I'll echo Shane's comments. We were running several OS/390 LPAR's and a CF on a 2-CPU z900. Never, EVER, again!!! Our response time from the CF partition was 10-20 times worse than a dedicated CF. Performance was terrible. The technical staff feared for their safety at every turn.
We added an ICF and have never looked back. You will not be happy and your management will not be happy, regardless of the savings... Ned Hedrick Sr. Mgr., Systems Administration ACI Worldwide This e-mail message and any attachments may contain confidential, proprietary or non-public information. This information is intended solely for the designated recipient(s). If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, please notify the sender immediately and destroy this e-mail. Any review, dissemination, use or reliance upon this information by unintended recipients is prohibited. Any opinions expressed in this e-mail are those of the author personally. I can - it'll be awful. Especially if the machine is anywhere near (CPU) committed. The more LPARs, the worse the PR/SM dispatch interference. I run a similar config at one customer, and use the CF only for LOGREC and GRS Star. The Star response times are between one and 2 orders of magnitude worse than what I would expect from placing the structure in an ICF. Yes, *at least* 10 times worse. May, or may not, be indicative, but I have forbidden the DBAs even considering data-sharing. They concurred. Plans are in the final stages to remove the CF, and go back to a ring (of monoplexes). The M??(?) thingies can be better used elsewhere. Shane ... ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
