Re: Define CPU's
GP - General Purpose engine or CP. If you have both defined to your LPAR then all guests will, by default, run on the GP engine. You have to specifically tell the guest to run on an IFL if you have both. On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 1:32 PM, Dean, David (I/S) wrote: > WebSphere caused the recommendation of the 2 CPU setup. I also appreciate > all the educations on SET SHARE vs. SET CPU. > > I am now contemplating which cliff to jump off, if not both. > > > > -Original Message- > From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:ib...@listserv.uark.edu] On > Behalf Of RPN01 > Sent: Thursday, July 08, 2010 11:24 AM > To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU > Subject: Re: Define CPU's > > Another way of wording this is that adding CPUs to a virtual machine allows > the guest to take advantage of multitasking, but does not increase the > total > amount of CPU time the image receives. If single threading tasks in the > image is the bottleneck, then adding a CPU may relieve it. But if this > isn't > the issue, then it won't help. > > Now, I think I saw WebSphere mentioned somewhere along the line, and I > think > that it will take advantage of multitasking, given the increased number of > available CPUs. > > -- > Robert P. Nix Mayo Foundation.~. > RO-OC-1-18 200 First Street SW/V\ > 507-284-0844 Rochester, MN 55905 /( )\ > -^^-^^ > "In theory, theory and practice are the same, but > in practice, theory and practice are different." > > > > On 7/8/10 10:20 AM, "Alan Altmark" wrote: > > > On Thursday, 07/08/2010 at 11:02 EDT, Martin Zimelis > > wrote: > >> Unless you're max'ing out these virtual machines by consuming 100% > >> of a real processor, it should be as simple as increasing their SHARE > >> values. > > > > To finish the thought, adding virtual CPUs to a guest does not add CPU > > capacity to a guest; SET SHARE does. Adding another virtual CPU may > allow > > the guest to better use the CPU capacity it has been given, increasing > > throughput or decreasing response time, or it may actually slow the guest > > down. It all depends on the application. > > > > A good performance monitor will tell you if a guest is constrained, and > > why. Of course, one must measure, change, and measure again to ensure > > that the changes had the desired effect. Sometimes after you release the > > hounds, you discover that the yard is a mess. > > > > Alan Altmark > > z/VM Development > > IBM Endicott > - > Please see the following link for the BlueCross BlueShield of Tennessee > E-mail disclaimer: http://www.bcbst.com/email_disclaimer.shtm > -- Mark Pace Mainline Information Systems 1700 Summit Lake Drive Tallahassee, FL. 32317
Re: Define CPU's
WebSphere caused the recommendation of the 2 CPU setup. I also appreciate all the educations on SET SHARE vs. SET CPU. I am now contemplating which cliff to jump off, if not both. -Original Message- From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:ib...@listserv.uark.edu] On Behalf Of RPN01 Sent: Thursday, July 08, 2010 11:24 AM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: Define CPU's Another way of wording this is that adding CPUs to a virtual machine allows the guest to take advantage of multitasking, but does not increase the total amount of CPU time the image receives. If single threading tasks in the image is the bottleneck, then adding a CPU may relieve it. But if this isn't the issue, then it won't help. Now, I think I saw WebSphere mentioned somewhere along the line, and I think that it will take advantage of multitasking, given the increased number of available CPUs. -- Robert P. Nix Mayo Foundation.~. RO-OC-1-18 200 First Street SW/V\ 507-284-0844 Rochester, MN 55905 /( )\ -^^-^^ "In theory, theory and practice are the same, but in practice, theory and practice are different." On 7/8/10 10:20 AM, "Alan Altmark" wrote: > On Thursday, 07/08/2010 at 11:02 EDT, Martin Zimelis > wrote: >> Unless you're max'ing out these virtual machines by consuming 100% >> of a real processor, it should be as simple as increasing their SHARE >> values. > > To finish the thought, adding virtual CPUs to a guest does not add CPU > capacity to a guest; SET SHARE does. Adding another virtual CPU may allow > the guest to better use the CPU capacity it has been given, increasing > throughput or decreasing response time, or it may actually slow the guest > down. It all depends on the application. > > A good performance monitor will tell you if a guest is constrained, and > why. Of course, one must measure, change, and measure again to ensure > that the changes had the desired effect. Sometimes after you release the > hounds, you discover that the yard is a mess. > > Alan Altmark > z/VM Development > IBM Endicott - Please see the following link for the BlueCross BlueShield of Tennessee E-mail disclaimer: http://www.bcbst.com/email_disclaimer.shtm
Re: Define CPU's
Another way of wording this is that adding CPUs to a virtual machine allows the guest to take advantage of multitasking, but does not increase the total amount of CPU time the image receives. If single threading tasks in the image is the bottleneck, then adding a CPU may relieve it. But if this isn't the issue, then it won't help. Now, I think I saw WebSphere mentioned somewhere along the line, and I think that it will take advantage of multitasking, given the increased number of available CPUs. -- Robert P. Nix Mayo Foundation.~. RO-OC-1-18 200 First Street SW/V\ 507-284-0844 Rochester, MN 55905 /( )\ -^^-^^ "In theory, theory and practice are the same, but in practice, theory and practice are different." On 7/8/10 10:20 AM, "Alan Altmark" wrote: > On Thursday, 07/08/2010 at 11:02 EDT, Martin Zimelis > wrote: >> Unless you're max'ing out these virtual machines by consuming 100% >> of a real processor, it should be as simple as increasing their SHARE >> values. > > To finish the thought, adding virtual CPUs to a guest does not add CPU > capacity to a guest; SET SHARE does. Adding another virtual CPU may allow > the guest to better use the CPU capacity it has been given, increasing > throughput or decreasing response time, or it may actually slow the guest > down. It all depends on the application. > > A good performance monitor will tell you if a guest is constrained, and > why. Of course, one must measure, change, and measure again to ensure > that the changes had the desired effect. Sometimes after you release the > hounds, you discover that the yard is a mess. > > Alan Altmark > z/VM Development > IBM Endicott
Re: Define CPU's
On Thursday, 07/08/2010 at 11:02 EDT, Martin Zimelis wrote: > Unless you're max'ing out these virtual machines by consuming 100% > of a real processor, it should be as simple as increasing their SHARE > values. To finish the thought, adding virtual CPUs to a guest does not add CPU capacity to a guest; SET SHARE does. Adding another virtual CPU may allow the guest to better use the CPU capacity it has been given, increasing throughput or decreasing response time, or it may actually slow the guest down. It all depends on the application. A good performance monitor will tell you if a guest is constrained, and why. Of course, one must measure, change, and measure again to ensure that the changes had the desired effect. Sometimes after you release the hounds, you discover that the yard is a mess. Alan Altmark z/VM Development IBM Endicott
Re: Define CPU's
David, Unless you're max'ing out these virtual machines by consuming 100% of a real processor, it should be as simple as increasing their SHARE values. Marty Zimelis On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 10:55 AM, Dean, David (I/S) wrote: > This should be easy, but I don’t want to mess it up and I am a little > confused as to exactly what I need to add to USER DIRECTORY to double > CPU’s. I am under the understanding that based on my LINDFLT all USERS are > getting the equivalent of one CPU. I need to double the power to a handfull > of WebSphere servers. Below is my LNDFLT and the server I need to increase. > We have a z10 with 3 IFL’s aimed at the zvm LPAR. > > Thank you in advance > > PROFILE LINDFLT > CLASS G > IPL CMS > MACHINE ESA > MAXSTORAGE 2047M > * OPTION QUICKDSP > * STORAGE 128M > CONSOLE 0009 3215 T > NICDEF 600 TYPE QDIO LAN SYSTEM VSW1 > SPOOL 000C 2540 READER * > SPOOL 000D 2540 PUNCH A > SPOOL 000E 1403 A > LINK MAINT 0190 0190 RR > LINK MAINT 019D 019D RR > LINK MAINT 019E 019E RR > LINK TCPMAINT 0592 0592 RR > > USER LNX086 PGDN86 10240M 10240M > INCLUDE LINDFLT > MDISK 191 3390 0001 0500 l8601a MR READ WRITE MULTIPLE > MDISK 201 3390 0501 1500 l8601A MR READ WRITE MULTIPLE > MDISK 202 3390 2001 8016 L8601A MR READ WRITE MULTIPLE > MDISK 700 3390 0001 32759 L8602A MR READ WRITE MULTIPLE > MDISK 701 3390 0001 32759 L8603A MR READ WRITE MULTIPLE > DEDICATE ED00 ED00 > DEDICATE ED01 ED01 > DEDICATE ED02 ED02 > > David M. Dean > Information Systems > BlueCross BlueShield Tennnessee > > > > > - > Please see the following link for the BlueCross BlueShield of Tennessee > E-mail disclaimer: http://www.bcbst.com/email_disclaimer.shtm >
Define CPU's
This should be easy, but I don't want to mess it up and I am a little confused as to exactly what I need to add to USER DIRECTORY to double CPU's. I am under the understanding that based on my LINDFLT all USERS are getting the equivalent of one CPU. I need to double the power to a handfull of WebSphere servers. Below is my LNDFLT and the server I need to increase. We have a z10 with 3 IFL's aimed at the zvm LPAR. Thank you in advance PROFILE LINDFLT CLASS G IPL CMS MACHINE ESA MAXSTORAGE 2047M * OPTION QUICKDSP * STORAGE 128M CONSOLE 0009 3215 T NICDEF 600 TYPE QDIO LAN SYSTEM VSW1 SPOOL 000C 2540 READER * SPOOL 000D 2540 PUNCH A SPOOL 000E 1403 A LINK MAINT 0190 0190 RR LINK MAINT 019D 019D RR LINK MAINT 019E 019E RR LINK TCPMAINT 0592 0592 RR USER LNX086 PGDN86 10240M 10240M INCLUDE LINDFLT MDISK 191 3390 0001 0500 l8601a MR READ WRITE MULTIPLE MDISK 201 3390 0501 1500 l8601A MR READ WRITE MULTIPLE MDISK 202 3390 2001 8016 L8601A MR READ WRITE MULTIPLE MDISK 700 3390 0001 32759 L8602A MR READ WRITE MULTIPLE MDISK 701 3390 0001 32759 L8603A MR READ WRITE MULTIPLE DEDICATE ED00 ED00 DEDICATE ED01 ED01 DEDICATE ED02 ED02 David M. Dean Information Systems BlueCross BlueShield Tennnessee - Please see the following link for the BlueCross BlueShield of Tennessee E-mail disclaimer: http://www.bcbst.com/email_disclaimer.shtm
