There was a similar thread about this issue a couple of months ago. Since then I have been using a CF LPAR to guard 40% of the machine's MSUs by defining it to share all our CPs, and hard-cap the CF LPAR at weight 40 out of a 100 total.
Lately I am seeing a very large difference between the LPAR BUSY TIME PERC and the MVS BUSY TIME PERC fields in the RMF CPU Activity report. The difference is over 20% at peak hours. This was not the case before I started using "CF capping". The CF LPAR used to guard MSUs has the highest weight on the machine. Taking under consideration the polling nature of CF LPARs, keeping the CPs busy all the time, I am starting to think this has performance implications I have overlooked before. Does this make sense? Thanks, Gil. On 12/30/05, Gil Peleg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi Bruno, > > Lately I am starting to wonder how perfectly this method realy works. > > > On 12/29/05, Bruno Sugliani <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > The easiest way is to create a CF with the amount of MIPS you do not > > want > > and leave the 200 mips to your lpar .( it works perfectly ) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
