On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 7:17 PM, Patrick Falcone < patrick.falco...@verizon.net> wrote:
> A zAAP in my last situation would have beat the freakin pants off a GP CP, > that's a fact. I'm sitting here with many disparate machines and again find > myself with another client deliverable to move WAS V7 into situation where a > GP CP will lose to a zAAP with regards to performance, that's a fact. Do I > care about overhead switching at that point or relief to support the new > workload with minimal compromise to the traditional workload? I'll take the > zAAP over the slower GP CP. > A full-speed CP is the same speed as a zAAP, so your post makes no sense. If you're still talking about kneecapped CPs, then it still makes no sense. I can claim that a kneecapped CP on my z10 beats the pants off the IFL from your MP3000; what does that prove? You're comparing apples and hamsters. Now, if you had a SINGLE application that could saturate a zAAP, and an overloaded CP, adding a second CP might not benefit that single application as much as a zAAP. But that's just adding dedicated resource, not proving superiority of one over the other. That's what tuning exercises are for. Apologies if I've misinterpreted your post, but I don't see any other way to take it. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
