On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 3:45 PM, zMan <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 3:43 PM, Rick Fochtman <[email protected]> wrote: > >> ---------------------------------<snip>-------------------------------- >> >> Given the axioms of the discussion, it would be an entire book. The >> contention was that IBM shipping capacity that isn't used "doesn't make >> sense". >> --------------------------------<unsnip>----------------------------- >> But it makes excellent sense in the context of failure and recovery. >> Having a spare "engine" to switch over to in the event of a failure in the >> primaty engine(s) can make a HUGE difference for a shop that needs to >> maximize availability. > > > Sure, and for the other reasons elaborated upon at length here. The point > is, that seemed to be George Henke's contention. >
OK, too many pronouns even for me to understand my own post. Let me try again: Failover is but one of many reasons why not using every CPU in the book makes sense. However, George Henke's contention is that kneecapping CPUs is somehow "wrong" -- that not using all the available speed is a bad idea. Taken to its logical conclusion, not firing up every CPU in the book is also somehow "wrong". ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
