[Default] On 15 Jul 2016 04:46:21 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main [email protected] (Tom Marchant) wrote:
>On Thu, 14 Jul 2016 18:29:38 -0300, Clark Morris wrote: > >>[Default] On 14 Jul 2016 10:41:38 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main >>[email protected] (Ed Jaffe) wrote: >> > >>>What you don't know is that Dave is running a kneecapped 3-way with no >>>zIIP where each CP delivers ~9 MSU. >>> >>>We run a kneecapped 3-way similar to Dave's, but we have a zIIP that >>>delivers ~178MSU. It's 19 times faster than any of Dave's CPs and, in my >>>experience, one needs that kind of power to get decent response times >>>out of any significant Java workload. >> >>Would it make sense to make it a kneecapped 2 way with a zIIP? Are >>there areas where this would improve performance? > >Are you assuming that in order to get a zIIP he'd have to give up a CP? >That isn't the case. There are available processors on the box to turn >in a zIIP. My thought in suggesting a 2-way plus a zIIP was to keep the total number of processors the same . I was also thinking of a scenario where each of the two remaining processors kept their original setting so the total z capacity would be 2/3 of the original configuration plus the capacity of the zIIP. Clark Morris ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
