It is not a problem of removing real memory from the machine. Rather, it is one of being able to better utilize what we already have, utilize it in a way that may be financially beneficial to us. Isn't that the point of all of this talk about virtualization - putting resources to use? I am looking at all of that memory that is unused and unusable 90% of the time and wondering if there shouldn't be some way to put it to use. And the answer, even with this announcement, is a resounding NO. Maybe this is only the first shot and the other is in the offing, I do not know. Maybe it is time for LPAR memory to be virtualized, so that it can be doled out by the page or segment, in pieces that may be discontiguous.
Regards, Richard Schuh > -----Original Message----- > From: The IBM z/VM Operating System > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mark Post > Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2008 12:28 PM > To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU > Subject: Re: Some IBM Announcements for z/OS, z/VM, z/VSE > (Aug 5, 2008) > > >>> On 8/5/2008 at 2:53 PM, in message > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> , "Schuh, Richard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > -snip- > > Thus the ferrous solution > > because there is no way to borrow memory and give it back without > > disruption. > > Which is the whole point. This capability isn't about > borrowing memory and giving it back. It was never intended > for that, nor portrayed as that. It is simply the ability to > buy more hardware, and add it to z/VM without a disruption. > Period, end of story. This can be done today, with z/VM 5.4. > At some point in the future, it _may_ become possible to go > the other way. Looking at the industry as a whole, I see far > less value in being able to do that than simply being able to > add real storage. (Oh, and by the way, this is for real > storage only, not expanded storage.) Not too many people are > looking to remove real storage. So, holding up this very > valuable feature until the far less valuable feature could be > done, was soundly rejected by just about everyone that was > asked, me included. > > > Mark Post >
