i.e when does it
become worth it?
Surely the number of Linux images is
irrelevant, the only real purpose
39 matches
Mail list logo
