Nope. Can't replicate it. We run Basic/VM/VM/Linux at DR and here we run
LPAR/VM.... Though I keep suggesting that we make the attempt. Even the IBM
VM Performance expert is sayinh the problem we're having looks like SIE
bottleneck trouble - Though I can't convince anyone here of that even with
overwhelming commentary to that end from various people on the list.
Further, all activity on the open issue we have at IBM is now going through the
ONE person here who is convinced the problem is JAVA. I don't care
that he has 25+ years of MVS and z/OS experience. He's got 2 years of z/VM
experience and NO familiarity at all with Linux, on z/Series or otherwise.
So of course he's now in charge.
I give up.
Thanks to the list for all your help. Once again, my happy environment chooses
not to listen to your collective wisdom on this issue and my hands are
tied.
I so need a new job.
-J
John Summerfied <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent by: Linux on 390 Port
<[email protected]>
To
[email protected]
cc
05/11/2006 08:28 PM
Subject
Re: What
configurations are people using for Disaster Recovery for Linux under
Please respond to z/VM
Linux on 390 Port <[email protected]>
James Melin wrote:
> Alan, Thanks for the Clarification.
>
> Based on that I shouldn't be seeing the performance I am seeing.
>
> I'm just trying to figure out what in hell can cause a performance difference
> of 227:1 at DR vs back home. Yes. That's correct 227:1 sometimes
> slightly better, sometimes slightly worse. JITC is reporting that it is
> enabled.
>
> An application that loads the initial page here in 1 second took 3:47 to load
> at DR.
>
> If we're under basic mode, w/2 levels of VM, we should not be getting the SIE
> in software penalty. I understand that VM under VM will be slightly
> slower unless you do certain tuning steps. The behaviour is certainly more
> like I would expect in software SIE rather than in VM under VM.
>
> The consensus of the learned here is that the problem lies in Java.
>
> I disagree. There is no logical reason to explain why Java at DR would be
> performing so poorly - we make no configuration changes to Linux except
DNS
> - and even then the major IP stuff is handled in /etc/hosts and got adjusted
> to point to the correct IP address (Both wire and Hipersocket) of the
> recovery system on a flat network. Same subnet.
>
> I believe that the poor Java performance is a manifestation of a different
> problem, be it VM levels, be it maintenance, be it configuration of the
> environment - something. I cannot prove that this is the case without
> running the Linux guests 'first level'. I can't get any buy-in from the
people
> who have more say in this than I, to execute the Linux in a first level guest
> so we can see how it compares to running our VM under the DR VM - The
> fact not withstanding that nobody here on the list recovers that way. For
> similar reasons.
Can you try your DR setup at home?
--
Cheers
John
-- spambait
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Tourist pics http://portgeographe.environmentaldisasters.cds.merseine.nu/
do not reply off-list
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For LINUX-390 subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: INFO LINUX-390 or visit
http://www.marist.edu/htbin/wlvindex?LINUX-390
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For LINUX-390 subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: INFO LINUX-390 or visit
http://www.marist.edu/htbin/wlvindex?LINUX-390
