On Friday, 07/28/2006 at 06:09 AST, "Wakser, David" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Thanks for your input, but in re-reading my post, I phrased it > incorrectly; the question (which I think you really answered in the > affirmative) was: will placing the present 2nd-level VMs (and their current > 3rd-level guests) in a separate LPAR help my throughput? I believe you answered > "yes" - but should I push for a Z9 instead? I assume the Z800 cannot be > upgraded. I need to find a solution that will be viable for future > hardware/software combinations also, if possible. If different hardware is the > solution, then that is what I must suggest. And if different hardware COUPLED > with moving all present 2nd-level VMs to their own LPAR, then I need to suggest > that! > > I am not relishing the administrative headaches, but right now, we have > a bigger problem with the clients' throughput!
The z800 is two generations old. It is slow compared to a z890/z990/z9. You might want to do both - go to separate LPARs while you're waiting for z9. (Check the prices - not bad at all.) And you might find that you don't need one LPAR per guest, but you might be able to spread them out a bit. To work out the Right Thing To Do, you need to get with your IBM Business Partner. But the best decisions are made with the best data. Hopefully you have performance monitoring software that is telling you where the bottlenecks are so you can solve the *right* problem. Alan Altmark z/VM Development IBM Endicott
