You have one physical system. All processors (even including SAPs) compete for
the physical
resources such as cache, storage bandwidth, etc.
Of course, any processors visible to an MVS image will also compete for MVS'
structures.
--
Phil Payne
http://www.isham-research.co.uk
+44 7833
We seem to be experiencing noticeably less MIPS than expected on our z/OS
LPARs, and it almost looks like the speciality engines (zAAP, IFL etc) are
contributing to the multiproccesor overheads and reducing the CPU resource.
Has anyone else experienced greater multiprocessor overheads than
On Fri, 2006-03-24 at 05:36 -0600, Patrick Loftus wrote:
We seem to be experiencing noticeably less MIPS than expected on our z/OS
LPARs, and it almost looks like the speciality engines (zAAP, IFL etc) are
contributing to the multiproccesor overheads and reducing the CPU resource.
Hadn't
Hadn't thought about that. Would be surprised if IFLs got involved, but
I can imagine zAAPs (and zIIPs) might. They are exposed to the MVS
scheduler, and so would conceivably suffer the same interprocess
locking/spin issues.
I think it's more than lock/spin.
What about just making the decision to
.
(404) 575-2798
Seeing beyond money (sm)
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Shane
Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 6:21 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject:Re: z990 multiprocessor overhead issue.
On Fri, 2006-03
On Fri, 2006-03-24 at 18:48 -0500, Richards.Bob wrote:
With the CPs being pooled, I doubt the specialties draw down
the MIP MP effect. They might chew some quick cycles, but they should
not impact MIP capacity like additional general purpose CPs would.
My take on this is that they are CPs
6 matches
Mail list logo
