A related question for IBM about all this: I can go to WalMart and by a >2gHz processor for under $500. Or I can spend hundreds of thousands of dollars for a mainframe with several processors... But, why are the mainframe processors so bloody slow??? If Intel can push up the speed, from 700mHz only about 3 years ago to 2000mHz, is there any reason why a 9672 or z-series processor has to be sooooooo slow?
Speeding up the mainframe machines to at least match the toy machines would really make our jobs a lot easier when we're trying to sell the mainframe concept. And maybe we wouldn't need a five engine box if the engines shuffled along at a bit faster pace... What's a CPU cost for a z-series? And it can't keep up with the toy on my desk? Something's not quite right with that concept... ---- Robert P. Nix internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mayo Clinic phone: 507-284-0844 RO-CE-8-857 page: 507-270-1182 200 First St. SW Rochester, MN 55905 ---- "Codito, Ergo Sum" "In theory, theory and practice are the same, but in practice, theory and practice are different." > -----Original Message----- > From: Alex Leyva [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, February 14, 2003 9:41 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: URGENT! really low performance. > > I've heard about "vector facilities", i really dont know much about it, > only that they are designed to provide "help" with arithmetic operations, > and things like that, maybe that could help with cpu bound task? > > On the other hand the idea of "clustering" mainframes with intels could > help with that tasks, or maybe its only my brain telling me that i need to > sleep :-( > > > On Fri, 14 Feb 2003, Joseph Temple wrote: > > > Robert Nix wrote: "But, if one image starts doing compiles or compression > > of large quantities of data, or any other CPU bound task, everyone will > > suffer." > > > > Actually you have a choice. If the compiles, etc. are relegated to a > > compute server you can make it suffer rather than "everyone else", also, if > > you cap the cpu given the guests you can minimize the intensity of t the > > suffering when cpu heavy tasks occur, but it will go on for a longer period > > of time. It's a matter of prioities and how you distribute work among > > virtual machines. The beauty of Linux is that the "compute intense > > server" can be a virtual or real machine, but it is still LInux. In > > the past such a scheme using reeal machines would split the work between > > ZOS and WIndows which is a lot more complex. We need to start thinking > > about things like Grids of virtual and real servers. > > > > Joe Temple > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > 845-435-6301 > > > > > > > > "Nix, Robert P." > > <Nix.Robert@mayo. To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > edu> cc: > > Sent by: Linux on Subject: Re: URGENT! really low >performance. > > 390 Port > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > IST.EDU> > > > > > > 02/13/2003 04:01 > > PM > > Please respond to > > Linux on 390 Port > > > > > > > > > > > > Mainframes do I/O exceptionally well, but when it comes to compute bound > > tasks, they do very poorly. If you think about a tar operation, the > > compression is a fairly compute-intensive operation. > > > > We're running a 9672-R56 w/ one IFL. During our initial trial, we found the > > IFL to be about the same as a 300 or 400mHz PC for compute-bound tasks. The > > strength of the mainframe comes in for burst-type execution and I/O > > throughput. Things like multiple web servers running in individual Linux> > > images. File serving. Anything where: A) The CPU isn't expected to be taxed > > a great deal. and B) the CPU isn't going to be utilized for long periods of > > time. This allows the CPU to be shared among a larger quantity of images, > > giving all of them the impression of a dedicated box. > > > > But, if one image starts doing compiles or compression of large quantities > > of data, or any other CPU bound task, everyone will suffer. > > > > ---- > > Robert P. Nix internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Mayo Clinic phone: 507-284-0844 > > RO-CE-8-857 page: 507-270-1182 > > 200 First St. SW > > Rochester, MN 55905 > > ---- "Codito, Ergo Sum" > > "In theory, theory and practice are the same, > > but in practice, theory and practice are different." > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Alex Leyva [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2003 3:10 PM > > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Subject: URGENT! really low performance. > > > > > > Hi all, i have a problem, we have a z800, the configuration is: > > > 1 cp 80 MIPS > > > 1 IFL > > > 8 Gb storage > > > 3 partitions: > > > -os/390 2.6 > > > -os/390 2.6 > > > -z/vm 4.3 > > > 840 gb (shark) > > > > > > the cp is dedicated to both os/390, and the ifl to z/vm, 2gb to > > > both os/390, and 6 gb to z/vm. > > > > > > Redhat 7.2 as a z/vm guest: > > > > > > [root@linux1 root]# uname -a > > > Linux linux1.xxx.xxx.xxx 2.4.9-38lvm #1 SMP mii feb 12 12:25:01 CST > > > 2003 s390 unknown > > > [root@linux1 s390]# cat /proc/cpuinfo > > > vendor_id : IBM/S390 > > > # processors : 1 > > > bogomips per cpu: 630.78 > > > processor 0: version = FF, identification = 02900A, machine = 2066 > > > [root@linux1 s390]# cat /proc/meminfo > > > total: used: free: shared: buffers: cached: > > > Mem: 1045737472 364187648 681549824 0 15532032 317743104 > > > Swap: 409821184 0 409821184 > > > > > > > > > Default installation, the z/vm has one week installed: > > > > > > q cplevel > > > z/VM Version 4 Release 3.0, service level 0201 (64-bit) > > > Generated at 05/09/02 17:30:26 EST > > > IPL at 02/07/03 12:13:53 EST > > > > > > when we make a tar -gzipping it- from a directory with 100Mb, we have > > > that: > > > -the hmc indicates that the ifl is at 99% utilization. > > > -real time monitor indicates that the processor is at 99% utilization: > > > | <USERID> %CPU %CP %EM ISEC PAG WSS RES UR PGES SHARE VMSIZE > > TYP,CHR,STAT | > > > | LINUX1 99 .15 99 4.4 .00 100K 100K .0 1 50%A 1G > > VUS,QDS,DISP | > > > | SYSTEM .08 .08 .00 .00 .00 0 5060 .0 536 ..... 2G SYS, > > | > > > | VMRTM .02 .01 .01 .63 .00 462 483 .0 0 3%A 32M > > VUS,IAB,SIMW | > > > -"top" at the linux shows: > > > 30 processes: 27 sleeping, 3 running, 0 zombie, 0 stopped > > > CPU states: 97.6% user, 2.3% system, 0.0% nice, 0.0% idle > > > Mem: 1021228K av, 279636K used, 741592K free, 0K shrd, 14120K > > buff > > > Swap: 400216K av, 0K used, 400216K free 234992K > > cached > > > > > > we apply some performance related commands like: > > > set quickdsp linux1 on real > > > set share linux1 relative 300 real > > > set share linux1 absolute 50% real > > > > > > and the time went from 1m3.6s to 1m2.039s in the better case, the people > > > from ibm (they are here yet) can give me an answer about the poor > > > performance (i consider that its a poor performance, because a intel piii > > > 128Mb RAM make the tar in about 28s), so i really dont know if this is > > the > > > real performance of linux under vm, if we are doing something wrong, or> > > > what, when we bought the z800 they said that with this configuration we > > > will be able to run about 200 virtual machinnes, maybe thats a fairly> > > > dream? > > > > > > Please, i accept any comments, sugestions, or anything that can help us. > > > > > > Thanks. > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Alejandro Leyva Rabinovich. > > > Jefe de la Unidad Departamental de Soporte Ticnico > > > (Administracisn de Mainframe). > > > Direccisn General de Informatica. > > > Secretarma de Finanzas. > > > Gobierno del Distrito Federal. > > > > -- > Alejandro Leyva Rabinovich. > Jefe de la Unidad Departamental de Soporte Ticnico > (Administracisn de Mainframe). > Direccisn General de Informatica. > Secretarma de Finanzas. > Gobierno del Distrito Federal.
