On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 07:46:56 -0500, Arthur Gutowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Tue, 23 Sep 2008 15:34:35 -0400, Knutson, Sam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >wrote: > >>We have to figure out what we will be doing as we replace our smallest CEC >with a z10 for the smallest LPARs as well. > >z/VM? > >Seriously, we'll be having similar discussions, here. We have several tiny JES2 >systems running alongside some comparatively huge JES3 systems and a habit >of keeping LPARs to an established "MIPS (or MSU) rating", though we've been >advised keeping an LPAR under 3-5% of the box can be counterproductive. > >I would be interested in talking to you offline on this - our z10 was going in >September, then October, now likely November. > With the scalability of the various z10 (and z9) models, I don't understand why this is an issue. Aren't the 4xx models an option? BTW, we've had a 2 engine penalty box that was a z900, then z9 and soon to be z10. The 3 smallest LPARs (plus a sandbox LPAR) have always run with a single CP and we've never had a problem on those LPARs due to the single engine. As I mentioned in an earlier post, we've had 4:1 (or higher) LP to CP ratios on that box. 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
