Re: Adding LPARs without POR
Control over activation of every defined LPAR has been available in the 'RESET' or POR profile since the first 9672 of the mid 90s. That's what I had thought, but three years ago we had problems on 3-4 z/900's where it didn't work. - -teD O-KAY! BLUE! JAYS! Let's PLAY! BALL! -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: Adding LPARs without POR
Ted MacNEIL wrote: Here's how you do it on a z800. On the Partitions tab of the Reset Profile, you specify the order in which the partitions are activated. If no order is specified for a partition, it is not activated. That makes sense! Simple! We didn't have the option on the z/900's of three years ago. I assume/hope it's in the z/890, z/990, z9, and whatever is due to be announced? IMHO it is available for years. For sure it is on z9, z/990, z/900, z/800. I believe it was on G5 and even G3 (however it's been a few years since I worked on it). -- Radoslaw Skorupka Lodz, Poland -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: Adding LPARs without POR
Skip Robinson wrote: [...] An interesting question is the degree, if any, to which all defined LPARs whether activated or not actually consume HSA storage. That is, if you have one or five or ten LPARs defined, will HSA as some point increase simply by virtue of those LPARs' existence regardless of whether they are ever activated? If they do, then it would be accurate at some level to accuse them of tying up memory. But I can guarantee that--to the byte--an LPAR takes no storage whatever after POR if and until it's activated. It is IMHO irrelevant on z/990 and next machines. I did some tests on z9: Defined and activated configuration with 20+ LPARs, 4 CSS'es, all the CSSes were fully-sized (max. number of devices was set to maximum). Then defined small config - few LPARs, single CSS, cut to 12000 devices. I don't remember exact numbers, but HSA size changed by small degree, maybe 20%. Just irrelevant change - that's what I learned. It is not worth to consider HSA consupmtion when adding LPARs or subsystems. BTW: HSA size in z9 is less than 2GB. In z/990 it was approx. 1GB. -- Radoslaw Skorupka Lodz, Poland -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: Adding LPARs without POR
I don't understand two things: 1. Who needs hundreds of linux servers on a single IFL, even if it is possible? 2. Inactive partitions allocate no physical memory, but if I want to activate them I must have memory available to accomodate their needs. That means I must have the capacity although the lpars are still inactive. So, indirectly they do eat memory. Zaromil -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: Adding LPARs without POR
TISLER Zaromil [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... I don't understand two things: 1. Who needs . 2. Inactive partitions allocate no physical memory, but if I want to activate them I must have memory available to accomodate their needs. That means I must have the capacity although the lpars are still inactive. So, indirectly they do eat memory. No, until they need the memory, you can give it to other LPARs. Alternatively you can add memory concurrently before activating the new LPARs. Kees. ** For information, services and offers, please visit our web site: http://www.klm.com. This e-mail and any attachment may contain confidential and privileged material intended for the addressee only. If you are not the addressee, you are notified that no part of the e-mail or any attachment may be disclosed, copied or distributed, and that any other action related to this e-mail or attachment is strictly prohibited, and may be unlawful. If you have received this e-mail by error, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail, and delete this message. Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij NV (KLM), its subsidiaries and/or its employees shall not be liable for the incorrect or incomplete transmission of this e-mail or any attachments, nor responsible for any delay in receipt. ** -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: Adding LPARs without POR
Ted MacNEIL wrote: We didn't have the option on the z/900's of three years ago. You had the option. You just didn't notice it. Not true. Since it was available on the 9672's, when we started having problems after defining our GDPS LPARs, I asked our hardware people to set it up 'properly'. I was told it couldn't be done. They were wrong. I wasn't allowed on the raised floor to check it out, so I couldn't validate it. Then how can you be so sure my statement is untrue? They kept assigning the problem tickets (after each POR) to me, since I was responsible for the (poorly) defined profiles. I insisted that we should be able to do it; they insisted we couldn't. You were right. They were wrong. -- Edward E Jaffe Phoenix Software International, Inc 5200 W Century Blvd, Suite 800 Los Angeles, CA 90045 310-338-0400 x318 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.phoenixsoftware.com/ -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: Adding LPARs without POR
No, until they need the memory, you can give it to other LPARs. We haven't reconfigured the storage element offline in an active lpar for a long time, but years ago we had a need once and it did not work, because that was a CICS allocated storage and stopping it was the same as IPL. Alternatively you can add memory concurrently before activating the new LPARs. I don't believe there are many fans of it here. Zaromil -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: Adding LPARs without POR
TISLER Zaromil wrote: No, until they need the memory, you can give it to other LPARs. We haven't reconfigured the storage element offline in an active lpar for a long time, but years ago we had a need once and it did not work, because that was a CICS allocated storage and stopping it was the same as IPL. Alternatively you can add memory concurrently before activating the new LPARs. I don't believe there are many fans of it here. In fact, if you predict new LPARs active, you should also plan the resources: IFLs *and memory*. You cannot reassign existing memory unless you have too much of it. I have too much (purchase granularity), so I can afford to have inactive LPARs with some memory assigned. Memory is quite cheap, especially when compared to CPU resources. -- Radoslaw Skorupka Lodz, Poland -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: Adding LPARs without POR
You were right. They were wrong. Being right has never endeared anybody to management. - -teD O-KAY! BLUE! JAYS! Let's PLAY! BALL! -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: Adding LPARs without POR
I had a Technology guru test running SQUID under Linux under z/VM and he used most of our z890 IFL. And almost any Oracle application programmer can write a bad query that will get Oracle to eat an IFL. With better application choices, tens, hundreds of Linux images can run nicely on an IFL under z/VM. But if your customers only want to run a handful of Linux images and can accept the LPAR management (cannot quite define a new LPAR as fast as defining a new virtual machine), then LPARs are my recommendation. /Tom Kern On Tue, 25 Apr 2006 00:00:00 GMT, Ted MacNEIL [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: One of the datacenters is using Linux under IFL. 2-4 images. Is it really cost effective to buy z/VM for this poor z/800 machine ? Is it really needed at all ? I think it is. 4 images isn't worth $125,000 USD for an IFL. I don't think you can drive the IFL very high with just that few. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: Adding LPARs without POR
Thomas Kern wrote: I had a Technology guru test running SQUID under Linux under z/VM and he used most of our z890 IFL. And almost any Oracle application programmer can write a bad query that will get Oracle to eat an IFL. With better application choices, tens, hundreds of Linux images can run nicely on an IFL under z/VM. But if your customers only want to run a handful of Linux images and can accept the LPAR management (cannot quite define a new LPAR as fast as defining a new virtual machine), then LPARs are my recommendation. ...and you can define LPARs in advance, more than you need now. It does not consume any CPU cycle, however it takes memory. I'm not sure about dynamic memory re-allocations - in general it is feasible, but don't know details. -- Radoslaw Skorupka Lodz, Poland -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: Adding LPARs without POR
R.S. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... Thomas Kern wrote: I had a Technology guru test running SQUID under Linux under z/VM and he used most of our z890 IFL. And almost any Oracle application programmer can write a bad query that will get Oracle to eat an IFL. With better application choices, tens, hundreds of Linux images can run nicely on an IFL under z/VM. But if your customers only want to run a handful of Linux images and can accept the LPAR management (cannot quite define a new LPAR as fast as defining a new virtual machine), then LPARs are my recommendation. ..and you can define LPARs in advance, more than you need now. It does not consume any CPU cycle, however it takes memory. I'm not sure about dynamic memory re-allocations - in general it is feasible, but don't know details. They even don't take memory if you don't activate them. Kees. ** For information, services and offers, please visit our web site: http://www.klm.com. This e-mail and any attachment may contain confidential and privileged material intended for the addressee only. If you are not the addressee, you are notified that no part of the e-mail or any attachment may be disclosed, copied or distributed, and that any other action related to this e-mail or attachment is strictly prohibited, and may be unlawful. If you have received this e-mail by error, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail, and delete this message. Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij NV (KLM), its subsidiaries and/or its employees shall not be liable for the incorrect or incomplete transmission of this e-mail or any attachments, nor responsible for any delay in receipt. ** -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: Adding LPARs without POR
Thats not quite true. You have memory tied up in the Lpar definition, unless you can define it to use shared memory. (I don't know how to do that). Eric Bielefeld Sr. Systems Programmer PH Mining Equipment 414-671-7849 Milwaukee, Wisconsin - Original Message - From: Edward Jaffe [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Tuesday, April 25, 2006 3:39 pm Subject: Re: Adding LPARs without POR To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU Hal Merritt wrote: Any SWAG's on the MSU cost of an inactive IFL LPAR? Zero. -- Edward E Jaffe Phoenix Software International, Inc 5200 W Century Blvd, Suite 800 Los Angeles, CA 90045 310-338-0400 x318 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.phoenixsoftware.com/ -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: Adding LPARs without POR
Eric Bielefeld wrote: Thats not quite true. You have memory tied up in the Lpar definition, unless you can define it to use shared memory. (I don't know how to do that). No. Memory is allocated to _active_ LPARs only. Inactive LPARs use no memory or CPU resources. -- Edward E Jaffe Phoenix Software International, Inc 5200 W Century Blvd, Suite 800 Los Angeles, CA 90045 310-338-0400 x318 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.phoenixsoftware.com/ -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: Adding LPARs without POR
Thats not quite true. You have memory tied up in the Lpar definition, unless you can define it to use shared memory. If the LPAR is de-activated, the memory doesn't count. The problem can be: ES/9000, 9672, and prior you can have the LPAR's come up de-activated at POR. Our experience (3 years ago), with z/900's they always came active and that caused a lot of issues (extra partitions defined for GDPS) until we automated the interface to the HMC. I have had no direct experience with later ones, since I'm more hands off than I used to be. Also, we don't have 'spare' LPARs defined. - -teD O-KAY! BLUE! JAYS! Let's PLAY! BALL! -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: Adding LPARs without POR
Control over activation of every defined LPAR has been available in the 'RESET' or POR profile since the first 9672 of the mid 90s. A trap that's easy to fall into, whenever customizing or editing the POR profile, is the HMC's generous offer to synchronize the activation set with the list of all defined LPARs. The assumption is clearly that you have inadvertently omitted an LPAR from the list. Maybe you have. Or maybe you have extra LPARs defined for whatever reason: testing, DR, future plans. You must resist the tempatation to let the HMC 'save' you. Activated LPARs *will* use memory to the detriment of any desired LPAR further down the activation sequence. Once all the memory has been meted out, any left standing in line will be toast. An interesting question is the degree, if any, to which all defined LPARs whether activated or not actually consume HSA storage. That is, if you have one or five or ten LPARs defined, will HSA as some point increase simply by virtue of those LPARs' existence regardless of whether they are ever activated? If they do, then it would be accurate at some level to accuse them of tying up memory. But I can guarantee that--to the byte--an LPAR takes no storage whatever after POR if and until it's activated. Ted MacNEIL [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent by: IBM Mainframe Discussion List IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU 04/25/2006 05:00 PM Please respond to IBM Mainframe Discussion List IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU To IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU cc Subject Re: Adding LPARs without POR Here's how you do it on a z800. On the Partitions tab of the Reset Profile, you specify the order in which the partitions are activated. If no order is specified for a partition, it is not activated. That makes sense! Simple! We didn't have the option on the z/900's of three years ago. I assume/hope it's in the z/890, z/990, z9, and whatever is due to be announced? - -teD -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: Adding LPARs without POR
Ted MacNEIL wrote: Here's how you do it on a z800. On the Partitions tab of the Reset Profile, you specify the order in which the partitions are activated. If no order is specified for a partition, it is not activated. That makes sense! Simple! We didn't have the option on the z/900's of three years ago. You had the option. You just didn't notice it. I assume/hope it's in the z/890, z/990, z9, and whatever is due to be announced? Hopefully, by the time you read this, the new hardware will be announced. It should have that feature as well. -- Edward E Jaffe Phoenix Software International, Inc 5200 W Century Blvd, Suite 800 Los Angeles, CA 90045 310-338-0400 x318 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.phoenixsoftware.com/ -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Adding LPARs without POR
Did I read somewhere that z/os 1.7 or perhaps one of the new boxes support adding LPAR's without a POR? The business mission is a kilo boat load of Linux images, not real z/os images. My knee jerk plan is to shrink a z/os image, and redistribute the resources across a large number of small Linux images. Or was that just a nice dream? Be gentle; I am just learning how to spell IFL ;-) Thanks!! -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: Adding LPARs without POR
You really don't want to build multiple lpars for the Linux images. You really should run these images under VM. IBM has special VM pricing for VM under an IFL. Mark Jacobs Time Customer Service Inc. -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Hal Merritt Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2006 12:59 PM To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU Subject: Adding LPARs without POR Did I read somewhere that z/os 1.7 or perhaps one of the new boxes support adding LPAR's without a POR? The business mission is a kilo boat load of Linux images, not real z/os images. My knee jerk plan is to shrink a z/os image, and redistribute the resources across a large number of small Linux images. Or was that just a nice dream? Be gentle; I am just learning how to spell IFL ;-) Thanks!! -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: Adding LPARs without POR
I agree with Mark, but I think you are referring to reserved lpars - I thing you have to do a POR at least once to define them. I tried to make a couple of ours that we no longer used reserved but it meant taking all the channel definitions away which seemed like a lot of work only to have to put them back later so I didn't. Left the old definitions with minimal memory and don't activate them. Did I read somewhere that z/os 1.7 or perhaps one of the new boxes support adding LPAR's without a POR? The business mission is a kilo boat load of Linux images, not real z/os images. My knee jerk plan is to shrink a z/os image, and redistribute the resources across a large number of small Linux images. Or was that just a nice dream? -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: Adding LPARs without POR
-Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Hal Merritt Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2006 11:59 AM To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU Subject: Adding LPARs without POR Did I read somewhere that z/os 1.7 or perhaps one of the new boxes support adding LPAR's without a POR? The business mission is a kilo boat load of Linux images, not real z/os images. My knee jerk plan is to shrink a z/os image, and redistribute the resources across a large number of small Linux images. Or was that just a nice dream? Be gentle; I am just learning how to spell IFL ;-) Thanks!! IMO, using LPARs for Linux is not a wise decision. z/VM is the only real way to manage a boat load of images. z/VM manages better than PR/SM, again IMO. However, to answer your question, I vaguely remember that you can add an LPAR on the fly with the newest z9 systems. But I cannot find anything to back up the memory. -- John McKown Senior Systems Programmer HealthMarkets Keeping the Promise of Affordable Coverage Administrative Services Group Information Technology This message (including any attachments) contains confidential information intended for a specific individual and purpose, and its content is protected by law. If you are not the intended recipient, you should delete this message and are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, or distribution of this transmission, or taking any action based on it, is strictly prohibited. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: Adding LPARs without POR
I believe what you're referring to, adding LPARs dynamically, began with the z890/z990 and z/OS 1.6. Regards, Kevin -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Hal Merritt Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2006 9:59 AM To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU Subject: Adding LPARs without POR Did I read somewhere that z/os 1.7 or perhaps one of the new boxes support adding LPAR's without a POR? The business mission is a kilo boat load of Linux images, not real z/os images. My knee jerk plan is to shrink a z/os image, and redistribute the resources across a large number of small Linux images. Or was that just a nice dream? Be gentle; I am just learning how to spell IFL ;-) Thanks!! -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: Adding LPARs without POR
Neubert, Kevin (DIS) wrote: I believe what you're referring to, adding LPARs dynamically, began with the z890/z990 and z/OS 1.6. Right software, right hardware, wrong function! The enhancement was not to allow *adding* LPARs dynamically, the function was to allow *renaming* LPARs dynamically. You can now set up some dummy LPARs and rename them concurrently when needed. -- Edward E Jaffe Phoenix Software International, Inc 5200 W Century Blvd, Suite 800 Los Angeles, CA 90045 310-338-0400 x318 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.phoenixsoftware.com/ -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: Adding LPARs without POR
Well, I guess that will have to do. Any SWAG's on the MSU cost of an inactive IFL LPAR? I have four active and one inactive now, all z/os. There are guesstimates of perhaps 3 or 4 hundred Linux images. I know, I know. But management needs numbers, not emotions. In addition, there are audit pressures to put each application instance on its own server. Thanks. -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Edward Jaffe Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2006 12:50 PM To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU Subject: Re: Adding LPARs without POR Neubert, Kevin (DIS) wrote: I believe what you're referring to, adding LPARs dynamically, began with the z890/z990 and z/OS 1.6. Right software, right hardware, wrong function! The enhancement was not to allow *adding* LPARs dynamically, the function was to allow *renaming* LPARs dynamically. You can now set up some dummy LPARs and rename them concurrently when needed. -- Edward E Jaffe -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: Adding LPARs without POR
-Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Hal Merritt Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2006 1:16 PM To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU Subject: Re: Adding LPARs without POR Well, I guess that will have to do. Any SWAG's on the MSU cost of an inactive IFL LPAR? I have four active and one inactive now, all z/os. There are guesstimates of perhaps 3 or 4 hundred Linux images. I know, I know. But management needs numbers, not emotions. In addition, there are audit pressures to put each application instance on its own server. Thanks. Huh? There is no MSU cost for an IFL LPAR. IFLs do not count towards your z/OS software cost at all. If an LPAR is DEACTIVATED, then it has no cost at all. It does not take up CPU cycles (PR/SM ignores it) and it does not have any memory assigned to it. Just a few bytes in the HSA to define it. Very minimal. Or am I off in left field again? -- John McKown Senior Systems Programmer HealthMarkets Keeping the Promise of Affordable Coverage Administrative Services Group Information Technology This message (including any attachments) contains confidential information intended for a specific individual and purpose, and its content is protected by law. If you are not the intended recipient, you should delete this message and are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, or distribution of this transmission, or taking any action based on it, is strictly prohibited. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: Adding LPARs without POR
On Tue, 25 Apr 2006 10:49:33 -0700, Edward Jaffe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Neubert, Kevin (DIS) wrote: I believe what you're referring to, adding LPARs dynamically, began with the z890/z990 and z/OS 1.6. Right software, right hardware, wrong function! The enhancement was not to allow *adding* LPARs dynamically, the function was to allow *renaming* LPARs dynamically. You can now set up some dummy LPARs and rename them concurrently when needed. Technically you are correct (big surprise :-) ). However, I think it is semantics. I have seen the function documented and spoken as dynamically adding a partition by IBM. Mark -- Mark Zelden Sr. Software and Systems Architect - z/OS Team Lead Zurich North America / Farmers Insurance Group mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Systems Programming expert at http://expertanswercenter.com/ Mark's MVS Utilities: http://home.flash.net/~mzelden/mvsutil.html -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: Adding LPARs without POR
On Tue, 25 Apr 2006 13:16:28 -0500, Hal Merritt wrote: There are guesstimates of perhaps 3 or 4 hundred Linux images. ... In addition, there are audit pressures to put each application instance on its own server. Okay there's your problem: You CANNOT have anywhere near 3 or 4 HUNDRED LPARs on any given single box. You need to virtualize your proposal. You need to be thinking z/VM. While the server in that case would be virtual it should be real enough to pass any audit. (It can pass a DoD government audit, as a recent example indicates.) z/VM doesn't have issues with multiple Linux instances and it can scale up (or down) very quickly. Ideal for what you seem to be looking at. You only need one (or perhaps two, for a test z/VM) LPARs to get the concept up off of the ground and running smoothly. -- Tom Schmidt Madison, WI -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: Adding LPARs without POR
And you should definately join the IBMVM and Linux-390 lists. http://listserv.uark.edu/scripts/wa.exe?A0=ibmvm http://www2.marist.edu/htbin/wlvindex?LINUX-VM /Tom Kern On Tue, 25 Apr 2006 13:35:25 -0500, Tom Schmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, 25 Apr 2006 13:16:28 -0500, Hal Merritt wrote: There are guesstimates of perhaps 3 or 4 hundred Linux images. In addition, there are audit pressures to put each application instance on its own server. Okay there's your problem: You CANNOT have anywhere near 3 or 4 HUNDRED LPARs on any given single box. You need to virtualize your proposal. You need to be thinking z/VM. While the server in that case would be virtual it should be real enough to pass any audit. (It can pass a DoD government audit, as a recent example indicates.) z/VM doesn't have issues with multiple Linux instances and it can scale up (or down) very quickly. Ideal for what you seem to be looking at. You only need one (or perhaps two, for a test z/VM) LPARs to get the concept up off of the ground and running smoothly. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: Adding LPARs without POR
Well, sometimes left field is a good place to be. It all depends ;-) I once recall a 'cost' of a few percent of the box in hypervisor overhead for a defined LPAR, active or not. IIRC, the ROT was 2-5%. And I am talking several hundred active LPARs. I can believe things have changed. I can believe I have forgotten something. I can believe I was wrong. I am a little doubtful that the cost of a free lunch is changed, however :-) -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of McKown, John Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2006 1:23 PM To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU Subject: Re: Adding LPARs without POR Huh? There is no MSU cost for an IFL LPAR. IFLs do not count towards your z/OS software cost at all. If an LPAR is DEACTIVATED, then it has no cost at all. It does not take up CPU cycles (PR/SM ignores it) and it does not have any memory assigned to it. Just a few bytes in the HSA to define it. Very minimal. Or am I off in left field again? -- John McKown -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: Adding LPARs without POR
I knew I was asking the right people. I get good quality answers even when I ask poor questions. Thanks!! Hal. -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tom Schmidt Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2006 1:35 PM To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU Subject: Re: Adding LPARs without POR On Tue, 25 Apr 2006 13:16:28 -0500, Hal Merritt wrote: There are guesstimates of perhaps 3 or 4 hundred Linux images. ... In addition, there are audit pressures to put each application instance on its own server. Okay there's your problem: You CANNOT have anywhere near 3 or 4 HUNDRED LPARs on any given single box. You need to virtualize your proposal. You need to be thinking z/VM. While the server in that case would be virtual it should be real enough to pass any audit. (It can pass a DoD government audit, as a recent example indicates.) z/VM doesn't have issues with multiple Linux instances and it can scale up (or down) very quickly. Ideal for what you seem to be looking at. You only need one (or perhaps two, for a test z/VM) LPARs to get the concept up off of the ground and running smoothly. -- Tom Schmidt Madison, WI -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: Adding LPARs without POR
In addition, there are audit pressures to put each application instance on its own server. With z/VM and IFL's, you can do just that. But, does your auditor consider each virtual instance a new server? - -teD O-KAY! BLUE! JAYS! Let's PLAY! BALL! -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: Adding LPARs without POR
McKown, John wrote: [...] IMO, using LPARs for Linux is not a wise decision. z/VM is the only real way to manage a boat load of images. z/VM manages better than PR/SM, again IMO. Why ? IMHO it *depends*. Is it so common to run few z/OS LPARs and hundreds Linux images ? I know datacenters running several LPARs (monoplexes, completely separated systems), *few* Linux images ...and bunch of Windows serversg One of the datacenters is using Linux under IFL. 2-4 images. Is it really cost effective to buy z/VM for this poor z/800 machine ? Is it really needed at all ? Just my $0.02 -- Radoslaw Skorupka Lodz, Poland -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: Adding LPARs without POR
-Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of R.S. Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2006 3:04 PM To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU Subject: Re: Adding LPARs without POR snip Why ? IMHO it *depends*. Is it so common to run few z/OS LPARs and hundreds Linux images ? I know datacenters running several LPARs (monoplexes, completely separated systems), *few* Linux images ...and bunch of Windows serversg One of the datacenters is using Linux under IFL. 2-4 images. Is it really cost effective to buy z/VM for this poor z/800 machine ? Is it really needed at all ? Just my $0.02 -- Radoslaw Skorupka I do agree that the configuration should be based on the need of the company. I guess that I was speaking generically without stating some of my assumptions. In the case of a very few LPARs (less than 5 or 6?), then z/VM is likely to be overkill. But I think that the original person was indicating that they were going to have a LOT of Linux images, not just a few. For me, in most cases, I would likely suggest doing z/OS in LPARs (since PR/SM is free (gratis/bundled) and z/VM costs more per CPU to license on a general CPU than on an IFL (IIRC)). I would assign all the IFLs to a single LPAR running z/VM. Again, most cases I envision would likely have a fair number of Linux images running due to the one function, one image that seems to be in vogue with even Linux people. There is even a push to have multiple z/OS LPARs here to separate activity for better control. bronx cheer -- John McKown Senior Systems Programmer HealthMarkets Keeping the Promise of Affordable Coverage Administrative Services Group Information Technology This message (including any attachments) contains confidential information intended for a specific individual and purpose, and its content is protected by law. If you are not the intended recipient, you should delete this message and are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, or distribution of this transmission, or taking any action based on it, is strictly prohibited. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: Adding LPARs without POR
Hal Merritt wrote: Any SWAG's on the MSU cost of an inactive IFL LPAR? Zero. -- Edward E Jaffe Phoenix Software International, Inc 5200 W Century Blvd, Suite 800 Los Angeles, CA 90045 310-338-0400 x318 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.phoenixsoftware.com/ -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: Adding LPARs without POR
One of the datacenters is using Linux under IFL. 2-4 images. Is it really cost effective to buy z/VM for this poor z/800 machine ? Is it really needed at all ? I think it is. 4 images isn't worth $125,000 USD for an IFL. I don't think you can drive the IFL very high with just that few. - -teD O-KAY! BLUE! JAYS! Let's PLAY! BALL! -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: Adding LPARs without POR
Any SWAG's on the MSU cost of an inactive IFL LPAR? The specialty engines cost $125K USD each; there are no software costs, yet. - -teD O-KAY! BLUE! JAYS! Let's PLAY! BALL! -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: Adding LPARs without POR
Ted MacNEIL wrote: One of the datacenters is using Linux under IFL. 2-4 images. Is it really cost effective to buy z/VM for this poor z/800 machine ? Is it really needed at all ? I think it is. 4 images isn't worth $125,000 USD for an IFL. How do you work that out? Surely the number of Linux images is irrelevant, the only real purpose of an IFL is to reduce SW costs when you have other LPARS with z/OS etc... I don't think you can drive the IFL very high with just that few. Are you sure? That implies that a singe Linux LPAR cannot max out an IFL. Regards Roy -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: Adding LPARs without POR
How do you work that out? $125K is what an IFL costs. Surely the number of Linux images is irrelevant, the only real purpose of an IFL is to reduce SW costs when you have other LPARS with z/OS etc... No. There is more than that. LINUX on any z-box still is 'free'. The IFL just gives a better choice. I don't think you can drive the IFL very high with just that few. Are you sure? That implies that a singe Linux LPAR cannot max out an IFL. It doesn't max out an RS6000, so why would it max out an IFL. In the *NIX world a machine running at 20% is running hot. The whole purpose of the zVM/IFL/LINUX configuration is to add these up in one/two CP configs so they MAX them out. Windows/*NIX do not run well at high (15%) usage. z/VM and z/OS do! - -teD O-KAY! BLUE! JAYS! Let's PLAY! BALL! -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: Adding LPARs without POR
Ted, How do you work that out? $125K is what an IFL costs. I wasn't referring to the purchase cost, I meant how do you calulate that 4 images isn't worth $125,000 USD for an IFL. i.e when does it become worth it? Surely the number of Linux images is irrelevant, the only real purpose of an IFL is to reduce SW costs when you have other LPARS with z/OS etc... No. There is more than that. LINUX on any z-box still is 'free'. The IFL just gives a better choice. But not when there's z/OS on the same box- which is what we're talking about. Unless you get an IFL you pay the z/OS software costs, my point being that the only real incentive for an IFL is to save IBM and ISV costs when your running z/OS on the same box. I accept that on a crippled z800 your IFL runs at full speed, but the main driver is still about reducing software costs, especially on the bigger z machines. I still dont understand in what way you mean an IFL is a better choice, apart from cost..its just an engine with a different pricing stucture, both in purchase cost and SW costs (i.e none) I don't think you can drive the IFL very high with just that few. Are you sure? That implies that a singe Linux LPAR cannot max out an IFL. It doesn't max out an RS6000, so why would it max out an IFL. In the *NIX world a machine running at 20% is running hot. So at what level does a single Linux LPAR max out? It's not just the OS that causes the 'low' utilisation, the HW architecture plays a big part. The whole purpose of the zVM/IFL/LINUX configuration is to add these up in one/two CP configs so they MAX them out. I disagree the main purpose of zVM is to provide easier management config - such as disks and netork. Are you saying that using z/VM with say 4 Linux images would perform better than 4 LPARS? Windows/*NIX do not run well at high (15%) usage. z/VM and z/OS do! Regards Roy -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
