On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 15:56:40 -0500, McKown, John <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>If interested, the reasoning goes that since we cannot get all of our >work done during month-end because production soaks the CPU totally, the >non-production work is be unjustly penalized. This will be "fixed" by >putting the non-production work in its only LPAR on the same CEC and >"weighting the LPARs appropriately". Nobody would believe me when I said >that I could do this using WLM on a single image. They wouldn't even >allow a "proof of concept" to see how a WLM solution might work. Yes, >I'm disgusted. > Don't blame you. I assume there is no engine upgrade with this split (or is there?). Hope the powers that be will be ready for possible production complaints at month end due to the "appropriate weight" on your non-production LPAR. Not to mention any extra overhead being sucked up for sysplex (5% or perhaps more for initial sysplex jump), another z/OS system and any supporting tasks (job schedulers, monitors, other ISV software). But there can be some positives also. You'll have a non-production LPAR to test out software upgrades and maintenance that gets more usage than a sandbox LPAR. I'm sure there are others... Mark -- Mark Zelden Sr. Software and Systems Architect - z/OS Team Lead Zurich North America / Farmers Insurance Group - ZFUS G-ITO mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] z/OS Systems Programming expert at http://expertanswercenter.techtarget.com/ Mark's MVS Utilities: http://home.flash.net/~mzelden/mvsutil.html ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
