On Thu, 7 Aug 2008 12:53:03 -0500, Bill Holder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote :
>On Thu, 7 Aug 2008 12:51:21 -0500, Bill Holder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrot e: > >======================== ========================= ===================== >> >>Yes, I did saw that and meant to respond but forgot. The current support >>does not include dynamic increase for xstore. That's an interesting >>argument for considering it (that dynamically added xstore could then b e >>more easily dynamically detached, which is certainly true enough). I'm not >>how widely applicable that support would be nor far that would go towards >>addressing Richard's needs, though. Still, it would allow them to make some >>sort of use of the otherwise idle storage. >> >>- Bill Holder, z/VM Development, IBM > >Ooops - Next to last sentence should read: "I'm not >>sure<< how....". It's a VM LPAR he wants to add and remove the storage from. At his baseline level of storage he has some level of paging to real DASD. Adding XSTORE would reduce that. Alternativley, if his current level of paging is low or none, the extra XSTORE would allow additional servers to be brought up without driving up the paging to real DASD. If that doesn't help him (or anyone) then they have no real need to add more storage to a VM LPAR in the first place. He seems to think the extr a storage would benefit his VM LPAR, otherwise he would/should have said that adding storage wouldn't help him and thus make part of this discussion moot. While getting additional storage as normal storage is better than getting it as XSTORE, getting it as XSTORE is still a pretty good deal especially when you consider the relative ease of removing XSTORE vs removing regula r storage. Brian Nielsen
