How else is a software company going to increase the output of the cow? :-(
Regards, Richard Schuh > -----Original Message----- > From: The IBM z/VM Operating System > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Dave Jones > Sent: Thursday, July 15, 2010 7:59 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: question to mixed CP an IFL in one LPAR > > Rcihard S. and Ray M. both point out situations where having > the LAPRs be IFL-only or CP-only ones is not feasible, or > desirable, for a number of reasons. In these situations, > having the ability to "mix-and-match" > engines in an LPAR is a good thing. > > I just wish we didn't have to deal with all of this silliness > of different types of engines in the first place. Sigh.... > > Have a good one. > > On 07/14/2010 03:09 PM, Mrohs, Ray wrote: > > Sometimes human resources may be stretched so thin that only one > > production VM environment is possible. There may be established > > billing procedures, various government and departmental > > certifications, complex ESMs, performance monitoring, and > hardware constraints that make separate IFL-only and CP-only > production LPARS a daunting contemplation. > > > > Ray Mrohs > > U.S. Department of Justice > > 202-307-6896 > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: The IBM z/VM Operating System > >> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Dave Jones > >> Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2010 3:49 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 > > -- > Dave Jones > V/Soft > www.vsoft-software.com > Houston, TX > 281.578.7544 >
