On Fri, 2004-02-06 at 14:00, Rich Smrcina wrote: > That varies based on processor. The bigger the processor the smaller > load the timer code puts on it. On a G5 I saw about .3% CPU Utilization > from an idle machine without the patch. On a z800 it drops to about > .1%. On a z900 it is probably negligible. But 100 machines on a z900 > without the timer patch would be measurable.
There is a slight saving on CPU usage, but that is not the big issue. The real big thing is that we need Linux to become inactive for CP to decide what servers are idle and can bear to have their resident pages taken away. With the timer ticking you keep the servers all in queue and can probably not get away with overcommitting storage. IBM is spending a lot of advertizing money on explaining why on-demand is so important... Rob
