The Q3 issue is likely a websphere polling issue that Rob is working
with WAS development on. The solution to that currently leads back to
using CMM1 as well. Will call.
Paul, Thomas wrote:
Hi Barton,
Thank you. I would like to explore that possibility. Could you give me
a call please. 1-508-395-9374. Another problem, I'm facing is all our
Linux guests are in Q3 (Rel. share 100). I like to change that since
they need not be in Q3 all the time in PS. We are running Sles 9. Any
thought on timing in Linux to make this work - SRM planned changes are
Storbuf 300 300 300 & Ldubuf (don't remember the numbers).
Regards
Tom
-----Original Message-----
From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:ib...@listserv.uark.edu] On
Behalf Of Barton Robinson
Sent: Thursday, August 27, 2009 6:03 PM
To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
Subject: Re: Linux Sizing & z/VM Customization
CMM-1 is almost always appropriate (SLES9, SLES10, RHEL4, RHEL5). CMMA
is NOT. CMM1 is recommended, CMMA is not. Mark is right on the
numbers.
Paul, Thomas wrote:
Hi Mark,
CMM is not applicable here because of the S/W & H/W. 1M is nothing to
brag about. Thank you for the input.
Thanks
Tom
-----Original Message-----
From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:ib...@listserv.uark.edu]
On
Behalf Of Mark Post
Sent: Thursday, August 27, 2009 4:11 PM
To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
Subject: Re: Linux Sizing & z/VM Customization
On 8/27/2009 at 10:26 AM, "Paul, Thomas" <thomas.p...@iso.com>
wrote:
-snip-
2. Linux Sizing - All Linux guests are independent - in other words,
they
all have their own Kernel, etc. The idea is to build an NSS and make
it
like a CMS user. So, if I accomplish that what would be the size of
z/Linux guest under z/VM with just z/Linux running. And, second if I
do
build DCSS for Websphere binary, how much storage would I be able to
save?
Currently, most of them running at 1.2G & 1.5G.
If by "build an NSS" you mean having the kernel in an NSS, that will
save you about 1MB per guest that uses it. Not a whole lot.
According to Barton Robinson of Velocity Software, you get the biggest
real storage savings by using CMM and xip2fs. (If I'm remembering
wrong, I know Barton will correct this.)
CMM is the easiest to implement, and doesn't really require any effort
to maintain. Setting up xip2fs is not terribly easy to set up (I'm
working on getting that changed) and not easy to maintain. Still, if
you're really constrained, it may be worth the effort. For some
insight
into that process, look at the presentation on it at
http://linuxvm.org/Present/
Mark Post
This email is intended for the recipient only. If you are not the
intended recipient please disregard, and do not use the information for
any purpose.
This email is intended for the recipient only. If you are not the intended
recipient please disregard, and do not use the information for any purpose.
