On Wed, 3 Feb 2010 13:46:24 -0800, Patrick Falcone <patrick.falco...@verizon.net> wrote:
>Come on Mark, you made a blanket statement about zAAP's and performance and I disagreed. Now you're coming back with specifics which I'm not going to/can't argue. I'm just stating I've been in situations where I personally believe that a zAAP would have been benificial over a GP CP from a performance perspective. > >So can we call this a *it depends on the environment* at this point. > I'm not trying to start an argument, but performance is not about "beliefs" or "gut feelings". It's about measurements and data / facts to back it up. The fact is, that there is overhead in engine switching to move work over to a specialty processor, so I'm not inclined to believe that from a performance perspective, overall, a system would run better with a split between zAAPs and GPs as opposed to all GPs. Now, I can see that WAS could run better since the zAAP(s) could be sitting there servicing the java work without competition - but the rest of the system could be CPU starved (also, remember the additional overhead if these engines are in another book). So I guess my point is, putting aside software costs, it is better from an overall system performance perspective to have all GPs. Mark -- Mark Zelden Sr. Software and Systems Architect - z/OS Team Lead Zurich North America / Farmers Insurance Group - ZFUS G-ITO mailto:mark.zel...@zurichna.com z/OS Systems Programming expert at http://expertanswercenter.techtarget.com/ Mark's MVS Utilities: http://home.flash.net/~mzelden/mvsutil.html ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
