I'd be happy with the baby step of increasing the minimum memory (without increasing the hardware cost) on the small machines from 64GB to at least 128GB. Keeping more data closer to the processor improves performance without a change in the CPU capacity and the related issues with software cost. And helping the smaller shops improve performance to improve their ability to stay on the platform kind of seems like a no-brainer.
I do agree in principle that most configurations should have at least 3 CPs. Enforcing that would be good, but that's a more difficult lift in terms of the software costs. Especially when it comes to old ISV contracts. Scott Chapman On Thu, 17 Apr 2025 10:57:42 +1000, Andrew Rowley <[email protected]> wrote: >On 16/04/2025 11:29 pm, Steve Beaver wrote: >> I know the z17 is an evolution, but why have they not gotten faster? > >There's practical limits to what they can do at the top end, but I wish >IBM would bring the lowest capacity systems into line with other platforms. > >Software price tables would need to be adjusted, but it would ultimately >benefit everyone. I'm writing this on a laptop with 10 cores - would a >minimum of e.g. 4 CPU and 600 MSU for a z17 be too much to ask? Maybe >they could align the smallest z17 with the recommended minimum capacity >for z/OSMF? > >-- >Andrew Rowley >Black Hill Software > >---------------------------------------------------------------------- >For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, >send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
