Before our datacenter move last summer, our backup machine was an LPAR on a 32-bit machine. Now, the main VM system and backup LPAR are housed on different z990s. We had a need for the module with the schizoid personalities until then. Now, we do not.
Regards, Richard Schuh -----Original Message----- From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jim Bohnsack Sent: Wednesday, April 19, 2006 12:46 PM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: cpload versus cpload32 and cpload64 CPLOAD at z/VM 4.4 is 2648 blocks, CPLOAD64 1339, and CPLOAD32 1310. Since I couldn't run CPLOAD64 either, I threw it and CPLOAD away and ran with CPLOAD32 as CPLOAD. I didn't see any sense in loading it all even if it was or might have been pageable. Jim At 03:29 PM 4/19/2006, you wrote: >I was under the impression that CPLOAD was merely a bootstrap for >the other 2. Since our processor does not support CPLOAD64, I genned >only the CPLOAD32 Module with our local mods to save disk >space, and pointed directly to it with SAIPL. > > > >Hello John, > > > > Was there a reason to use CPLOAD32 or CPLOAD64 instead of > >CPLOAD? > >Performance, size, ... just nosey. > > > >Ed Martin=20 > >Aultman Health Foundation > >330-588-4723 > >[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >ext. 40441 Jim Bohnsack Cornell Univ. (607) 255-1760
