On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 14:55:21 +0200, R.S. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >What does it mean "counterproductive" ? >Assuming you really need the system and the system need in MSU is really >small you can do the following: >1. Assign small percentage (I've seen even sub-percent weights) despite >it is "counterproductive" >2. Assign more power than it needs. Of course unused cycles will still >be used by other LPARs if needed. >3. Look for another (smaller) CPC. > >Did I miss something?
Perhaps, because your suggestions are not really keeping "the utilization of these under - say 3%," per the OP, which I take to mean "cap". 1. Unless you refrain from capping, this has been very counter-productive at our shop. WLM barely has time to figure out who to dispatch, and the LPAR is pre-empted. If you do not cap, you're really not keeping the utilization below 3% if there are cycles to spare. 2. I agree this is a valid alterntive to the what the OP is considering, but then you're not keeping the utilization under 3%. 3. Mark also suggested the "penalty box" alternative - fine, if you can afford it, but then you don't necessarily have to keep utilization below 3%. IBM has been after us for years (rightly so) to consolidate our tiny LPARs, where we can. The z/VM comment was a little tongue-in-cheek, but not completely out of the realm of alternatives, is it? We've opted to move workload and eliminate LPARs altogether. Regards, Art Gutowski Ford Motor Company ITI ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
