On Wednesday, 01/30/2008 at 04:43 EST, Wayne Driscoll <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Possibly, but then again maybe not. The reason I say this is that Linux > doesn't care if it is running on an IFL or a CP does it?
No, Linux does not care. > The change > would (most likely) have to be in hardware and z/VM. Since z/VM 5.3 can > already tell a z/OS guest that there is a virtual zIIP and/or zAAP > available, "some" of the groundwork is there. As for the micro code, > there would probably need changes (see hardware above). Again, this is > just a "pie in the sky" idea. OK. There are two issues at work: - Running work on a zIIP or zAAP - Configuring an LPAR to contain a zIIP or zAAP First, zIIPs and zAAPs are not IPLable and are not visible to an operating system that hasn't been specifically updated to see them. It takes additional code to dispatch work on them. z/OS has that code and uses it for "new workloads". Second, you cannot configure and LPAR to contain only zIIPs or zAAPs. It must also contain CPs. While all of this is just technology and can be changed, it's not about the technology. It's about running systems at a reasonable cost, as measured by both your management and IBM. We both need to get something out of the relationship. So the technology and licenses are built to let us more quickly get to that point. > As for going to IBM, mentioning POC etc, > that requires time, and paperwork both of which translate to real > dollars in management's eyes. You nonetheless might want to propose it. It has the advantage to your management of not buying a pig in a poke. Further, IBM is very interested in PoCs and actually *supporting* them. We don't just hand you a CPU, a DVD, and a pre-paid return envelope. IBM ends up absorbing part of the cost of staffing the PoC. If you find that Linux on System z would work for you financially, it would be based on the addition of one or more IFLs. I think the time you spend on paperwork will pale in comparison to the benefits you receive. > As to the comment that another CP is > already needed, that could be why work is being moved off of z/OS in the > first place. If your zIIPs and zAAPs are each running 20%, that's pretty good, and represent money you are *saving* on z/OS license costs. The one-time-charge for the processors will likely be recouped in a short amount of time. Things that exploit IFLs, zIIPs, and zAAPs enjoy the full benefit of the System z "technology dividend". That is, you upgrade the box (with more MSUs) and you pay nothing extra for new IFLs, zIIPs, and zAAPs, yet you get the technology advances. To make life better, you owe NO additional license costs for that workload. Alan Altmark z/VM Development IBM Endicott ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
