Al Sherkow wrote: > The LPARs do not need to be in the same sysplex.
Thanks Al,that all sounds like goodness. Sorry I missed your session in Sydney a few weeks back - as you know I was *real* close to occupying a seat. Jacky Hofbauer wrote: > I think that it is not satisfactory but it is better than the Lpar single > Softcapping. > > Also I noted a problem: if just one LPAR in a group undergoes a loop of CPU, > all the group can be "softcapped": It is dangerous! This is inherent with any capping solution. Same thing happens with resource groups under WLM - if one task "gets away" everyone else (in the group) suffers. What are you looking for - an ability to hard cap particular LPAR(s) (as a member of a capacity group) ???. Sounds reasonable to me - why don't you raise a requirement ???. Shane ... ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
