A POR would be needed to define the LPAR with a new IOCP/iocds... to
reconfigure storage though, just unload, deactivate, reconfigure storage,
activate and load the LPARs.
One other thing, LPAR controls, Weight (and Capping if necessary) are
extremely effective at ensuring production gets its due; Set
Share/limitsoft(/limithard still seems to be problematic with multiple vCP
virtual machines) are great too. In the case of a second level plus a test
LPAR however, they're not CPC aware; I think, it would be interesting to
see performance data (and *user preceptions*), running the same workload in
the test LPAR and a second level system up in the production LPAR.
Gregg
"No plan survives execution"
Ranga Nathan
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To
Sent by: VM/ESA [email protected]
and z/VM cc
Discussions
<[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject
.UARK.EDU> Re: Possible to partition an IFL?
01/04/2006 18:50
Please respond to
VM/ESA and z/VM
Discussions
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]
.UARK.EDU>
Thanks all for the responses. From the HMC panels I suspected that it is
possible to share IFL across LPARs running z/VM.
I do have a second level z/VM but for realistic tests of RSU, D/R
configurations and training, I feel more comfortable with an
under-resourced test LPAR.
I understand that if the test LPAR is not up, then the production will
use all the CPU. We have 6GB memory for the IFL. If I give 512MB to the
test LPAR, I think that should be sufficient. May be 784MB if needed.
Current work load is very minimal that even 1GB to the test LPAR would
be quite acceptable.
Besides, this will allow us to bring up the test linux guests under test
z/VM environment ...
Tom Duerbusch wrote:
>As others have said, yes, you can define multiple LPARs on the same IFL
>engine(s). Each LPAR will have its own copy of z/VM running.
>
>But....are you sure you want to do that?
>
>When you create a LPAR you have to dedicate resources to it, namely
>real memory. When the second LPAR is not in use, the first LPAR can't
>go over and use the memory (at least without a POR of the LPARs).
>
>But if you give the memory to the first LPAR, and bring up the
>test/disaster recovery VM there, the memory is only used for the second
>level system, when you need it. Hence your first level system has the
>memory at other times.
>
>Now if you have plenty of memory, not a big deal. But if your 1st LPAR
>is paging, it would seem to be a better deal to give the memory to it
>than to carve up another LPAR.
>
>On the other side....
>
>If the training also includes console functions such as IPLing the
>system, you might want to have the second LPAR for Operator training.
>Just make it real small as no real work would normally be done in it.
>
>(What is the smallest size z/VM can IPL under? No real work, just the
>normal slate of service machines..
>Seems to me that is use to be under 1 MB.)
>
>Tom Duerbusch
>THD Consulting
>
>
>
>>>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] 1/4/2006 4:09 PM >>>
>>>>
>>>>
>Is it possible to create LPARs in an IFL so I can run multiple z/VM,
>one
>for test and one for production?
>Currently I have a second level z/VM but for Disaster Recovery drill
>and
>training purposes I would like to mirror the production environment.
>We have one IFL and I can not steal resources outside this IFL.
>Thanks
>
>
>
