Re: Correcting Statements From Marketing
If you build a response time model for processors, - AND you have a target response time not to be exceeded, it is easy to show that 1 processor responds worse at 80%, than two at 80%. Equivalent response time is expected when the two processors are at 90%. So the source of the question is really batch mentality vs the response time mentality. MP effect comes from the batch mentality where thruput was the only measure. The batch mentality will always challenge this, response time mentality should understand If you care about response time in the Linux/zVm world, you don't run at 100% most of the time. So the only time the MP Effect question is relevant is when both processors are running at 100%, which makes the question not relevant on IFLs. From an accounting perspective, I guess you could use the z/OS numbers, which would likely under-charge the Linux user for CPU consumed, since using those numbers a CPU second consumed is not charged as a full CPU second. Schuh, Richard wrote: I would expect that some would challenge your conclusion based on the idea that the MP effect does not even appear unless you are running at or near capacity. If I have two cpus or IFLs and 1.1 cpu's worth of demand, will I notice the MP effect? Probably not. I probably will see a better service level than when I was trying to service the same demand with only 1 cpu. The question is, if n tasks causes a single engine to run at 100%, will 2 engines be able to service 2n tasks as well as 1 serviced n? I think that under normal circumstances, the answer is that the 2 engine machine will only be able to service somewhat less than 2n. Regards, Richard Schuh -Original Message- From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:ib...@listserv.uark.edu] On Behalf Of Barton Robinson Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2009 10:57 AM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: Correcting Statements From Marketing Ok here's some heresy that I've presented to IBM and maybe was communicated to their sales folks. From a capacity planning and service level perspective, adding a CPU gives you MORE than 100%, not less than. Really, BUT ONLY if you actually care about service levels. From a service level perspective, i know that i can provide on ONE IFL a given service at 80% CPU utilization. If I ADD an IFL, and more work of a similar nature, I now have TWO IFLs, and I know that I can provide that SAME service at 180% CPU Util. So, I went from ONE IFL, to TWO IFLs, and increased my target CPU utilization by 1.25 times. On z/OS if you just run at 100% all the time, and run batch to soak up cycles, then add a CPU and you don't get 100% of one CPU more work done. That is the only time MP factors should matter. And this heresy is why it is much easier to deal with installations running multiple IFLs, because the performance will be better at higher utilizations than single IFLs at lower utilizations. Adding a second IFL more than doubles your usable capacity. Adding a 3rd or 4th is less dramatic. From a historical perspective, we used to have the MASTER PROCESSOR effect where adding a CPU added much less capacity. Installations today do not see this impact. Schuh, Richard wrote: This got no response when posted under a different topic: Yikes, We have someone from IBM Marketing now making the statement, I have confirmed...no MP factor with IFLs. That is the entire statement, all of the dots included. I did not replace anything with ellipses. Somehow, that does not ring true. I mentioned that the rating of an IFL is the same as that of an ordinary CPU and someone went to marketing for the real answer. Perhaps they should have said, No different MP factor for IFLs than for regular CPUs, they are the same in that regard. That would make more sense. Anyone from IBM care to comment - you will probably be quoted. I am not considered an authority on the topic, especially when I disagree with an interpretation of a statement made by IBM marketing. I need to disabuse someone of their notion because it will affect the capacity planning process. They do not seem to believe that running the same O/S on two systems, one with n standard CPUs and the other with the same number of IFLs will produce a result of equal MP effect. Barton, you are also invited to respond. At least one of the people on the other side of the fence will take your word for it. Regards, Richard Schuh
Re: Correcting Statements From Marketing
Maybe the question is not relevant to you, but it is to us. Since our guests on the big z/VM system are TPF systems that are driven at machine speeds by other virtual machines, a cpu utilization of 100% is never too far from reality. In that case, the batch model is more realistic. The only systems that use IFLs are either low utilization Linux workloads (Z/TPF development) or ones that have a batch-like nature (driven by TPF in an adjoining LPAR, frequently full throttle for extended periods). The low utilization systems get the response time they need using 3 shared IFLs between 2 LPARs; they are not a problem. The others drive 7 or more dedicated IFLs at or near their limit. So, yes, I am more concerned about the MP effect in two different environments that much more closely resemble a batch environment than they do the response time model of which you speak. Regards, Richard Schuh -Original Message- From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:ib...@listserv.uark.edu] On Behalf Of Barton Robinson Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2009 8:20 AM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: Correcting Statements From Marketing If you build a response time model for processors, - AND you have a target response time not to be exceeded, it is easy to show that 1 processor responds worse at 80%, than two at 80%. Equivalent response time is expected when the two processors are at 90%. So the source of the question is really batch mentality vs the response time mentality. MP effect comes from the batch mentality where thruput was the only measure. The batch mentality will always challenge this, response time mentality should understand If you care about response time in the Linux/zVm world, you don't run at 100% most of the time. So the only time the MP Effect question is relevant is when both processors are running at 100%, which makes the question not relevant on IFLs. From an accounting perspective, I guess you could use the z/OS numbers, which would likely under-charge the Linux user for CPU consumed, since using those numbers a CPU second consumed is not charged as a full CPU second. Schuh, Richard wrote: I would expect that some would challenge your conclusion based on the idea that the MP effect does not even appear unless you are running at or near capacity. If I have two cpus or IFLs and 1.1 cpu's worth of demand, will I notice the MP effect? Probably not. I probably will see a better service level than when I was trying to service the same demand with only 1 cpu. The question is, if n tasks causes a single engine to run at 100%, will 2 engines be able to service 2n tasks as well as 1 serviced n? I think that under normal circumstances, the answer is that the 2 engine machine will only be able to service somewhat less than 2n. Regards, Richard Schuh -Original Message- From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:ib...@listserv.uark.edu] On Behalf Of Barton Robinson Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2009 10:57 AM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: Correcting Statements From Marketing Ok here's some heresy that I've presented to IBM and maybe was communicated to their sales folks. From a capacity planning and service level perspective, adding a CPU gives you MORE than 100%, not less than. Really, BUT ONLY if you actually care about service levels. From a service level perspective, i know that i can provide on ONE IFL a given service at 80% CPU utilization. If I ADD an IFL, and more work of a similar nature, I now have TWO IFLs, and I know that I can provide that SAME service at 180% CPU Util. So, I went from ONE IFL, to TWO IFLs, and increased my target CPU utilization by 1.25 times. On z/OS if you just run at 100% all the time, and run batch to soak up cycles, then add a CPU and you don't get 100% of one CPU more work done. That is the only time MP factors should matter. And this heresy is why it is much easier to deal with installations running multiple IFLs, because the performance will be better at higher utilizations than single IFLs at lower utilizations. Adding a second IFL more than doubles your usable capacity. Adding a 3rd or 4th is less dramatic. From a historical perspective, we used to have the MASTER PROCESSOR effect where adding a CPU added much less capacity. Installations today do not see this impact. Schuh, Richard wrote: This got no response when posted under a different topic: Yikes, We have someone from IBM Marketing now making the statement, I have confirmed...no MP factor with IFLs. That is the entire statement, all of the dots included. I did not replace anything with ellipses. Somehow, that does not ring true. I mentioned that the rating of an IFL is the same as that of an ordinary CPU and someone went to marketing
Re: Correcting Statements From Marketing
On Tuesday, 02/03/2009 at 09:34 EST, Schuh, Richard rsc...@visa.com wrote: I would expect that some would challenge your conclusion based on the idea that the MP effect does not even appear unless you are running at or near capacity. If I have two cpus or IFLs and 1.1 cpu's worth of demand, will I notice the MP effect? Probably not. I probably will see a better service level than when I was trying to service the same demand with only 1 cpu. The question is, if n tasks causes a single engine to run at 100%, will 2 engines be able to service 2n tasks as well as 1 serviced n? I think that under normal circumstances, the answer is that the 2 engine machine will only be able to service somewhat less than 2n. You ask a question that has two answers. Yes and No. :-) If you give the system another CPU, it takes cycles (time) to manage it and coordinate activities with it. Those cycles are lost in the Void. So, no, there cannot be a linear scaling of *service* capacity compared to *CPU* capacity (as a function of the number of CPUs, not their size). But I took from Barton's post that if you look at the world from a business point of view (the SLA) rather than engineering, then the answer may be Yes. Since no sane SLA would assume 100% CPU consumption, you can still meet your SLA, even in the face of non-linear growth of service capacity because you have built-in slack in the SLA. Sure, there's some point at which the MP effect will consume the slack. That's one of the reasons a specific VM release will support only 'n' processors. Not because we can't actually run on more than n, but because we feel the MP effects begin to overwhelm the added service capacity. (The event horizon of CPU scalability. Beware the tidal forces as you approach it.) Of course, the MP effect is a vague term that means different things to different people. Even at the hardware level another CPU is going to engage various serialization mechanisms present in the box. E.g. memory access across books. Alan Altmark z/VM Development IBM Endicott
Re: Correcting Statements From Marketing
Might be slightly off topic, but... TPF is not designed to run at 100% utilization, as are other systems like for example z/OS. TPF would likely choke before getting there. Regards, Rick Giz r...@vsoftsys.com 770-781-3206 -Original Message- From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:ib...@listserv.uark.edu] On Behalf Of Schuh, Richard Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2009 12:23 PM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: Correcting Statements From Marketing Maybe the question is not relevant to you, but it is to us. Since our guests on the big z/VM system are TPF systems that are driven at machine speeds by other virtual machines, a cpu utilization of 100% is never too far from reality. In that case, the batch model is more realistic. The only systems that use IFLs are either low utilization Linux workloads (Z/TPF development) or ones that have a batch-like nature (driven by TPF in an adjoining LPAR, frequently full throttle for extended periods). The low utilization systems get the response time they need using 3 shared IFLs between 2 LPARs; they are not a problem. The others drive 7 or more dedicated IFLs at or near their limit. So, yes, I am more concerned about the MP effect in two different environments that much more closely resemble a batch environment than they do the response time model of which you speak. Regards, Richard Schuh -Original Message- From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:ib...@listserv.uark.edu] On Behalf Of Barton Robinson Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2009 8:20 AM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: Correcting Statements From Marketing If you build a response time model for processors, - AND you have a target response time not to be exceeded, it is easy to show that 1 processor responds worse at 80%, than two at 80%. Equivalent response time is expected when the two processors are at 90%. So the source of the question is really batch mentality vs the response time mentality. MP effect comes from the batch mentality where thruput was the only measure. The batch mentality will always challenge this, response time mentality should understand If you care about response time in the Linux/zVm world, you don't run at 100% most of the time. So the only time the MP Effect question is relevant is when both processors are running at 100%, which makes the question not relevant on IFLs. From an accounting perspective, I guess you could use the z/OS numbers, which would likely under-charge the Linux user for CPU consumed, since using those numbers a CPU second consumed is not charged as a full CPU second. Schuh, Richard wrote: I would expect that some would challenge your conclusion based on the idea that the MP effect does not even appear unless you are running at or near capacity. If I have two cpus or IFLs and 1.1 cpu's worth of demand, will I notice the MP effect? Probably not. I probably will see a better service level than when I was trying to service the same demand with only 1 cpu. The question is, if n tasks causes a single engine to run at 100%, will 2 engines be able to service 2n tasks as well as 1 serviced n? I think that under normal circumstances, the answer is that the 2 engine machine will only be able to service somewhat less than 2n. Regards, Richard Schuh -Original Message- From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:ib...@listserv.uark.edu] On Behalf Of Barton Robinson Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2009 10:57 AM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: Correcting Statements From Marketing Ok here's some heresy that I've presented to IBM and maybe was communicated to their sales folks. From a capacity planning and service level perspective, adding a CPU gives you MORE than 100%, not less than. Really, BUT ONLY if you actually care about service levels. From a service level perspective, i know that i can provide on ONE IFL a given service at 80% CPU utilization. If I ADD an IFL, and more work of a similar nature, I now have TWO IFLs, and I know that I can provide that SAME service at 180% CPU Util. So, I went from ONE IFL, to TWO IFLs, and increased my target CPU utilization by 1.25 times. On z/OS if you just run at 100% all the time, and run batch to soak up cycles, then add a CPU and you don't get 100% of one CPU more work done. That is the only time MP factors should matter. And this heresy is why it is much easier to deal with installations running multiple IFLs, because the performance will be better at higher utilizations than single IFLs at lower utilizations. Adding a second IFL more than doubles your usable capacity. Adding a 3rd or 4th is less dramatic. From a historical perspective, we used to have the MASTER PROCESSOR effect where adding a CPU added much less capacity. Installations today do not see
Re: Correcting Statements From Marketing
However, VM running 100+ TPF systems that all look like batch systems that are being driven by machines, not people, will easily run at 100%. We regularly push the pedal to the firewall for extended periods. If I am not mistaken, we have driven native TPF systems that hard during periodic stress testing, too. Regards, Richard Schuh -Original Message- From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:ib...@listserv.uark.edu] On Behalf Of Rick Giz Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2009 9:51 AM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: Correcting Statements From Marketing Might be slightly off topic, but... TPF is not designed to run at 100% utilization, as are other systems like for example z/OS. TPF would likely choke before getting there. Regards, Rick Giz r...@vsoftsys.com 770-781-3206 -Original Message- From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:ib...@listserv.uark.edu] On Behalf Of Schuh, Richard Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2009 12:23 PM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: Correcting Statements From Marketing Maybe the question is not relevant to you, but it is to us. Since our guests on the big z/VM system are TPF systems that are driven at machine speeds by other virtual machines, a cpu utilization of 100% is never too far from reality. In that case, the batch model is more realistic. The only systems that use IFLs are either low utilization Linux workloads (Z/TPF development) or ones that have a batch-like nature (driven by TPF in an adjoining LPAR, frequently full throttle for extended periods). The low utilization systems get the response time they need using 3 shared IFLs between 2 LPARs; they are not a problem. The others drive 7 or more dedicated IFLs at or near their limit. So, yes, I am more concerned about the MP effect in two different environments that much more closely resemble a batch environment than they do the response time model of which you speak. Regards, Richard Schuh -Original Message- From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:ib...@listserv.uark.edu] On Behalf Of Barton Robinson Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2009 8:20 AM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: Correcting Statements From Marketing If you build a response time model for processors, - AND you have a target response time not to be exceeded, it is easy to show that 1 processor responds worse at 80%, than two at 80%. Equivalent response time is expected when the two processors are at 90%. So the source of the question is really batch mentality vs the response time mentality. MP effect comes from the batch mentality where thruput was the only measure. The batch mentality will always challenge this, response time mentality should understand If you care about response time in the Linux/zVm world, you don't run at 100% most of the time. So the only time the MP Effect question is relevant is when both processors are running at 100%, which makes the question not relevant on IFLs. From an accounting perspective, I guess you could use the z/OS numbers, which would likely under-charge the Linux user for CPU consumed, since using those numbers a CPU second consumed is not charged as a full CPU second. Schuh, Richard wrote: I would expect that some would challenge your conclusion based on the idea that the MP effect does not even appear unless you are running at or near capacity. If I have two cpus or IFLs and 1.1 cpu's worth of demand, will I notice the MP effect? Probably not. I probably will see a better service level than when I was trying to service the same demand with only 1 cpu. The question is, if n tasks causes a single engine to run at 100%, will 2 engines be able to service 2n tasks as well as 1 serviced n? I think that under normal circumstances, the answer is that the 2 engine machine will only be able to service somewhat less than 2n. Regards, Richard Schuh -Original Message- From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:ib...@listserv.uark.edu] On Behalf Of Barton Robinson Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2009 10:57 AM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: Correcting Statements From Marketing Ok here's some heresy that I've presented to IBM and maybe was communicated to their sales folks. From a capacity planning and service level perspective, adding a CPU gives you MORE than 100%, not less than. Really, BUT ONLY if you actually care about service levels. From a service level perspective, i know that i can provide on ONE IFL a given service at 80% CPU utilization. If I ADD an IFL, and more work of a similar nature, I now have TWO IFLs, and I know that I can provide that SAME service at 180% CPU Util. So, I went from ONE IFL, to TWO IFLs, and increased my target CPU
Re: Correcting Statements From Marketing
There is most definitely a MP factor with IFLs, just like there is with CPs, and just like there is with every other SMP architecture that exists today. There is no significant difference between an IFL and a ***full speed*** CP when it comes to the MP effect and capacity planning. -- Jay Brenneman ( aka rjbr...@us.ibm.com )
Re: Correcting Statements From Marketing
On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 3:50 PM, Robert J Brenneman bren...@gmail.com wrote: There is most definitely a MP factor with IFLs, just like there is with CPs, and just like there is with every other SMP architecture that exists today. There is no significant difference between an IFL and a ***full speed*** CP when it comes to the MP effect and capacity planning. The sentence resembles the tests at school where you have to put words on the dots to make it a correct statement. Maybe IBM marketing folks were unable to finish that one. And I can see why... I have seen a similar statement with zAAP sizing. If z/OS is indeed such that management of those processors runs on the zAAPs itself, then you could conclude that adding zAAPs to your configuration does not increase the MP overhead in z/OS itself as when you added real CPs. But the thing that *is* relevant to z/OS shops is that adding IFLs to their CP-only machine (to run z/VM and Linux) does not increase the MP effect in z/OS. Adding 10 IFLs does not slow down your 10 CPs running z/OS (apart from low level hardware effects like sharing the bus and cache with twice as many processors). My guess is that the person writing that sentence wanted to clarify this part. But your guess is a good as mine. Rob -- Rob van der Heij Velocity Software http://www.velocitysoftware.com/
Re: Correcting Statements From Marketing
What is the difference between a computer salesman and a used car salesman? The car salesman knows when he's lying. David Dean Information Systems *bcbstauthorized* Life is too important to be taken seriously -Original Message- From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:ib...@listserv.uark.edu] On Behalf Of Rob van der Heij Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2009 10:07 AM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: Correcting Statements From Marketing On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 3:50 PM, Robert J Brenneman bren...@gmail.com wrote: There is most definitely a MP factor with IFLs, just like there is with CPs, and just like there is with every other SMP architecture that exists today. There is no significant difference between an IFL and a ***full speed*** CP when it comes to the MP effect and capacity planning. The sentence resembles the tests at school where you have to put words on the dots to make it a correct statement. Maybe IBM marketing folks were unable to finish that one. And I can see why... I have seen a similar statement with zAAP sizing. If z/OS is indeed such that management of those processors runs on the zAAPs itself, then you could conclude that adding zAAPs to your configuration does not increase the MP overhead in z/OS itself as when you added real CPs. But the thing that *is* relevant to z/OS shops is that adding IFLs to their CP-only machine (to run z/VM and Linux) does not increase the MP effect in z/OS. Adding 10 IFLs does not slow down your 10 CPs running z/OS (apart from low level hardware effects like sharing the bus and cache with twice as many processors). My guess is that the person writing that sentence wanted to clarify this part. But your guess is a good as mine. Rob -- Rob van der Heij Velocity Software http://www.velocitysoftware.com/ - Please see the following link for the BlueCross BlueShield of Tennessee E-mail disclaimer: http://www.bcbst.com/email_disclaimer.shtm
Re: Correcting Statements From Marketing
Ok here's some heresy that I've presented to IBM and maybe was communicated to their sales folks. From a capacity planning and service level perspective, adding a CPU gives you MORE than 100%, not less than. Really, BUT ONLY if you actually care about service levels. From a service level perspective, i know that i can provide on ONE IFL a given service at 80% CPU utilization. If I ADD an IFL, and more work of a similar nature, I now have TWO IFLs, and I know that I can provide that SAME service at 180% CPU Util. So, I went from ONE IFL, to TWO IFLs, and increased my target CPU utilization by 1.25 times. On z/OS if you just run at 100% all the time, and run batch to soak up cycles, then add a CPU and you don't get 100% of one CPU more work done. That is the only time MP factors should matter. And this heresy is why it is much easier to deal with installations running multiple IFLs, because the performance will be better at higher utilizations than single IFLs at lower utilizations. Adding a second IFL more than doubles your usable capacity. Adding a 3rd or 4th is less dramatic. From a historical perspective, we used to have the MASTER PROCESSOR effect where adding a CPU added much less capacity. Installations today do not see this impact. Schuh, Richard wrote: This got no response when posted under a different topic: Yikes, We have someone from IBM Marketing now making the statement, I have confirmed...no MP factor with IFLs. That is the entire statement, all of the dots included. I did not replace anything with ellipses. Somehow, that does not ring true. I mentioned that the rating of an IFL is the same as that of an ordinary CPU and someone went to marketing for the real answer. Perhaps they should have said, No different MP factor for IFLs than for regular CPUs, they are the same in that regard. That would make more sense. Anyone from IBM care to comment - you will probably be quoted. I am not considered an authority on the topic, especially when I disagree with an interpretation of a statement made by IBM marketing. I need to disabuse someone of their notion because it will affect the capacity planning process. They do not seem to believe that running the same O/S on two systems, one with n standard CPUs and the other with the same number of IFLs will produce a result of equal MP effect. Barton, you are also invited to respond. At least one of the people on the other side of the fence will take your word for it. Regards, Richard Schuh
Re: Correcting Statements From Marketing
I would expect that some would challenge your conclusion based on the idea that the MP effect does not even appear unless you are running at or near capacity. If I have two cpus or IFLs and 1.1 cpu's worth of demand, will I notice the MP effect? Probably not. I probably will see a better service level than when I was trying to service the same demand with only 1 cpu. The question is, if n tasks causes a single engine to run at 100%, will 2 engines be able to service 2n tasks as well as 1 serviced n? I think that under normal circumstances, the answer is that the 2 engine machine will only be able to service somewhat less than 2n. Regards, Richard Schuh -Original Message- From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:ib...@listserv.uark.edu] On Behalf Of Barton Robinson Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2009 10:57 AM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: Correcting Statements From Marketing Ok here's some heresy that I've presented to IBM and maybe was communicated to their sales folks. From a capacity planning and service level perspective, adding a CPU gives you MORE than 100%, not less than. Really, BUT ONLY if you actually care about service levels. From a service level perspective, i know that i can provide on ONE IFL a given service at 80% CPU utilization. If I ADD an IFL, and more work of a similar nature, I now have TWO IFLs, and I know that I can provide that SAME service at 180% CPU Util. So, I went from ONE IFL, to TWO IFLs, and increased my target CPU utilization by 1.25 times. On z/OS if you just run at 100% all the time, and run batch to soak up cycles, then add a CPU and you don't get 100% of one CPU more work done. That is the only time MP factors should matter. And this heresy is why it is much easier to deal with installations running multiple IFLs, because the performance will be better at higher utilizations than single IFLs at lower utilizations. Adding a second IFL more than doubles your usable capacity. Adding a 3rd or 4th is less dramatic. From a historical perspective, we used to have the MASTER PROCESSOR effect where adding a CPU added much less capacity. Installations today do not see this impact. Schuh, Richard wrote: This got no response when posted under a different topic: Yikes, We have someone from IBM Marketing now making the statement, I have confirmed...no MP factor with IFLs. That is the entire statement, all of the dots included. I did not replace anything with ellipses. Somehow, that does not ring true. I mentioned that the rating of an IFL is the same as that of an ordinary CPU and someone went to marketing for the real answer. Perhaps they should have said, No different MP factor for IFLs than for regular CPUs, they are the same in that regard. That would make more sense. Anyone from IBM care to comment - you will probably be quoted. I am not considered an authority on the topic, especially when I disagree with an interpretation of a statement made by IBM marketing. I need to disabuse someone of their notion because it will affect the capacity planning process. They do not seem to believe that running the same O/S on two systems, one with n standard CPUs and the other with the same number of IFLs will produce a result of equal MP effect. Barton, you are also invited to respond. At least one of the people on the other side of the fence will take your word for it. Regards, Richard Schuh
Re: Correcting Statements From Marketing
Dean, David (I/S) wrote: What is the difference between a computer salesman and a used car salesman? The car salesman knows when he's lying. You know about the woman who on the honeymoon evening of her fourth marriage said, Be gentle with me, I'm a virgin. How can that be? asked her groom, stunned. My first husband was a young soldier and the day of our marriage was summoned for duty and died in battle. My second husband was an older man and died of a heart attack carrying me across the threshold. And my third husband was a software industry marketer. He just sat on the edge of the bed and told me how good it was going to be when it finally happened. -- Jack J. Woehr# I run for public office from time to time. It's like http://www.well.com/~jax # working out at the gym, you sweat a lot, don't get http://www.softwoehr.com # anywhere, and you fall asleep easily afterwards.
Correcting Statements From Marketing
This got no response when posted under a different topic: Yikes, We have someone from IBM Marketing now making the statement, I have confirmed...no MP factor with IFLs. That is the entire statement, all of the dots included. I did not replace anything with ellipses. Somehow, that does not ring true. I mentioned that the rating of an IFL is the same as that of an ordinary CPU and someone went to marketing for the real answer. Perhaps they should have said, No different MP factor for IFLs than for regular CPUs, they are the same in that regard. That would make more sense. Anyone from IBM care to comment - you will probably be quoted. I am not considered an authority on the topic, especially when I disagree with an interpretation of a statement made by IBM marketing. I need to disabuse someone of their notion because it will affect the capacity planning process. They do not seem to believe that running the same O/S on two systems, one with n standard CPUs and the other with the same number of IFLs will produce a result of equal MP effect. Barton, you are also invited to respond. At least one of the people on the other side of the fence will take your word for it. Regards, Richard Schuh
