On Tue, 30 Dec 2008 09:33:44 -0600, Hal Merritt <hmerr...@jackhenry.com> wrote:
>We have a temporary need to cap our overall rolling four hour average >until the new box arrives. We are running z/os 1.7 on a z/9 and, as far >as I know, don't have the ability to do that. Our particular mission has >one most loved LPAR that we'd prefer to run at the expense of all else. Assign the LPAR weights appropriately on the HMC. > > >We have enough power so that we are worried only about some occasional >spikes that the normal soft capping won't handle to suit us. Hard cap the LPAR weights on the HMC for the "unloved" LPARs. That way, they get __at most__ their weight, regardless of what any other LPAR is doing. This does introduce more PR/SM overhead to manage the "unloved" LPARs. > >I know this has been discussed before, but I'm wondering what the >current consensus might be for our situation. > > > >For example, what if I really skew the weights such that the unloved >LPAR's are starved if the most loved needs the cycles. If the unloved >LPARS are starved, then they should not be able to rack up MSU's and >thus lower my total. > > > >Thanks > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
