Martin Packer wrote: >Agree with the stacked graph of LPARs. But one plea: Do it by processor pool >for (at least) GCPs and zIIPs. (IFLs might be meaningful, ICFs less likely, >zAAPs possibly.)
Agreed! That I already does. Anyways, according to my local IBMer, the zIIP CPU is shared by the DB2 LPARs. No sense trying to mix and match all CPU usage in one stupid magic number. No ICF and zAAPs for now. >Which takes us away from one number. :-) It remind me of this little motto: Take only ONE beer or coffee. It is the size of the mug that matters. ;-D Groete / Greetings Elardus Engelbrecht ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
