On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 4:22 AM, Scott Rohling<[email protected]> wrote:
> Hmmm.. Disabled cpu topology, added processor degradation capability... > > Those sound, well.. bad. I'm sure they're not, but something gets lost > in the 8 words or less synoposis ;-) I passed your post on to a customer > and they commented that they already do a fine job of degrading processors > on their own ... <giggle> You also get upset by the idea of external interrupts? Join the managers who got back from class and found the need to rename "problem management" into "incident management" (or worse, "opportunity management" because a customer complaint is an opportunity to improve our service even further). And I was called sarcastic when I assumed "change management" was going to be "predictive opportunity management" :-) Maybe you could get a position at the ITSO as an editor and flag the phrase "kill a daemon" with the suggestion to use less strong language (yes, true story) Rob (it's almost friday and very hot) PS On the serious side: the cpu topology stuff is a z10 LPAR-only thing, so rather small audience. Obviously z/VM doing virtual CPU topology is on my wish 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
