Wrong discussion: LPAR is always there on modern machines. The choice thus is LPAR only + z/OS guests or LPAR + z/VM + z/OS guests As far as CPU is concerned, z/VM would add a second virtualization layer between z/OS and the real HW.
2008/8/28 Edward M. Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Hello Peter, > > > > Your comment > > > > Do you need every last CPU cycle for your production z/OS? LPAR is better > here. > > > > > > I was told my some hardware and software people that the LPAR uses the same > amount of horsepower as would z/VM running the > > Same machines. But the LPAR code just hides that usage. > > > > For a given CPU/engines and set number of LPARs compared to the same > configuration but z/VM, the through put was the same. > > > > Could someone comment on this, please? > > > > Ed Martin > > Aultman Health Foundation > > 330-588-4723 > > ext 40441 > > ________________________________ > > From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Ward, Mike S > Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2008 6:08 PM > To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU > Subject: Re: Lpar Vs VM > > > > Thanks for the reply. Yours seems to be the best so far. I wanted to try and > figure the cost of setting up multiple z/OS machines in a fairly quick > manner. > > > > As I remember the old VM/BSEPP you could run as many operating systems as > you wanted under VM and be charged for only 1 copy of the operating system. > That doesn't seem to be the case using LPAR's . It seems that we get billed > for running z/os on Lpar 1 and Lpar 2. They gather the amount from the SMF > records that are produced. That's why I was wondering if I would get billed > for multiple z/os virtual machines under z/VM. > > -- Kris Buelens, IBM Belgium, VM customer support
