Gentlemen, I am indeed very grateful to you all and thank you all.
There is, indeed, compelling evidence supporting the case for fewer and even no LPARs but, unfortunately, it is proprietary and cannot be presented. I know that all sounds a little too convenient, but it is true. But thank you all and rest assured I have, indeed, read and learned and appreciate very much all that you all have written and said. Please, no hard feelings. Thank you. On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 2:37 PM, Ted MacNEIL <[email protected]> wrote: > >I'm still kind of curious what exactly you mean by: > - Performance: wasted CPU cycles especially for handshaking between > LPARs doing shared I/O > > So am I. > I haven't seen these issues since the early days of MDF and PR/SM in the > 1980's. > > >I have thoughts on what you mean by these kinds of things, but I am > reserving judgement. > > I'm not. > This sounds like a diatribe against something that has matured in the last > 25 years. > > Rather than say "it's bad because I say it's bad", present some evidence. > > - > Too busy driving to stop for gas! > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, > send email to [email protected] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO > Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html > -- George Henke (C) 845 401 5614 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
