We are thinking more like running a couple of Linux guests that exist specifically to support z/TPF development under the z/VM system that exists for the same reason. The Linux systems do not hog resources so we would get the benefits of more memory, additional disks, only 1 z/VM and associated SVMs to support, less complicated NJE network, only 1 VTAPE (VSSI) library needed, etc. That would give us Linux a many z/TPFs in the same LPAR.
Is that a need? Probably not. Is it a cleaner, simpler to support configuration? Seems probable. Is it a better or worse than using 2 LPARS? I don't know, do you? Regards, Richard Schuh > -----Original Message----- > From: The IBM z/VM Operating System > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Dave Jones > Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2010 12:49 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: question to mixed CP an IFL in one LPAR > > And that's why I find the terminology a bit confusing....:-) > A client had a mixed mode LAPR (1 fractional CP and one IFL), > and was puzzled as to why their Oracle workload was > experiencing such poor performance. > PERFKIT showed that almost all of the work was being > dispatched on the fractional CP with the IFL basically idle. > The fix was to remove the CP from the LPAR definition, making > it, as Alan notes, it "Linux only". > > IMHO, unless there is a clear cut need to combine CPs and > IFLs in a single LPAR(so, e.g., to run z/OS as a guest), it's > best not to do so. > > On 07/14/2010 01:37 PM, Alan Altmark wrote: > > On Wed, 14 Jul 2010 13:06:22 -0400, Alan > > Altmark<[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > >> o A "Linux only" mode LPAR is a term used by the HMC to > refer to an > >> LPAR that has only IFLs, by defintion. > > > > I am hoist on my own petard: > > o A "Linux only" mode LPAR contains *either* CPs or IFLs. > > > > Alan Altmark > > z/VM Development > > IBM Endicott > > -- > Dave Jones > V/Soft > www.vsoft-software.com > Houston, TX > 281.578.7544 >
