Maybe they can just instead use those development dollars to reduce the COST of the memory so we could install what we need and then more and not underutilize such an expensive asset :)
Marcy "This message may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the addressee or authorized to receive this for the addressee, you must not use, copy, disclose, or take any action based on this message or any information herein. If you have received this message in error, please advise the sender immediately by reply e-mail and delete this message. Thank you for your cooperation." ________________________________ From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of James Vincent Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2008 2:49 PM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: [IBMVM] Some IBM Announcements for z/OS, z/VM, z/VSE (Aug 5, 2008) I understand Richard. Your need to add -and- remove the memory for your environment is as important as just the adding is for a lot of others. It sounds like you have compelling reasons to ask for the 'next step' to be done - to remove real memory dynamically. I have not heard anything formal from IBM about it being on the road map, but I know they "know" people have asked about it. Asking as formally, compellingly and often is the best way to move it forward. Being able to add and remove memory on the fly could be a boon for the live guest migration that is being worked on too (another spin on making the work viable for IBM to do). For instance, an LPAR needs to be taken down for maintenance and you want to move servers from it to another, but the target LPAR is not sized to handle the memory needs. So -reduce- memory on the source LPAR and increase it on the target. Move the servers. Do the LPAR work, and reverse the memory too. We are all with you Richard, and I sure do understand your disappointment in not getting to use all your machine's resouces as best as they could be. Hang in there and keep voicing your concerns! Jim Vincent On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 5:10 PM, Schuh, Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I have not said that it will not be good for some users. I have said that it does nothing to solve problems that we have had in the past and will most likely have again. Without the other piece, dynamic removal of storage, the only solution we see for our problems, when we become constrained, is to buy more iron. If the dynamic removal were included, it could delay upgrades and save money. Yes, being able to add new storage will be nice. When we have a z10 with z/VM 5.4, the memory upgrades may become easier; however, there is still the question of the storage that is getting moldy waiting for its LPAR to be activated. Storage that could be used if there were some way to release it without the LPAR activation outage. Having the release, that or having LPAR storage virtualized, would be the best of all possible worlds (until someone sees another pie floating in the stratosphere). Regards, Richard Schuh
