Re: Paging volumes, size vs. number
More precisely, the sysprog can't *tell*, thus cannot worry about it in a meaningful way. I've been told that if the paging devices happen to be on the same rank in [some generation of] Shark, you won't be happy. On Sat, Oct 4, 2008 at 9:22 AM, Quay, Jonathan (IHG) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > It's my understanding that VM determines the number of paging exposures at > IPL and then uses that number in calculations involving dispatch, memory > management, etc. In a modern virtualized disk environment with multiple > FICON paths to a huge amount of cache in the disk array controller, this may > not be as important as it once was. The mod 3, 9, or 27 may exist on the > same physical HDA's, only your hardware engineer knows for sure. I've been > told by SE's that except in extremely rare circumstances, that the sysprog > need not worry about it. > > > > From: The IBM z/VM Operating System on behalf of Bill Holder > Sent: Fri 10/3/2008 6:04 PM > To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU > Subject: Re: Paging volumes, size vs. number > > > > Having a good paging system is as much about bandwidth as it is about > capacity, so I'd say the other responders are offering sound advice. Lac= > k > of sufficient capacity will certainly hurt badly when you fill it up and = > run > out (causing a PGT004 abend), but lack of sufficient bandwidth will hurt > performance and throughput whenever the system is paging, and if bad enou= > gh, > can lead or contribute to abends of its own (e.g., FRF002). > > - Bill Holder, z/VM Development, IBM >
Re: Linux command
ifconfig On Wed, Sep 17, 2008 at 6:21 PM, Martin, Terry R. (CMS/CTR) (CTR) < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi > > > > Can someone tell me the Linux command to display the HiperSockets interface > defined to the Linux guest? I want to find the IP address that is associated > with the HiperSockets CHPID and triplets. I am running REDHAT REL4.6 > > > > > > > > *Thank You,* > > > > *Terry Martin* > > *Lockheed Martin - Information Technology* > > *z/OS & z/VM Systems - Performance and Tuning* > > *Cell - 443 632-4191* > > *Work - 410 786-0386* > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > >
Re: Nice idea in blog: Should we toss x86 architecture
The hardest part, of course, will be turning the machine over to get the Microsoft license key off the bottom... On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 2:37 PM, Gary M. Dennis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > We looked very hard at the licensing aspect of this. We don't see anything > in the Microsoft EULA that would permit or cause them to treat this > environment different any different than existing VM environments. This > environment should work in their favor since the images (and therefore the > licenses) can be deployed more efficiently than in an blade warehouse > environment.
Re: Nice idea in blog: Should we toss x86 architecture
With the BSOD replaced by the GSOD? On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 12:14 PM, Bob Heerdink <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > http://blogs.zdnet.com/perlow/?p=9183 > > "Should we toss x86 architecture and wipe the slate with something greener > and more scalable?" > > "Windows Server 2016 128-bit edition running virtualized on z/VM in a green > datacenter, accessed via my house from a thin client over high-speed fiber > optic connection. I can see it now." > > Hope this happens sooner than predicted, > Bob >
