A zIIP runs at full speed and is about 10% the cost of a CP. No software license costs based on zIIP capacity or usage. z/OS 1.6+ on z9+ run zIIPs and used by Java / DB2 V8+ / Linux runs on zIFLs. z13 consolidates zAAPs onto zIIPs.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZIIP http://www-03.ibm.com/systems/z/hardware/features/ziip/ Here is a web page to estimate zAAP / zIIP usage. http://enterprisesystemsmedia.com/article/examining-the-usefulness-of-ziip-zaap-processors On Sun, Jul 17, 2016 at 4:33 PM, Clark Morris <[email protected]> wrote: > [Default] On 15 Jul 2016 18:51:42 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main > [email protected] (Jesse 1 Robinson) wrote: > >>In our upgrades over many years, our goal has generally been to keep MSUs >>more or less the same unless actual growth is necessary. Few if any >>vendors/products base price on number of CPs. Our upgrades are usually based >>on technology--and the accompanying IBM price advantage. Because CPs have >>gotten hugely faster since the advent of CMOS in the mid-90s, this has often >>meant a reduction in the number of GP CPs from one generation to the next. >> > To sum up my question, would 2 general purpose CPUs each kneecapped to > X MIPS plus a zIIP perform better than 3 general purpose CPUs each > kneecapped to X MIPS and no zIIP? What are the workload > characteristics that would influence the choice? What are the > financial characteristics (software and hardware costs) that would > influence the choice? > > Clark Morris >>. >>. >>. >>J.O.Skip Robinson >>Southern California Edison Company >>Electric Dragon Team Paddler >>SHARE MVS Program Co-Manager >>323-715-0595 Mobile >>626-302-7535 Office >>[email protected] >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[email protected]] On >>Behalf Of Clark Morris >>Sent: Friday, July 15, 2016 5:11 PM >>To: [email protected] >>Subject: (External):Re: Any Gotchas going from V1.13 to V2.2 >> >>[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 > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, > send email to [email protected] 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 [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
