subject:"Re\: LPARs\: More or Less\?"

We used to be a VM and MVS shop (so I guess I'm one of those few who
have experience with both).  We ran VM just to run multiple MVS guests. 
A couple of those guests were for our Computer Science department to use
for teaching purposes so VM was nice (all they had to do was login and
IPL -- no need for access to the HMC).

As a cost-cutting measure, our management decided to scrap VM in favor
of PR/SM and LPARs. And so our students were deprived of access to MVS.
MVS is only used for administrative systems now (our financial system is
the last application running).

I've been trying to get Linux onto our z890 (even have CENTOS running in
an LPAR as a proof-of-concept) but our management has decreed that all
future development will be Solaris/SPARC or Linux/Intel. No discussion
has been or will be entertained about the mainframe in our future -- it
is history.

If memory serves, we used to have quite a few shops running MVS as
guests under VM a long time ago. Many of those shops have migrated or
are migrating to Windows or Solaris. A couple have moved to System i
(AS/400?). There are very few mainframes left in the islands.

--Stephen




Mark Zelden wrote:
 On Fri, 5 Mar 2010 16:24:51 +, Ted MacNEIL eamacn...@yahoo.ca wrote:

   
 No, I wouldn't call it popular, but I wouldn't call it rare either.
 I have worked on VM off and on throughout my career.
   
 Outside of IBM, I've only met two people with VM and MVS skills.
 This is in the Greater Toronto Area, over the last 30 years.
 To me, that's rare.
 

 That is your experience, which is what you are writing about.   I will
 say it is much more rare these days than it was 20 years ago.  At least
 in the Chicago area.  There used to be a lot of shops running VM along
 with MVS (and hence many sysprogs with experience in both) but many
 of them got rid of VM.  The last full time VM I supported was VM/XA but
 I also worked with VM/ESA and VM/HPO not long after that but there
 was a full time VM sysprog that really supported those environments when I 
 worked on them. 

 It wasn't until zLinux popped up that I started working with VM again, which
 I think is getting more and more common, so the dual skill set is making
 a come back.

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

Re: LPARs: More or Less?

George Henke wrote:
 Also, it should be noted, that IBM offers z/VM virtually for free to
 hospitals and universities as long as they use it for research.
   
and that's the rub.  why the requirement that it be used ONLY for research?

none of the other vendors have such restrictions.

that's one of the biggest reasons we're moving off of the mainframe ...

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

Re: LPARs: More or Less?

2010-03-08 Thread Anne Lynn Wheeler

step...@hawaii.edu (Stephen Y Odo) writes:
 and that's the rub.  why the requirement that it be used ONLY for research?

 none of the other vendors have such restrictions.

 that's one of the biggest reasons we're moving off of the mainframe ...

telcos faced something similar with dark fiber and NSFNET backone in the
80s ...  (tcp/ip is technology basis for modern internet, NSFNET
backbone was operational basis for modern internet, and CIX was business
basis for modern internet).

telcos have large fixed costs  expenses ... but recover costs based on
useage. all the fiber going into the ground enormously increased
capacity ... however w/o signicant reduction in use charges ... people
weren't going to use the extra capacity. however, any upfront reduction
in the use charges  w/o the bandwidth hungry applications ... would
result in telcos operating at significant loss for possibly decade
(period it would take for the new bandwidth hungry applications to
evolve in an environment with drastically reduced fees).

the telcos leveraged NSFNET backbone as a commercial-free technology
incubator. The NSFNET backbone RFP was awarded for $11.2M ... and was
for non-commercial use only. Folklore is that resources put into NSFNET
backbone was closer to four times the RFP. The non-commercial use of the
NSFNET backbone would limit impact on telco revenue ... but at the same
time telcos could provide large amount of extra resources for non-profit
educational technology incubator to promote evolution of the bandwidth
hungry applications.

misc. old email about NSFNET backbone
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/lhwemail.html#nsfnet

we had been working with NSF and various institutions leading up to
NSFNET backbone effort ... but then weren't allowed to bid on the RFP.
The director of NSF attempted to help by writing letter to corporation
asking for our help (there were also comments like what we already had
running was at least five years ahead of all the NSFNET backbone RFP
responses to build something new). Turns out that just aggrevated the
internal politics.

-- 
42yrs virtualization experience (since Jan68), online at home since Mar1970

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

Re: LPARs: More or Less?

Mike Myers wrote:
 That's interesting to me that you would suggest IBM will give z/VM for
 free to hospitals. I am presently consulting at a hospital that is
 moving away from z/OS and moving their primary applications to  the
 mid-range.

 I would like to get the to look at using the mainframe for Linux,
 under z/VM.

Keep in mind that this is only for RESEARCH use.  Using the system to
run the hospital is NOT considered supporting research at the hospital.
That was the problem we had. We used VM + MVS to run our financials,
human resources, and student information systems. Those activities are
not qualified as support of research at our University (according to
IBM, those are administrative functions).

Thus we paid regular price (less 15% academic institution discount).
Which made it way too expensive for us. And paved the way for our
migration to Solaris (which was FREE whether we used it for academic OR
research OR administrative purposes).

--Stephen

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

Re: LPARs: More or Less?

2010-03-08 Thread Anne Lynn Wheeler

step...@hawaii.edu (Stephen Y Odo) writes:
 Thus we paid regular price (less 15% academic institution discount).
 Which made it way too expensive for us. And paved the way for our
 migration to Solaris (which was FREE whether we used it for academic OR
 research OR administrative purposes).

I vaguely remember in the 60s ... the academic institution discount was
40% ... but that seemed to change with the 23jun69 unbundling
announcement (in response to gov. litigation) ... along with starting to
charge for application software, SE services, and other stuff.
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/submain.html#unbundle

-- 
42yrs virtualization experience (since Jan68), online at home since Mar1970

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

Re: LPARs: More or Less?

2010-03-08 Thread Shane Ginnane

Is that still true Stephen ?.
I hear talk that (in the non-education world) Oracle is now charging for
Solaris security fixes. Larry trying to claw back some of his investment
maybe.

Shane ...


On Tue, Mar 9th, 2010 at 8:22 AM, Stephen Y Odo wrote:

 ... And paved the way for our
 migration to Solaris (which was FREE whether we used it for academic
 OR research OR administrative purposes).

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

Re: LPARs: More or Less?

dunno.   our licensing hasn't been affected ... yet.

--Stephen



Shane Ginnane wrote:
 Is that still true Stephen ?.
 I hear talk that (in the non-education world) Oracle is now charging for
 Solaris security fixes. Larry trying to claw back some of his investment
 maybe.

 Shane ...


 On Tue, Mar 9th, 2010 at 8:22 AM, Stephen Y Odo wrote:

   
 ... And paved the way for our
 migration to Solaris (which was FREE whether we used it for academic
 OR research OR administrative purposes).
 

 --
 For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
 send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
 Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

   

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

Re: LPARs: More or Less?

2010-03-06 Thread Eric Bielefeld

I used to work with both VM and MVS back in the 90s.  Our VM guy at PH 
Mining went back to programming, so I volunteered to learn VM.  We were 
running VM on our 3081 with VM 4.3 running HPO.  We had a whole bunch of 
things people did with Cadam drawings that they had written CMS execs for. 
We finally moved VM to its own box, a 4381 at the time.  We were able to get 
rid of it in early 1999, so we didn't have to worry about Y2K for any of its 
applications.


I'm curious.  The last release of VM I really worked with was 5.1 - no XP or 
later stuff.  Has it changed much, or are most of the concepts still the 
same?


Eric Bielefeld
Sr. Systems Programmer
IBM Global Services Division
Dubuque, Iowa
414-477-7259


- Original Message - 
From: Mark Zelden mzel...@flash.net

Subject: Re: LPARs: More or Less?



On Fri, 5 Mar 2010 16:24:51 +, Ted MacNEIL eamacn...@yahoo.ca wrote:
That is your experience, which is what you are writing about.   I will
say it is much more rare these days than it was 20 years ago.  At least
in the Chicago area.  There used to be a lot of shops running VM along
with MVS (and hence many sysprogs with experience in both) but many
of them got rid of VM.  The last full time VM I supported was VM/XA but
I also worked with VM/ESA and VM/HPO not long after that but there
was a full time VM sysprog that really supported those environments when I
worked on them.

It wasn't until zLinux popped up that I started working with VM again, 
which

I think is getting more and more common, so the dual skill set is making
a come back.

Mark
--
Mark Zelden - Zelden Consulting Services - z/OS, OS/390 and MVS
mailto:mzel...@flash.net
Mark's MVS Utilities: http://home.flash.net/~mzelden/mvsutil.html
Systems Programming expert at http://expertanswercenter.techtarget.com/ 


--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

Re: LPARs: More or Less?

2010-03-06 Thread Rich Smrcina

VM has changed considerably since HPO 5.1.  Long gone are the days of 
assembling modules to apply service and to add devices (thank god).  To 
the sysprog servicing VM is pretty much two commands (after the service 
envelope is uploaded).  And of course all modern devices can be sensed.


Most of the new support now centers around capacity (very large virtual 
machines) and virtual networking (virtual switch).  There is a statement 
of direction for clustering (not sysplex) and guest migration (moving 
live machines between VM systems). All of this with the intent of 
supporting Linux.


The motherhood and apple pie concepts of VM haven't changed much since 
HPO.  The line oriented commands, XEDIT, etc


On 03/06/2010 07:46 AM, Eric Bielefeld wrote:


I'm curious.  The last release of VM I really worked with was 5.1 - no 
XP or later stuff.  Has it changed much, or are most of the concepts 
still the same?


Eric Bielefeld
Sr. Systems Programmer
IBM Global Services Division
Dubuque, Iowa
414-477-7259




--
Rich Smrcina
Phone: 414-491-6001
http://www.linkedin.com/in/richsmrcina

Catch the WAVV! http://www.wavv.org
WAVV 2010 - Apr 9-13, 2010 Covington, KY

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

Re: LPARs: More or Less?

2010-03-06 Thread Anne Lynn Wheeler

The following message is a courtesy copy of an article
that has been posted to bit.listserv.ibm-main,alt.folklore.computers as well.


r...@velocitysoftware.com (Rich Smrcina) writes:
 Most of the new support now centers around capacity (very large
 virtual machines) and virtual networking (virtual switch).  There is a
 statement of direction for clustering (not sysplex) and guest
 migration (moving live machines between VM systems). All of this with
 the intent of supporting Linux.

note that some of the commercial (virtual machine) timesharing service
bureaus had done moving live machines between VM systems in the early
70s, it was combination of 7x24 operation and providing services to
customers around the world  addressing problem that there was no
down period for service ... where downtime/outages could be tolerated
for things like preventive maintenance. They would migrate virtual
machines as part of dynamically taking complexes offline (out of the
cluster)for service. misc. past posts mentioning the virtual machine
commercial timesharing services dating back to 60s:
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subtopic.html#timeshare

The largest such of the clustering (single system image) operations in
the late 70s (not limited to vm systems, but any mainframe complex,
anywhere) was the US VM-based internal (worldwide) salesmarketing
support HONE system that. The US HONE centers had been consolidated in
bldg. (they no longer occupy the bldg, but it is located next door to
the new facebook bldg ). This US datacenter was the largest (although
other HONE clones had started to spring up several places around the
world) with load-balancing and fall-over recovery.  Then because of
earthquake concern, in the early 80s, the cal. center was first
replicated in Dallas and then a 3rd in Boulder (with load-balancing and
fall-over across the redundant centers). a few recent posts in Greater
IBM discussing HONE:
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2010d.html#27 HONE  VMSHARE
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2010e.html#24 Unbundling  HONE
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2010e.html#25 HONE Compute Intensive
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2010e.html#29 HONE  VMSHARE

misc. ohter posts mentioning HONE
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subtopic.html#hone

The product to customers saw big impact when POK got the development
group shutdown and all the people moved to POK to support MVS/XA
development. initially the product was also killed, Endicott managed to
save the product mission... but had to reconstitute a group from
scratch. This possibly contributed to the VM/SP quality mentioned in
Melinda's history ... recent reference:
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2010e.html#31 What was old is new again (water 
chilled)
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2010e.html#36 What was old is new again (water 
chilled)

The 4331/4341 saw big explosion in distributed machines connected via
network ... so the (their new) focus wasn't on the highend and/or
clustering in single location.

There was a research clustering project, eight 4341s with 3088 ... that
eventually offered as product ... but that ran into a couple problems

1) there was already pressure from high-end (mvs, 3033, 3081s, etc)
where customers found that multiple vm/4341s were much more cost
effective than the big iron ... so anything that enhanced this, was met
with opposition.

2) the internal product had things like cluster-wide operations taking
very small subsecond elapsed time. however, for product ship they were
forced to move to SNA ... and all of a sudden simple cluster-wide
coordination operations were taking nearly a minute elapsed time. This
is similar to the on-going SNA battles that my wife faced when she had
been con'ed into going to POK to be in charge of (high-end) mainframe
loosely-coupled architecture. The battles with SNA (ephemeral temporary
truces where she could use anything she wanted with datacenter walls but
SNA had to be used by anything crossing the walls of the datacenters)
and very little uptake at the time (except for IMS hot-standby until
sysplex) met that she didn't stay long ... misc. past posts mentioning
her peer-coupled shared data architecture
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/submain.html#shareddata

-- 
42yrs virtualization experience (since Jan68), online at home since Mar1970

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

Re: LPARs: More or Less?

2010-03-06 Thread zMan

On Sat, Mar 6, 2010 at 8:46 AM, Eric Bielefeld eric-ibmm...@wi.rr.comwrote:

 I'm curious.  The last release of VM I really worked with was 5.1 - no XP
 or later stuff.  Has it changed much, or are most of the concepts still the
 same?


Hm, VM/XP...now that's a scary thought! (Great typo!)

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

Re: LPARs: More or Less?

2010-03-06 Thread Eric Bielefeld


Oooops.

Eric Bielefeld
Sr. Systems Programmer
IBM Global Services Division
Dubuque, Iowa
414-477-7259

- Original Message - 
From: zMan zedgarhoo...@gmail.com

Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ibm-main
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Sent: Saturday, March 06, 2010 10:22 AM
Subject: Re: LPARs: More or Less?


On Sat, Mar 6, 2010 at 8:46 AM, Eric Bielefeld 
eric-ibmm...@wi.rr.comwrote:



I'm curious.  The last release of VM I really worked with was 5.1 - no XP
or later stuff.  Has it changed much, or are most of the concepts still 
the

same?



Hm, VM/XP...now that's a scary thought! (Great typo!) 


--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

Re: LPARs: More or Less?

2010-03-06 Thread Eric Bielefeld


Hi Rich,

Thanks for the information.  A couple of years before PH Minings z/OS 
datacenter shut down, I kind of suspected that the end was coming.  I took 3 
courses on Linux Administration from one of the technical colleges around 
Milwaukee.  I had the hopes that having worked with VM, and learning about 
Linux might help me in getting a job.  I never found any jobs related to 
Linux or VM, but it was very interesting.


I loaded Linux on my laptop, and used it under dual boot.  That was very 
useful when I was working on the classes, since when I was reading about a 
command, I could run it and try various options.  Alas, when my laptop was 
getting near the end of the 3 year warranty, I needed to get a couple of 
things fixed.  Naturally, they reloaded the original XP operatings system 
and wiped out my Linux partition.  Think about what would happen if z/OS 
people worked the same as Windows people!


Eric Bielefeld
Sr. Systems Programmer
IBM Global Services Division
Dubuque, Iowa
414-477-7259

- Original Message - 
From: Rich Smrcina r...@velocitysoftware.com



VM has changed considerably since HPO 5.1.  Long gone are the days of 
assembling modules to apply service and to add devices (thank god).  To 
the sysprog servicing VM is pretty much two commands (after the service 
envelope is uploaded).  And of course all modern devices can be sensed.


Most of the new support now centers around capacity (very large virtual 
machines) and virtual networking (virtual switch).  There is a statement 
of direction for clustering (not sysplex) and guest migration (moving live 
machines between VM systems). All of this with the intent of supporting 
Linux.


The motherhood and apple pie concepts of VM haven't changed much since 
HPO.  The line oriented commands, XEDIT, etc Rich Smrcina

Phone: 414-491-6001
http://www.linkedin.com/in/richsmrcina

Catch the WAVV! http://www.wavv.org
WAVV 2010 - Apr 9-13, 2010 Covington, KY 


--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

Re: LPARs: More or Less?

2010-03-06 Thread Norman Hollander on DesertWiz

I've worked with VM since the 70s.  SP1 to be more precise.
Well actually there was this little thing called CP67, but that's
a much longer story.  VM has certainly grown over time while keeping
its good strong basics.  The current release of zVM includes more
cooperative
support for Linux guests and for z/OS guests to use specialty processors.
As a software vendor, we support 100s of guests.  It is (and remains IMHO)
industrial strength for this type of need.

znor...@ca.com

-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf
Of zMan
Sent: Saturday, March 06, 2010 SYSN 08:22 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Subject: Re: LPARs: More or Less?

On Sat, Mar 6, 2010 at 8:46 AM, Eric Bielefeld
eric-ibmm...@wi.rr.comwrote:

 I'm curious.  The last release of VM I really worked with was 5.1 - no XP
 or later stuff.  Has it changed much, or are most of the concepts still
the
 same?


Hm, VM/XP...now that's a scary thought! (Great typo!)

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

Re: LPARs: More or Less?

2010-03-06 Thread zMan

On Sat, Mar 6, 2010 at 1:41 PM, Norman Hollander on DesertWiz 
norman.hollan...@desertwiz.biz wrote:

 I've worked with VM since the 70s.  SP1 to be more precise.
 Well actually there was this little thing called CP67, but that's
 a much longer story.  VM has certainly grown over time while keeping
 its good strong basics.  The current release of zVM includes more
 cooperative
 support for Linux guests and for z/OS guests to use specialty processors.
 As a software vendor, we support 100s of guests.  It is (and remains IMHO)
 industrial strength for this type of need.


Do you mean VM/370 Release 1?  Because VM/SP Release 1 wasn't announced
until February 1980.

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

Re: LPARs: More or Less?

2010-03-06 Thread Ed Finnell

 
In a message dated 3/6/2010 10:23:27 A.M. Central Standard Time,  
zedgarhoo...@gmail.com writes:

Hm, VM/XP...now that's a scary thought! (Great  typo!)



'bout the maddest I ever saw anybody in a  suit was the MVS/XA ESP
rollout and 'Oh and VM support wouldn't be  available for another six 
months'.   The VP was a chrome dome and you could see the pressure build from 
the 
neck  up. Wrath of Kahn...




--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

Re: LPARs: More or Less?

2010-03-06 Thread Norman Hollander on DesertWiz

You'd be correct.

-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf
Of zMan
Sent: Saturday, March 06, 2010 SYSN 10:47 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Subject: Re: LPARs: More or Less?

On Sat, Mar 6, 2010 at 1:41 PM, Norman Hollander on DesertWiz 
norman.hollan...@desertwiz.biz wrote:

 I've worked with VM since the 70s.  SP1 to be more precise.
 Well actually there was this little thing called CP67, but that's
 a much longer story.  VM has certainly grown over time while keeping
 its good strong basics.  The current release of zVM includes more
 cooperative
 support for Linux guests and for z/OS guests to use specialty processors.
 As a software vendor, we support 100s of guests.  It is (and remains IMHO)
 industrial strength for this type of need.

Do you mean VM/370 Release 1?  Because VM/SP Release 1 wasn't announced
until February 1980.

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

Re: LPARs: More or Less?

2010-03-06 Thread Anne Lynn Wheeler

The following message is a courtesy copy of an article
that has been posted to bit.listserv.ibm-main,alt.folklore.computers as well.


Dave g8...@yahoo.com writes:
 Well VM or CP is very different. As the XA/ESA/z machine can't be
 virtualized easily in software,  I assume because of the need to make
 AMODE switchs efficient, CP now relies on the SIE instruction to
 provide virtual machines. I gather this uses the same hardware that
 LPARs use.  I guess you might consider this a superset of the VM
 Assists that were available on S/370...

XA wasn't as easily virtualized as 360  370 was ... and therefor the
SIE instruction. SIE predates PR/SM and LPARs ... in that sense PR/SM
and LPARs were leveraging the pre-existing infrastructure for microcode
assists and SIE (and for some time, some of the assist microcode was
mutually exclusive, either for VM use or LPAR use ... but not both).

In the 360/370 scenario ... LPSW and interrupts loaded new PSW ... which
simultaneously switched address space and privilege/problem mode in
single operation (in MVS, a copy of the kernel appears in every address
space ... where in cp/vm, the kernel and the guest address spaces are
totally distinct).

SIE was able to change address spaces and privilege/problem mode in
single operation, as well as set a flag for privilege instructions ...
basically assist mode that indicates privilege instruction is executed
according to virtual machine rules (as opposed to real machine rules,
basically each assisted privilege instruction has modified
microcode). To simulataneously use the assists for LPARs and virtual
machines ... effectively needed each privilege instruction microcode to
be further modified to recognize 1) real machine, no LPAR, no virtual
machine, 2) LPAR, no virtual machine, 3) virtual machine, no LPAR, 4)
both LPAR and virtual machine. From a microcode standpoint, LPAR+VM is
similar to virtualizing SIE (i.e. running a guest VM system under a VM
virtual machine).

SIE had additional performance issues on 3081 ... starting out just
purely being internal tool supporting mvx/xa development ... originally
never intended for shipping to customers (or production use). ... recent
references to 3081 SIE microcode was paged (i.e. 3081 service
processing paging SIE microcode from 3310 FBA ... representing something
of performance issue):
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2010e.html#34 Need tool to zap core
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2010e.html#44 Need tool to zap core
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2010e.html#46 Impact of solid-state drives

the other is the emulated implementations ... like Hercules
... implemented on Intel platform; this could be considered analogous to
the entry  mid-range mainframe implementations that had been done in
vertical microcode.

There was a separate performance issue going from virtual MVT guests to
virtual SVS/MVS guests ... since VM started out simulating the TLB
(hardware look aside buffer implementing virtual memory) with shadow
page tables.  The management of the entries in the shadow page tables
with software was enormously slower than the hardware overhead involved
in managing TLB entries. There could also be pathelogical page
replacement algorithm behavior ... with MVS approximating a LRU page
replacement and VM also approximating a LRU page replacement ...  VM
might be selecting the MVS guest page for removal from real storage
... moments before the MVS guest desides that it is the ideal next page
to use (VM deciding that since it hasn't been used, it can be removed
from real storage and MVS deciding that since it hasn't been used, it
can be reassigned for some other use).

-- 
42yrs virtualization experience (since Jan68), online at home since Mar1970

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

Re: LPARs: More or Less?

2010-03-06 Thread Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.)

In
1413410174-1267806280-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-10510679...@bda026.bisx.prod.on.blackberry,
on 03/05/2010
   at 04:24 PM, Ted MacNEIL eamacn...@yahoo.ca said:

Outside of IBM, I've only met two people with VM and MVS skills. This is
in the Greater Toronto Area, over the last 30 years. To me, that's
rare.

Very well; I retract my original response. Instead, I'll state that it's
not at all rare outside of the Greater Toronto Metropolitan Area. I'm not,
however, ruling out the possibility that there are lots of people in
toronto with both skill sets that you simply haven't met.
 
-- 
 Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
 ISO position; see http://patriot.net/~shmuel/resume/brief.html 
We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress.
(S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003)

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

Re: LPARs: More or Less?

2010-03-06 Thread Mike Myers


 George:

That's interesting to me that you would suggest IBM will give z/VM for 
free to hospitals. I am presently consulting at a hospital that is 
moving away from z/OS and moving their primary applications to  the 
mid-range.


I would like to get the to look at using the mainframe for Linux, under 
z/VM.


Could you provide me with a link or reference to the IBM program or 
policy that is proposing this offering?


Mike Myers
Mentor Services Corporation
(919) 341-5210

On 3/5/2010 12:23 PM, George Henke wrote:

It wasn't until zLinux popped up that I started working with VM again,
which
I think is getting more and more common, so the dual skill set ismaking
a come back.
 

You're absolutely right, Mark.  I know a very large financial company who is
doing just that after the project was languishing for 6 years.

Also, it should be noted, that IBM offers z/VM virtually for free to
hospitals and universities as long as they use it for research.

So you will find z/VM and z/OS living happily together at such institutions
which is where I installed z/VM 5.4 last November.

On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 12:13 PM, Mark Zeldenmzel...@flash.net  wrote:

   

On Fri, 5 Mar 2010 16:24:51 +, Ted MacNEILeamacn...@yahoo.ca  wrote:

 

No, I wouldn't call it popular, but I wouldn't call it rare either.
I have worked on VM off and on throughout my career.
 

Outside of IBM, I've only met two people with VM and MVS skills.
This is in the Greater Toronto Area, over the last 30 years.
To me, that's rare.
   

That is your experience, which is what you are writing about.   I will
say it is much more rare these days than it was 20 years ago.  At least
in the Chicago area.  There used to be a lot of shops running VM along
with MVS (and hence many sysprogs with experience in both) but many
of them got rid of VM.  The last full time VM I supported was VM/XA but
I also worked with VM/ESA and VM/HPO not long after that but there
was a full time VM sysprog that really supported those environments when I
worked on them.

It wasn't until zLinux popped up that I started working with VM again,
which
I think is getting more and more common, so the dual skill set is making
a come back.

Mark
--
Mark Zelden - Zelden Consulting Services - z/OS, OS/390 and MVS
mailto:mzel...@flash.net
Mark's MVS Utilities: http://home.flash.net/~mzelden/mvsutil.html
Systems Programming expert at http://expertanswercenter.techtarget.com/

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

 



   


--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

Re: LPARs: More or Less?

2010-03-05 Thread R.S.


George Henke pisze:

I think I may have finally come upon a valid justification for a separate
UAT, QA LPAR; maybe the only justification.

You can only have one instance of Security, RACF, ACF2, TSS, in an LPAR,
z/OS Domain, at any one time.
You SHOULD have only one kind of Security Server in all shop, especially 
DEV-TEST_UAT-whatever-PROD chain.



Since, for QA testing, the need is to mirror PROD Security so that the
security rules for a change being made are tested *before* moving the change
to PROD, then there would need to be a separate LPAR to hold a separate
Security DB that mirrored the PROD DB.


It is good idea to have set of security rules for application 
independent of system. In other words it should be possible to have 
multiple instances of the application, each with *their own* security 
rules.



Since the DEV LPAR already has a DEV Security DB and there can be only one
instance of a Security DB per LPAR, this would preclude the mirroring of the
PROD Security DB in a DEV LPAR, and is sufficient reason for creating a
separate LPAR for QA, UAT, testing.


See above. IMNSHO it is *bad design* to have single security for all 
instances.




[...]

However, it still begs the question, why have LPARs at all, because
separate Security DBs *can* be configured in separate Virtual Machines
running separate instances of z/OS under z/VM without LPARs at all.


MONEY! z/VM is NOT freeware and requires people/skills for 
administration. PR/SM is free, LPAR configuration is easier than z/VM 
installation, setup, etc. and cannot be avoided (you must have LPARs).



--
Radoslaw Skorupka
Lodz, Poland


--
BRE Bank SA
ul. Senatorska 18
00-950 Warszawa
www.brebank.pl

Sd Rejonowy dla m. st. Warszawy 
XII Wydzia Gospodarczy Krajowego Rejestru Sdowego, 
nr rejestru przedsibiorców KRS 025237

NIP: 526-021-50-88
Wedug stanu na dzie 01.01.2009 r. kapita zakadowy BRE Banku SA (w caoci 
wpacony) wynosi 118.763.528 zotych. W zwizku z realizacj warunkowego 
podwyszenia kapitau zakadowego, na podstawie uchway XXI WZ z dnia 16 marca 
2008r., oraz uchway XVI NWZ z dnia 27 padziernika 2008r., moe ulec 
podwyszeniu do kwoty 123.763.528 z. Akcje w podwyszonym kapitale zakadowym 
BRE Banku SA bd w caoci opacone.

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

Re: LPARs: More or Less?

2010-03-05 Thread Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.)

In
999072802-1267753158-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-10413382...@bda026.bisx.prod.on.blackberry,
on 03/05/2010
   at 01:39 AM, Ted MacNEIL eamacn...@yahoo.ca said:

VM  MVS skills are rare to find in the same individual(s).

Not all that rare.
 
-- 
 Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
 ISO position; see http://patriot.net/~shmuel/resume/brief.html 
We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress.
(S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003)

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

Re: LPARs: More or Less?

2010-03-05 Thread Chase, John

 -Original Message-
 From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of George Henke
 
 I think I may have finally come upon a valid justification for a
separate
 UAT, QA LPAR; maybe the only justification.
 
 You can only have one instance of Security, RACF, ACF2, TSS, in an
LPAR,
 z/OS Domain, at any one time.

OK so far

 Since, for QA testing, the need is to mirror PROD Security so that the
 security rules for a change being made are tested *before* moving the
change
 to PROD, then there would need to be a separate LPAR to hold a
separate
 Security DB that mirrored the PROD DB.

We use installation-defined classes for much of that separation, which
works well here because the vast majority of resources for which we
might need to test new security rules are amenable to separate cloned
classes (mostly CICS and FACILITY-like stuff).

 Since the DEV LPAR already has a DEV Security DB and there can be only
one
 instance of a Security DB per LPAR, this would preclude the mirroring
of the
 PROD Security DB in a DEV LPAR, and is sufficient reason for creating
a
 separate LPAR for QA, UAT, testing.

Actually, we share a RACF database between PROD and DEV/QA.  Only the
sandbox has a separate RACF database.

 Of all the justifications, presented thus far, for creating a separate
LPAR
 for QA, UAT testing, this appears to be the only one that cannot be
refuted.

If any exception to the rule counts as refutation, this is refuted.

 However, it still begs the question, why have LPARs at all, because
 separate Security DBs *can* be configured in separate Virtual Machines
 running separate instances of z/OS under z/VM without LPARs at all.

OTOH, if all you run is a relatively stable set of z/OS images, why use
z/VM when PR/SM is free (indeed, you can't get a current CPC without
it)?  I'll admit that I've not worked with any flavor of VM in over a
decade, but I don't recall any flavor of MVS IPLing any faster under VM
than in an LPAR.

-jc-

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

Re: LPARs: More or Less?

No, I wouldn't call it popular, but I wouldn't call it rare either. I have
worked on VM off and on throughout my career.

Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.) shmuel+ibm-m...@patriot.net 3/5/2010 6:05 AM

In
999072802-1267753158-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-10413382...@bda026.bisx.prod.on.blackberry,
on 03/05/2010
at 01:39 AM, Ted MacNEIL eamacn...@yahoo.ca said:

VM MVS skills are rare to find in the same individual(s).

Not all that rare.

--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
ISO position; see http://patriot.net/~shmuel/resume/brief.html
We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress.
(S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003)

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

CONFIDENTIALITY/EMAIL NOTICE: The material in this transmission contains
confidential and privileged information intended only for the addressee. If
you are not the intended recipient, please be advised that you have received
this material in error and that any forwarding, copying, printing,
distribution, use or disclosure of the material is strictly prohibited. If you
have received this material in error, please (i) do not read it, (ii) reply to
the sender that you received the message in error, and (iii) erase or destroy
the material. Emails are not secure and can be intercepted, amended, lost or
destroyed, or contain viruses. You are deemed to have accepted these risks if
you communicate with us by email. Thank you.

Re: LPARs: More or Less?

Thank you all for your constructive comments and critiques.

But from this little brainstorming exercise, I believe if I have learned
anything at all, I have learned that PR/SM is anything but free.

Would IBM really give away anything for free?

Here's nothing, grab it well  (Old Hungarian proverb)

The easiest path, the path of least resistance, is not always optimum.

There is a very hidden, subtle, but quite exorbitant price paid for PR/SM:

   -  Memory for each instance of z/OS replicated,
   -  Performance:  wasted CPU cycles especially for handshaking between
   LPARs doing shared I/O,
   - Software licensing fees
   -  Inflexibility of fitting workloads into fixed partitions,
   - complexity:  After splitting everything up we bring it all back
   together again with Parallel Sysplex, CDSes, CFRM policies:  List, Cache,
   and Lock structures, all kinds of plexes:  JESPLEX, VTAMPLEX, IMSPLEX, VSAM
   RLS, CICSPLEX, SHARED DB2, all designed to circumvent the artificial
   barriers we never needed to erect in the first place.

despite:


   -  all efforts of IBM to encourage this with sub-capacity pricing
   - the diminishing need to carve up memory now that paging, Expanded
   Storage, are history with 64 bit memory.

 True, there is a place for PR/SM for things like CFCC, AIX, LINUX.  But
just needlessly replicating z/OS because it is free and easy to do is not
the answer.

One of the oldest marketing devices is:

   - to first lower the hemline, then raise it;
   - first bring out double knit men's suits, then banish them,
   - first tell everyone to go distributive, then force them to centralize,
   - and above all:


   - software sells hardware, so encourage the inefficient use, needless
   replication, of software so we can sell more hardware.


On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 8:00 AM, Chase, John jch...@ussco.com wrote:


  -Original Message-
  From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of George Henke
 
  I think I may have finally come upon a valid justification for a
 separate
  UAT, QA LPAR; maybe the only justification.
 
  You can only have one instance of Security, RACF, ACF2, TSS, in an
 LPAR,
  z/OS Domain, at any one time.


 OK so far

   Since, for QA testing, the need is to mirror PROD Security so that the
  security rules for a change being made are tested *before* moving the
 change
  to PROD, then there would need to be a separate LPAR to hold a
 separate
  Security DB that mirrored the PROD DB.


 We use installation-defined classes for much of that separation, which
 works well here because the vast majority of resources for which we
 might need to test new security rules are amenable to separate cloned
 classes (mostly CICS and FACILITY-like stuff).

   Since the DEV LPAR already has a DEV Security DB and there can be only
 one
  instance of a Security DB per LPAR, this would preclude the mirroring
 of the
  PROD Security DB in a DEV LPAR, and is sufficient reason for creating
 a
  separate LPAR for QA, UAT, testing.


 Actually, we share a RACF database between PROD and DEV/QA.  Only the
 sandbox has a separate RACF database.

   Of all the justifications, presented thus far, for creating a separate
 LPAR
  for QA, UAT testing, this appears to be the only one that cannot be
 refuted.


 If any exception to the rule counts as refutation, this is refuted.

   However, it still begs the question, why have LPARs at all, because
  separate Security DBs *can* be configured in separate Virtual Machines
  running separate instances of z/OS under z/VM without LPARs at all.


 OTOH, if all you run is a relatively stable set of z/OS images, why use
 z/VM when PR/SM is free (indeed, you can't get a current CPC without
 it)?  I'll admit that I've not worked with any flavor of VM in over a
 decade, but I don't recall any flavor of MVS IPLing any faster under VM
 than in an LPAR.

-jc-

   --
 For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
 send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
 Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html




-- 
George Henke
(C) 845 401 5614

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

Re: LPARs: More or Less?

Wow, I just don't know where to start.  The comments about PR/SM being free 
were made in the context of comparing it to using VM, and in that sense it is 
free since using VM not only has a license cost, but would further increase all 
the other costs you outline.
You seem to be implying that companies use PR/SM on a whim to multiply their 
z/OS images for no good reason, which I think is preposterous.
 
You say that all the points made have been refuted, yet you quietly fail to 
even acknowledge many very strong arguments.
 
It has not been terribly clear from the start what your position really is.  
Are you arguing that there is no point in having more that one z/OS image on 
any CEC, or are you arguing that PR/SM is a waste, and everyone should be using 
VM?  You seem to have argued both points at various times.

 George Henke gahe...@gmail.com 3/5/2010 9:38 AM 
Thank you all for your constructive comments and critiques.

But from this little brainstorming exercise, I believe if I have learned
anything at all, I have learned that PR/SM is anything but free.

Would IBM really give away anything for free?

Here's nothing, grab it well  (Old Hungarian proverb)

The easiest path, the path of least resistance, is not always optimum.

There is a very hidden, subtle, but quite exorbitant price paid for PR/SM:

   -  Memory for each instance of z/OS replicated,
   -  Performance:  wasted CPU cycles especially for handshaking between
   LPARs doing shared I/O,
   - Software licensing fees
   -  Inflexibility of fitting workloads into fixed partitions,
   - complexity:  After splitting everything up we bring it all back
   together again with Parallel Sysplex, CDSes, CFRM policies:  List, Cache,
   and Lock structures, all kinds of plexes:  JESPLEX, VTAMPLEX, IMSPLEX, VSAM
   RLS, CICSPLEX, SHARED DB2, all designed to circumvent the artificial
   barriers we never needed to erect in the first place.

despite:


   -  all efforts of IBM to encourage this with sub-capacity pricing
   - the diminishing need to carve up memory now that paging, Expanded
   Storage, are history with 64 bit memory.

True, there is a place for PR/SM for things like CFCC, AIX, LINUX.  But
just needlessly replicating z/OS because it is free and easy to do is not
the answer.

One of the oldest marketing devices is:

   - to first lower the hemline, then raise it;
   - first bring out double knit men's suits, then banish them,
   - first tell everyone to go distributive, then force them to centralize,
   - and above all:


   - software sells hardware, so encourage the inefficient use, needless
   replication, of software so we can sell more hardware.


On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 8:00 AM, Chase, John jch...@ussco.com wrote:


  -Original Message-
  From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of George Henke
 
  I think I may have finally come upon a valid justification for a
 separate
  UAT, QA LPAR; maybe the only justification.
 
  You can only have one instance of Security, RACF, ACF2, TSS, in an
 LPAR,
  z/OS Domain, at any one time.


 OK so far

   Since, for QA testing, the need is to mirror PROD Security so that the
  security rules for a change being made are tested *before* moving the
 change
  to PROD, then there would need to be a separate LPAR to hold a
 separate
  Security DB that mirrored the PROD DB.


 We use installation-defined classes for much of that separation, which
 works well here because the vast majority of resources for which we
 might need to test new security rules are amenable to separate cloned
 classes (mostly CICS and FACILITY-like stuff).

   Since the DEV LPAR already has a DEV Security DB and there can be only
 one
  instance of a Security DB per LPAR, this would preclude the mirroring
 of the
  PROD Security DB in a DEV LPAR, and is sufficient reason for creating
 a
  separate LPAR for QA, UAT, testing.


 Actually, we share a RACF database between PROD and DEV/QA.  Only the
 sandbox has a separate RACF database.

   Of all the justifications, presented thus far, for creating a separate
 LPAR
  for QA, UAT testing, this appears to be the only one that cannot be
 refuted.


 If any exception to the rule counts as refutation, this is refuted.

   However, it still begs the question, why have LPARs at all, because
  separate Security DBs *can* be configured in separate Virtual Machines
  running separate instances of z/OS under z/VM without LPARs at all.


 OTOH, if all you run is a relatively stable set of z/OS images, why use
 z/VM when PR/SM is free (indeed, you can't get a current CPC without
 it)?  I'll admit that I've not worked with any flavor of VM in over a
 decade, but I don't recall any flavor of MVS IPLing any faster under VM
 than in an LPAR.

-jc-

   --
 For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
 send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
 Search the archives

Re: LPARs: More or Less?

2010-03-05 Thread Staller, Allan

At the end of the day, this discussion comes down to business
requirements. Many institutions, due to audit, regulatory, or industry
standards need to separate SANDBOX/DEV/TEST/QA/PROD. This can be done at
the administrative level (1 big LPAR with all information(os testing
excluded)), or the image level(separate LPARS for each), z/VM guests, or
anything in between. 

The trick in the single image environment is proving that the
non-production user CANNOT access production data, which will be a
concern for even the most incompetent of auditors. Yes this can be
accomplished, but how many auditors will understand the nuances of
RACF/ACF2/TS enough to even test the premise. Not to mention the
administrative overhead required to establish, document, and maintain
the separation of the environments within a single image. 

A separate LPAR(or guest) can be easily defended (with backup doc from
IBM and others) by saying This LPAR cannot access that LPAR's data
unless explicitly allowed. Most auditors can understand and test that
premise, even if they are not security experts.

In other words, whatever works best for your business is the method you
should use.

Just my 0.02 USD worth,

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

Re: LPARs: More or Less?

2010-03-05 Thread Chase, John

 -Original Message-
 From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of George Henke
 
 Thank you all for your constructive comments and critiques.
 
 But from this little brainstorming exercise, I believe if I have
learned
 anything at all, I have learned that PR/SM is anything but free.
 
 Would IBM really give away anything for free?

The price of PR/SM is built-in to the price of the hardware, so it
appears free.  You get it regardless whether you ever use it; very
much like the free air bags and seat belts you get in a car nowadays.

 Here's nothing, grab it well  (Old Hungarian proverb)
 
 The easiest path, the path of least resistance, is not always optimum.

Which tacitly acknowledges that on occasion it is.

 There is a very hidden, subtle, but quite exorbitant price paid for
PR/SM:
 
-  Memory for each instance of z/OS replicated,
-  Performance:  wasted CPU cycles especially for handshaking
between
LPARs doing shared I/O,
- Software licensing fees
-  Inflexibility of fitting workloads into fixed partitions,
- complexity:  After splitting everything up we bring it all back
together again with Parallel Sysplex, CDSes, CFRM policies:  List,
Cache,
and Lock structures, all kinds of plexes:  JESPLEX, VTAMPLEX,
IMSPLEX, VSAM
RLS, CICSPLEX, SHARED DB2, all designed to circumvent the
artificial
barriers we never needed to erect in the first place.

It was my understanding that all those various plexes were designed to
reduce or eliminate single points of failure, thus providing the
capability for near-continuous operation.

 despite:
 
 
-  all efforts of IBM to encourage this with sub-capacity pricing
- the diminishing need to carve up memory now that paging, Expanded
Storage, are history with 64 bit memory.

Paging is alive and well despite 64-bit storage.

  True, there is a place for PR/SM for things like CFCC, AIX, LINUX.
But
 just needlessly replicating z/OS because it is free and easy to do
is not
 the answer.

Some might argue that z/VM makes needlessly replicating z/OS even
easier.  I think the key word here is needlessly:  How many
installations needlessly replicate z/OS?

 One of the oldest marketing devices is:
 
- to first lower the hemline, then raise it;
- first bring out double knit men's suits, then banish them,
- first tell everyone to go distributive, then force them to
centralize,
- and above all:
 
 
- software sells hardware, so encourage the inefficient use,
needless
replication, of software so we can sell more hardware.

Bigger, faster cars that consumed lots of fuel were once the rage.  Then
the fuel providers decided they could raise their prices, so they raised
them until smaller, more fuel-efficient cars became the new rage.  But
drivers sorely missed bigger and faster, so they demanded they be
reinstated.  Green side out, now brown side out, now green side
out again.  That's the way things work.  Enjoy the ride, for in the end
we shall all be dead.

-jc-

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

Re: LPARs: More or Less?

You seem to be implying that companies use PR/SM on a whim to multiply
their z/OS images for no good reason, which I think is preposterous.

You're right it is preposterous.

The only thing the PR/SM LPAR paradigm lacks is a nice Escher painting to
hang over it.



On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 11:04 AM, George Henke gahe...@gmail.com wrote:

 Auditors don't like anything they can't stub their toe on.

 I have the scares to prove it.

   On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 10:52 AM, Staller, Allan 
 allan.stal...@kbm1.comwrote:

 At the end of the day, this discussion comes down to business
 requirements. Many institutions, due to audit, regulatory, or industry
 standards need to separate SANDBOX/DEV/TEST/QA/PROD. This can be done at
 the administrative level (1 big LPAR with all information(os testing
 excluded)), or the image level(separate LPARS for each), z/VM guests, or
 anything in between.

 The trick in the single image environment is proving that the
 non-production user CANNOT access production data, which will be a
 concern for even the most incompetent of auditors. Yes this can be
 accomplished, but how many auditors will understand the nuances of
 RACF/ACF2/TS enough to even test the premise. Not to mention the
 administrative overhead required to establish, document, and maintain
 the separation of the environments within a single image.

 A separate LPAR(or guest) can be easily defended (with backup doc from
 IBM and others) by saying This LPAR cannot access that LPAR's data
 unless explicitly allowed. Most auditors can understand and test that
 premise, even if they are not security experts.

 In other words, whatever works best for your business is the method you
 should use.

 Just my 0.02 USD worth,

 --
 For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
 send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
 Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html




  --
 George Henke
 (C) 845 401 5614




-- 
George Henke
(C) 845 401 5614

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

Re: LPARs: More or Less?

2010-03-05 Thread Ted MacNEIL

Many disagreements (interspersed):

There is a very hidden, subtle, but quite exorbitant price paid for PR/SM:

Define exhorbitant.

-  Memory for each instance of z/OS replicated,
  
Memory is relatively cheap compared to the total cost of the processor.

-  Performance:  wasted CPU cycles especially for handshaking between LPARs 
doing shared I/O,

I've been involved in MDF  PR/SM since the mid-1980's.
Back then, MDF was expensive -- 5% of the processor per domain.
PR/SM -- 3090-base -- 7%
 -- 3090-E -- 5-6%
 -- 3090-S -- 5ish%
 -- 3090-J  -- 4-5%
 -- ES/9000-- 4-5%
 -- 9672-- 3-4%
 -- z/Box   -- 2-3%
These are from memory following IBM guidelines on the number of logical vs 
physical ratios.
I was responsible for the measurements, and they were done by me, for many 
different environments that I managed.

I only suffered twice from I/O elongation, and both were on the older 
(non-CMOS) technology.

TPI  EMIF addressed a lot of the I/O issues. DCM  (HIPER)PAV addressed a lot 
more. With sub-5ms response, it's almost impossible to discern any effects due 
to PR/SM.

- Software licensing fees
  -  Inflexibility of fitting workloads into fixed partitions,

Again, define inflexibility.
 With variable weights, CPUs, and other dynamism in the picture, surely there 
is great flexibility.
Would you want to go back to the old monoliths with the (implied) wasted 
capacity.

Also, by isolating specific workloads to smaller partitions, I have helped many 
companies save licensing costs.

  - complexity:  After splitting everything up we bring it all back together 
 again with Parallel Sysplex, CDSes, CFRM policies:  List, Cache, and Lock 
 structures, all kinds of plexes:  JESPLEX, VTAMPLEX, IMSPLEX, VSAMRLS, 
 CICSPLEX, SHARED DB2, all designed to circumvent the artificial barriers we 
 never needed to erect in the first place.

That has nothing to do with PR/SM. SYSPLEX complexity is for redundancy in case 
of failure of hardware, systems, or sub-systems.
The first SYSPLEX, I was involved in, was four monolithic (ie: non-partitioned) 
processors.
We went to PR/SM, on one new box, to replace two boxes, about a year later.
The reasons for PR/SM, in that case were:
1. Less power.
2. Less cooling.
3. Flexibility. The two images peaked at different times, so we could get away 
with less capacity than that required by two footprints.
4. Of course, software costs. One less MVS licence.


despite:
-  all efforts of IBM to encourage this with sub-capacity pricing

Sub-Capacity Licences DO save money.


- the diminishing need to carve up memory now that paging, Expanded Storage, 
are history with 64 bit memory.

One agreement.

True, there is a place for PR/SM for things like CFCC, AIX, LINUX.
But just needlessly replicating z/OS because it is free and easy to do is 
not the answer.

Why not? There is more to it than your simple dismissal.

There are isolation issues.
And, even in the 21st century, virtual storage issues, still.
That is to name just two.

-
Too busy driving to stop for gas!

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

Re: LPARs: More or Less?

No, I'm saying that it's preposterous for you to say such a thing, because I do 
not believe it is prevalent.  I have never seen such a situation in any shop 
where I have worked, nor have I heard any reliable source explain that such a 
situation exists elsewhere.  I recently was involved in situation where 
management was desiring to do such a thing, through their own ignorance of the 
technology, but I was able to defeat it.

 George Henke gahe...@gmail.com 3/5/2010 11:50 AM 
You seem to be implying that companies use PR/SM on a whim to multiply
their z/OS images for no good reason, which I think is preposterous.

You're right it is preposterous.

The only thing the PR/SM LPAR paradigm lacks is a nice Escher painting to
hang over it.



On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 11:04 AM, George Henke gahe...@gmail.com wrote:

 Auditors don't like anything they can't stub their toe on.

 I have the scares to prove it.

   On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 10:52 AM, Staller, Allan 
 allan.stal...@kbm1.comwrote:

 At the end of the day, this discussion comes down to business
 requirements. Many institutions, due to audit, regulatory, or industry
 standards need to separate SANDBOX/DEV/TEST/QA/PROD. This can be done at
 the administrative level (1 big LPAR with all information(os testing
 excluded)), or the image level(separate LPARS for each), z/VM guests, or
 anything in between.

 The trick in the single image environment is proving that the
 non-production user CANNOT access production data, which will be a
 concern for even the most incompetent of auditors. Yes this can be
 accomplished, but how many auditors will understand the nuances of
 RACF/ACF2/TS enough to even test the premise. Not to mention the
 administrative overhead required to establish, document, and maintain
 the separation of the environments within a single image.

 A separate LPAR(or guest) can be easily defended (with backup doc from
 IBM and others) by saying This LPAR cannot access that LPAR's data
 unless explicitly allowed. Most auditors can understand and test that
 premise, even if they are not security experts.

 In other words, whatever works best for your business is the method you
 should use.

 Just my 0.02 USD worth,

 --
 For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
 send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
 Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html 




  --
 George Henke
 (C) 845 401 5614




-- 
George Henke
(C) 845 401 5614

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html 



CONFIDENTIALITY/EMAIL NOTICE: The material in this transmission contains 
confidential and privileged information intended only for the addressee.  If 
you are not the intended recipient, please be advised that you have received 
this material in error and that any forwarding, copying, printing, 
distribution, use or disclosure of the material is strictly prohibited.  If you 
have received this material in error, please (i) do not read it, (ii) reply to 
the sender that you received the message in error, and (iii) erase or destroy 
the material. Emails are not secure and can be intercepted, amended, lost or 
destroyed, or contain viruses. You are deemed to have accepted these risks if 
you communicate with us by email. Thank you.


--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

Re: LPARs: More or Less?

2010-03-05 Thread Mark Zelden

On Fri, 5 Mar 2010 16:24:51 +, Ted MacNEIL eamacn...@yahoo.ca wrote:

No, I wouldn't call it popular, but I wouldn't call it rare either.
I have worked on VM off and on throughout my career.

Outside of IBM, I've only met two people with VM and MVS skills.
This is in the Greater Toronto Area, over the last 30 years.
To me, that's rare.

That is your experience, which is what you are writing about.   I will
say it is much more rare these days than it was 20 years ago.  At least
in the Chicago area.  There used to be a lot of shops running VM along
with MVS (and hence many sysprogs with experience in both) but many
of them got rid of VM.  The last full time VM I supported was VM/XA but
I also worked with VM/ESA and VM/HPO not long after that but there
was a full time VM sysprog that really supported those environments when I 
worked on them. 

It wasn't until zLinux popped up that I started working with VM again, which
I think is getting more and more common, so the dual skill set is making
a come back.

Mark
--
Mark Zelden - Zelden Consulting Services - z/OS, OS/390 and MVS   
mailto:mzel...@flash.net  
Mark's MVS Utilities: http://home.flash.net/~mzelden/mvsutil.html 
Systems Programming expert at http://expertanswercenter.techtarget.com/

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

Re: LPARs: More or Less?

No, I'm saying that it's preposterous for you to say such a thing, because
I do not believe it is prevalent. . . .  I recently was involved in
situation where management was desiring to do such a thing, through their
own ignorance of the technology, but I was able to defeat it.
IBM owes you money.

On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 11:59 AM, Scott Rowe scott.r...@joann.com wrote:

 No, I'm saying that it's preposterous for you to say such a thing, because
 I do not believe it is prevalent.  I have never seen such a situation in any
 shop where I have worked, nor have I heard any reliable source explain that
 such a situation exists elsewhere.  I recently was involved in situation
 where management was desiring to do such a thing, through their own
 ignorance of the technology, but I was able to defeat it.

  George Henke gahe...@gmail.com 3/5/2010 11:50 AM 
  You seem to be implying that companies use PR/SM on a whim to multiply
 their z/OS images for no good reason, which I think is preposterous.

 You're right it is preposterous.

 The only thing the PR/SM LPAR paradigm lacks is a nice Escher painting to
 hang over it.



 On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 11:04 AM, George Henke gahe...@gmail.com wrote:

  Auditors don't like anything they can't stub their toe on.
 
  I have the scares to prove it.
 
On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 10:52 AM, Staller, Allan 
 allan.stal...@kbm1.comwrote:
 
  At the end of the day, this discussion comes down to business
  requirements. Many institutions, due to audit, regulatory, or industry
  standards need to separate SANDBOX/DEV/TEST/QA/PROD. This can be done at
  the administrative level (1 big LPAR with all information(os testing
  excluded)), or the image level(separate LPARS for each), z/VM guests, or
  anything in between.
 
  The trick in the single image environment is proving that the
  non-production user CANNOT access production data, which will be a
  concern for even the most incompetent of auditors. Yes this can be
  accomplished, but how many auditors will understand the nuances of
  RACF/ACF2/TS enough to even test the premise. Not to mention the
  administrative overhead required to establish, document, and maintain
  the separation of the environments within a single image.
 
  A separate LPAR(or guest) can be easily defended (with backup doc from
  IBM and others) by saying This LPAR cannot access that LPAR's data
  unless explicitly allowed. Most auditors can understand and test that
  premise, even if they are not security experts.
 
  In other words, whatever works best for your business is the method you
  should use.
 
  Just my 0.02 USD worth,
 
  --
  For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
  send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
  Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
 
 
 
 
   --
  George Henke
  (C) 845 401 5614
 



 --
 George Henke
 (C) 845 401 5614

 --
 For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
 send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
 Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html



 CONFIDENTIALITY/EMAIL NOTICE: The material in this transmission contains
 confidential and privileged information intended only for the addressee.  If
 you are not the intended recipient, please be advised that you have received
 this material in error and that any forwarding, copying, printing,
 distribution, use or disclosure of the material is strictly prohibited.  If
 you have received this material in error, please (i) do not read it, (ii)
 reply to the sender that you received the message in error, and (iii) erase
 or destroy the material. Emails are not secure and can be intercepted,
 amended, lost or destroyed, or contain viruses. You are deemed to have
 accepted these risks if you communicate with us by email. Thank you.


 --
  For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
 send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
 Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html




-- 
George Henke
(C) 845 401 5614

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

Re: LPARs: More or Less?

It wasn't until zLinux popped up that I started working with VM again,
which
I think is getting more and more common, so the dual skill set is making
a come back.

You're absolutely right, Mark.  I know a very large financial company who is
doing just that after the project was languishing for 6 years.

Also, it should be noted, that IBM offers z/VM virtually for free to
hospitals and universities as long as they use it for research.

So you will find z/VM and z/OS living happily together at such institutions
which is where I installed z/VM 5.4 last November.

On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 12:13 PM, Mark Zelden mzel...@flash.net wrote:

 On Fri, 5 Mar 2010 16:24:51 +, Ted MacNEIL eamacn...@yahoo.ca wrote:

 No, I wouldn't call it popular, but I wouldn't call it rare either.
 I have worked on VM off and on throughout my career.
 
 Outside of IBM, I've only met two people with VM and MVS skills.
 This is in the Greater Toronto Area, over the last 30 years.
 To me, that's rare.

 That is your experience, which is what you are writing about.   I will
 say it is much more rare these days than it was 20 years ago.  At least
 in the Chicago area.  There used to be a lot of shops running VM along
 with MVS (and hence many sysprogs with experience in both) but many
 of them got rid of VM.  The last full time VM I supported was VM/XA but
 I also worked with VM/ESA and VM/HPO not long after that but there
 was a full time VM sysprog that really supported those environments when I
 worked on them.

 It wasn't until zLinux popped up that I started working with VM again,
 which
 I think is getting more and more common, so the dual skill set is making
 a come back.

 Mark
 --
 Mark Zelden - Zelden Consulting Services - z/OS, OS/390 and MVS
 mailto:mzel...@flash.net
 Mark's MVS Utilities: http://home.flash.net/~mzelden/mvsutil.html
 Systems Programming expert at http://expertanswercenter.techtarget.com/

 --
 For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
 send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
 Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html




-- 
George Henke
(C) 845 401 5614

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

Re: LPARs: More or Less?

That's your reply?  IBM owes me money?  Why?  Because I did my job?
 
Now you will probably go on to say that nobody has refuted your position, right?
 
Are you really interested in having an intelligent discussion here? You seem to 
just be posting long diatribes and ignoring or dismissing all the well thought 
out responses you receive.
 
I'm still kind of curious what exactly you mean by: 
-  Performance:  wasted CPU cycles especially for handshaking between
   LPARs doing shared I/O
I have thoughts on what you mean by these kinds of things, but I am reserving 
judgement.

 George Henke gahe...@gmail.com 3/5/2010 12:15 PM 
No, I'm saying that it's preposterous for you to say such a thing, because
I do not believe it is prevalent. . . .  I recently was involved in
situation where management was desiring to do such a thing, through their
own ignorance of the technology, but I was able to defeat it.
IBM owes you money.


CONFIDENTIALITY/EMAIL NOTICE: The material in this transmission contains 
confidential and privileged information intended only for the addressee.  If 
you are not the intended recipient, please be advised that you have received 
this material in error and that any forwarding, copying, printing, 
distribution, use or disclosure of the material is strictly prohibited.  If you 
have received this material in error, please (i) do not read it, (ii) reply to 
the sender that you received the message in error, and (iii) erase or destroy 
the material. Emails are not secure and can be intercepted, amended, lost or 
destroyed, or contain viruses. You are deemed to have accepted these risks if 
you communicate with us by email. Thank you.


--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

Re: LPARs: More or Less?

2010-03-05 Thread Ted MacNEIL

I'm still kind of curious what exactly you mean by: 
-  Performance:  wasted CPU cycles especially for handshaking between
   LPARs doing shared I/O

So am I.
I haven't seen these issues since the early days of MDF and PR/SM in the 1980's.

I have thoughts on what you mean by these kinds of things, but I am reserving 
judgement.

I'm not.
This sounds like a diatribe against something that has matured in the last 25 
years.

Rather than say it's bad because I say it's bad, present some evidence.

-
Too busy driving to stop for gas!

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

Re: LPARs: More or Less? (OT, somewhat)

2010-03-05 Thread John Baxter

Ah, the good old GTA; come visit Edmonton, Ted. There are a number of
ambidextrous sysprogs in our area. (Not to put T.O. down - I lived there
during the 60's  70's and loved it.) 

-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On
Behalf Of Ted MacNEIL
Sent: Friday, March 05, 2010 9:25 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Subject: Re: LPARs: More or Less?

No, I wouldn't call it popular, but I wouldn't call it rare either.
I have worked on VM off and on throughout my career.

Outside of IBM, I've only met two people with VM and MVS skills.
This is in the Greater Toronto Area, over the last 30 years.
To me, that's rare.
-
Too busy driving to stop for gas!

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

The information transmitted is intended only for the addressee and may contain 
confidential, proprietary and/or privileged material. Any unauthorized review, 
distribution or other use of or the taking of any action in reliance upon this 
information is prohibited. If you receive this in error, please contact the 
sender and delete or destroy this message and any copies.

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

Re: LPARs: More or Less?

Gentlemen,

I am indeed very grateful to you all and thank you all.

There is, indeed, compelling evidence supporting the case for fewer and even
no LPARs but, unfortunately, it is proprietary and cannot be presented.

I know that all sounds a little too convenient, but it is true.

But thank you all and rest assured I have, indeed, read and learned and
appreciate very much all that you all have written and said.

Please, no hard feelings.

Thank you.
On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 2:37 PM, Ted MacNEIL eamacn...@yahoo.ca wrote:

 I'm still kind of curious what exactly you mean by:
 -  Performance:  wasted CPU cycles especially for handshaking between
   LPARs doing shared I/O

 So am I.
 I haven't seen these issues since the early days of MDF and PR/SM in the
 1980's.

 I have thoughts on what you mean by these kinds of things, but I am
 reserving judgement.

 I'm not.
 This sounds like a diatribe against something that has matured in the last
 25 years.

 Rather than say it's bad because I say it's bad, present some evidence.

 -
 Too busy driving to stop for gas!

 --
  For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
 send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
 Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html




-- 
George Henke
(C) 845 401 5614

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

Re: LPARs: More or Less?

2010-03-05 Thread Gibney, Dave

  Just a nit. On supported IBM hardware, there is no valid argument for
NO LPARs. Basic mode is not available. Even if you only have one image,
it is still an LPAR.

Dave Gibney
Information Technology Services
Washington State University


 -Original Message-
 From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On
 Behalf Of George Henke
 Sent: Friday, March 05, 2010 1:50 PM
 To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
 Subject: Re: LPARs: More or Less?
 
 Gentlemen,
 
 I am indeed very grateful to you all and thank you all.
 
 There is, indeed, compelling evidence supporting the case for fewer
and
 even
 no LPARs but, unfortunately, it is proprietary and cannot be
presented.
 
 I know that all sounds a little too convenient, but it is true.
 
 But thank you all and rest assured I have, indeed, read and learned
and
 appreciate very much all that you all have written and said.
 
 Please, no hard feelings.
 
 Thank you.
 On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 2:37 PM, Ted MacNEIL eamacn...@yahoo.ca
wrote:
 
  I'm still kind of curious what exactly you mean by:
  -  Performance:  wasted CPU cycles especially for handshaking
between
LPARs doing shared I/O
 
  So am I.
  I haven't seen these issues since the early days of MDF and PR/SM in
 the
  1980's.
 
  I have thoughts on what you mean by these kinds of things, but I am
  reserving judgement.
 
  I'm not.
  This sounds like a diatribe against something that has matured in
the
 last
  25 years.
 
  Rather than say it's bad because I say it's bad, present some
 evidence.
 
  -
  Too busy driving to stop for gas!
 
 
-
 -
   For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
  send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN
 INFO
  Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
 
 
 
 
 --
 George Henke
 (C) 845 401 5614
 
 --
 For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
 send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
 Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

Re: LPARs: More or Less?