To avoid impacting other systems, I would drop your LPAR weights by a total of 6%, trim your LPAR memory to reuse for the ICFs, then create your two ICF partitions with 3% of 1 CPU and the reclaimed memory..
On Sat, Mar 4, 2023 at 2:55 PM Laurence Chiu <lch...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Thanks for the input. > > > On Sun, Mar 5, 2023 at 7:41 AM Mike Schwab <mike.a.sch...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > https://www.researchgate.net/publication/342570694_Coupling_Facility_Configuration_Options_-_Updated_2020 > > > > I am familiar with that document and even provided a copy to our outsourcer > to read but clearly they hadn't > > This is a direct link to IBM for that document. > > https://www.ibm.com/downloads/cas/JZB2E38Q > > > > > CF is not counted on SCRT, shown on RMF reports. > > Won't cost you on z/OS, may on some vendors. > > > > I don't care so much as this CF is only System B and for development so > using a general purpose engine is not an issue for us. The MSU charges are > going to be low and we are prepared to pay those if it gets us our parallel > sysplex > > > > > Thin CFs go to enabled wait when work is completed, restart when > > interrupt says there is work. > > > > Estimate is 3% light sharing to 13% heaving sharing (of z/OS workload). > > > > Thin CF would use internal links so no I/O overhead to another CPU. > > > > For the testing CF on the same system as the test Sysplex that is fine. > But they say there are no spare links from System B to System A if I wanted > to run a test Sysplex on System B and access a CF on System A. > > This is their response I had to manage > > > To give an idea of what I am facing, this is their response to my proposals. > > Using a General Purpose CP (GCP) as a coupling facility on System B(z13 at > WithDrawn From Marketing Licensed Internal Code) > • There are no spare unallocated GCP on System B i.e no “parked” GCP. > • All GCP’s, on System B, are allocated as shared, across all LPARS. i.e. > no dedicated GCP’s. > • Sharing GCP’s to use for z/OS and as a coupling facility is strongly not > recommended FYI coupling facility engines run CFCC (coupling facility > control code) rather than z/OS. > • This possibly I believe is now exhausted. > > I think all these points are contestable, specially after reading the IBM > document from a specialist in this area > > I just need to get some authoritative voice onto the case, ideally the > author of the document but that might not be easy. > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, > send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN -- Mike A Schwab, Springfield IL USA Where do Forest Rangers go to get away from it all? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
