Hi Barton, Thank you. I would like to explore that possibility. Could you give me a call please. 1-508-395-9374. Another problem, I'm facing is all our Linux guests are in Q3 (Rel. share 100). I like to change that since they need not be in Q3 all the time in PS. We are running Sles 9. Any thought on timing in Linux to make this work - SRM planned changes are Storbuf 300 300 300 & Ldubuf (don't remember the numbers).
Regards Tom -----Original Message----- From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Barton Robinson Sent: Thursday, August 27, 2009 6:03 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Linux Sizing & z/VM Customization CMM-1 is almost always appropriate (SLES9, SLES10, RHEL4, RHEL5). CMMA is NOT. CMM1 is recommended, CMMA is not. Mark is right on the numbers. Paul, Thomas wrote: > Hi Mark, > > CMM is not applicable here because of the S/W & H/W. 1M is nothing to > brag about. Thank you for the input. > > Thanks > Tom > > -----Original Message----- > From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:[email protected]] On > Behalf Of Mark Post > Sent: Thursday, August 27, 2009 4:11 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: Linux Sizing & z/VM Customization > >>>> On 8/27/2009 at 10:26 AM, "Paul, Thomas" <[email protected]> > wrote: > -snip- >> 2. Linux Sizing - All Linux guests are independent - in other words, > they >> all have their own Kernel, etc. The idea is to build an NSS and make > it >> like a CMS user. So, if I accomplish that what would be the size of >> z/Linux guest under z/VM with just z/Linux running. And, second if I > do >> build DCSS for Websphere binary, how much storage would I be able to > save? >> Currently, most of them running at 1.2G & 1.5G. > > If by "build an NSS" you mean having the kernel in an NSS, that will > save you about 1MB per guest that uses it. Not a whole lot. > > According to Barton Robinson of Velocity Software, you get the biggest > real storage savings by using CMM and xip2fs. (If I'm remembering > wrong, I know Barton will correct this.) > > CMM is the easiest to implement, and doesn't really require any effort > to maintain. Setting up xip2fs is not terribly easy to set up (I'm > working on getting that changed) and not easy to maintain. Still, if > you're really constrained, it may be worth the effort. For some insight > into that process, look at the presentation on it at > http://linuxvm.org/Present/ > > > Mark Post > > This email is intended for the recipient only. If you are not the intended recipient please disregard, and do not use the information for any purpose. > > This email is intended for the recipient only. If you are not the intended recipient please disregard, and do not use the information for any purpose.
