Re: Lpar Vs VM
Hello Peter, Your comment Do you need every last CPU cycle for your production z/OS? LPAR is better here. I was told my some hardware and software people that the LPAR uses the same amount of horsepower as would z/VM running the Same machines. But the LPAR code just hides that usage. For a given CPU/engines and set number of LPARs compared to the same configuration but z/VM, the through put was the same. Could someone comment on this, please? Ed Martin Aultman Health Foundation 330-588-4723 ext 40441 From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ward, Mike S Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2008 6:08 PM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: Lpar Vs VM Thanks for the reply. Yours seems to be the best so far. I wanted to try and figure the cost of setting up multiple z/OS machines in a fairly quick manner. As I remember the old VM/BSEPP you could run as many operating systems as you wanted under VM and be charged for only 1 copy of the operating system. That doesn't seem to be the case using LPAR's . It seems that we get billed for running z/os on Lpar 1 and Lpar 2. They gather the amount from the SMF records that are produced. That's why I was wondering if I would get billed for multiple z/os virtual machines under z/VM.
Re: Lpar Vs VM
Wrong discussion: LPAR is always there on modern machines. The choice thus is LPAR only + z/OS guests or LPAR + z/VM + z/OS guests As far as CPU is concerned, z/VM would add a second virtualization layer between z/OS and the real HW. 2008/8/28 Edward M. Martin [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Hello Peter, Your comment Do you need every last CPU cycle for your production z/OS? LPAR is better here. I was told my some hardware and software people that the LPAR uses the same amount of horsepower as would z/VM running the Same machines. But the LPAR code just hides that usage. For a given CPU/engines and set number of LPARs compared to the same configuration but z/VM, the through put was the same. Could someone comment on this, please? Ed Martin Aultman Health Foundation 330-588-4723 ext 40441 From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ward, Mike S Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2008 6:08 PM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: Lpar Vs VM Thanks for the reply. Yours seems to be the best so far. I wanted to try and figure the cost of setting up multiple z/OS machines in a fairly quick manner. As I remember the old VM/BSEPP you could run as many operating systems as you wanted under VM and be charged for only 1 copy of the operating system. That doesn't seem to be the case using LPAR's . It seems that we get billed for running z/os on Lpar 1 and Lpar 2. They gather the amount from the SMF records that are produced. That's why I was wondering if I would get billed for multiple z/os virtual machines under z/VM. -- Kris Buelens, IBM Belgium, VM customer support
Re: Lpar Vs VM
On Thursday, 08/28/2008 at 11:55 EDT, Kris Buelens [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Wrong discussion: LPAR is always there on modern machines. The choice thus is LPAR only + z/OS guests or LPAR + z/VM + z/OS guests As far as CPU is concerned, z/VM would add a second virtualization layer between z/OS and the real HW. Since the OP has only one LPAR on a z800, my suggestion is to run z/VM native instead. That means z/VM 2nd level will have SIE available to it and 3rd level guests will run very nicely. The performance of this configuration will not survive a hardware upgrade (z890/z990 and later), however, since they require the use of LPAR. Alan Altmark z/VM Development IBM Endicott
Lpar Vs VM
Hello all, I have a question. When we set up and lpar with an operating environment such as MVS, we get software charges for both lpars from IBM. Third party vendors don't seem to care if it's on the same machine (Most don't) since they charge for the full mip rate of the machine regardless of whether it's utilized or not. Long ago, about 30 years I had a VM shop and we ran multiple instances of OS/VS1, MVS, etc, but were only charged for on license of software product. Is this still the case? Is it better to use VM instead of LPAR? All comments appreciated. Thanks. == This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. If you are not the intended recipient you are notified that disclosing, copying, distributing or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited.
Re: Lpar Vs VM
On 8/27/2008 at 11:30 AM, in message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Ward, Mike S [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello all, I have a question. When we set up and lpar with an operating environment such as MVS, we get software charges for both lpars from IBM. Third party vendors don't seem to care if it's on the same machine (Most don't) since they charge for the full mip rate of the machine regardless of whether it's utilized or not. Long ago, about 30 years I had a VM shop and we ran multiple instances of OS/VS1, MVS, etc, but were only charged for on license of software product. Is this still the case? Is it better to use VM instead of LPAR? All comments appreciated. That's going to be determined by what you intend to run. z/VM, Linux, and a bunch of IBM middleware is licensed per-processor. If you create an LPAR with standard CPs in it (whether running z/VM or not), you'll be paying license charges for all the CPs in the CEC. If you create an LPAR with IFLs, you'll be paying license charges for all the IFLs in the CEC. The same will be true of z/VM. Most of the new workload being run on z/VM these days is Linux, so typically it makes sense to run z/VM and Linux on IFLs, to avoid having to pay for licenses on the standard CPs. If you add IFLs to handle more z/VM or Linux workload, that means you don't have to pay more for you z/OS license charges, whereas if you add standard CPs to handle more z/VM or Linux workload, your z/OS license charges will go up. Over and above that, if you think you might be running more than a small handful of systems, z/VM is by far the better way to go. It will save you tons of people time, and provide more manageability and flexibility. Mark Post
Re: Lpar Vs VM
When I was looking at the announcement letter for z/VM 5.4 I seem to remember something about (on a z10) being able to mix CP's and IFL's in the same LPAR and have z/VM dispatch LINUX machines on the IFL's Or maybe that was 'wishfull interpretation' on my part. Anyway (if true) I wonder if there is some type of new pricing to handle that senerio. -Original Message- From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Mark Post Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2008 10:56 AM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: Lpar Vs VM On 8/27/2008 at 11:30 AM, in message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Ward, Mike S [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello all, I have a question. When we set up and lpar with an operating environment such as MVS, we get software charges for both lpars from IBM. Third party vendors don't seem to care if it's on the same machine (Most don't) since they charge for the full mip rate of the machine regardless of whether it's utilized or not. Long ago, about 30 years I had a VM shop and we ran multiple instances of OS/VS1, MVS, etc, but were only charged for on license of software product. Is this still the case? Is it better to use VM instead of LPAR? All comments appreciated. That's going to be determined by what you intend to run. z/VM, Linux, and a bunch of IBM middleware is licensed per-processor. If you create an LPAR with standard CPs in it (whether running z/VM or not), you'll be paying license charges for all the CPs in the CEC. If you create an LPAR with IFLs, you'll be paying license charges for all the IFLs in the CEC. The same will be true of z/VM. Most of the new workload being run on z/VM these days is Linux, so typically it makes sense to run z/VM and Linux on IFLs, to avoid having to pay for licenses on the standard CPs. If you add IFLs to handle more z/VM or Linux workload, that means you don't have to pay more for you z/OS license charges, whereas if you add standard CPs to handle more z/VM or Linux workload, your z/OS license charges will go up. Over and above that, if you think you might be running more than a small handful of systems, z/VM is by far the better way to go. It will save you tons of people time, and provide more manageability and flexibility. Mark Post
Re: Lpar Vs VM
It's not wishful interpretation, but you need a z10 for the capability. Huegel, Thomas wrote: When I was looking at the announcement letter for z/VM 5.4 I seem to remember something about (on a z10) being able to mix CP's and IFL's in the same LPAR and have z/VM dispatch LINUX machines on the IFL's Or maybe that was 'wishfull interpretation' on my part. Anyway (if true) I wonder if there is some type of new pricing to handle that senerio. -- Rich Smrcina VM Assist, Inc. Phone: 414-491-6001 Ans Service: 360-715-2467 rich.smrcina at vmassist.com http://www.linkedin.com/in/richsmrcina Catch the WAVV! http://www.wavv.org WAVV 2009 - Orlando, FL - May 15-19, 2009
Re: Lpar Vs VM
On 8/27/2008 at 12:23 PM, in message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Huegel, Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: When I was looking at the announcement letter for z/VM 5.4 I seem to remember something about (on a z10) being able to mix CP's and IFL's in the same LPAR and have z/VM dispatch LINUX machines on the IFL's Or maybe that was 'wishfull interpretation' on my part. Anyway (if true) I wonder if there is some type of new pricing to handle that senerio. You'll have to go back and look, but I believe that was a statement of direction, not something that will actually be delivered with the GA of z/VM 5.4. (I'm not at all sure about that, so do check.) From presentations given at SHARE, the pricing really hasn't changed. z/VM licenses will have to be purchased for the total number of processors, CP or IFL, that it runs on. z/OS licenses will be needed for all the CPs in that LPAR, and Linux subscriptions will be needed for all IFLs in that LPAR. So, the net effect is that the licensing costs should be the same, but you'll need fewer LPARs running z/VM to be able to handle the different types of guests that can only run on one type of processor. Mark Post
Re: Lpar Vs VM
On Wednesday, 08/27/2008 at 01:12 EDT, Huegel, Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: When I was looking at the announcement letter for z/VM 5.4 I seem to remember something about (on a z10) being able to mix CP's and IFL's in the same LPAR and have z/VM dispatch LINUX machines on the IFL's Or maybe that was 'wishfull interpretation' on my part. Anyway (if true) I wonder if there is some type of new pricing to handle that senerio. There is no new pricing model. If you mix IFLs and CPs into a single z10 z/VM-mode LPAR, your z/VM license fee will be based on the sum of all active IFLs and CPs on the box, whether all the CPs are in the z/VM LPAR or not. At least, that's what the MSRP would be if IBM had MSRPs. But we don't, so you would need to talk to your IBM rep or BP. Don't even THINK about taking them to a nice restaurant and plying them with fine wines. No - don't even consider it. Perish the thought. Inappropriate. Highly. Alan Altmark z/VM Development IBM Endicott
Re: Lpar Vs VM
Save the nice restaurants and fine wines for when someone from z/VM development comes to town! :) -Original Message- From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Alan Altmark Sent: August 27, 2008 13:37 To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: Lpar Vs VM On Wednesday, 08/27/2008 at 01:12 EDT, Huegel, Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: When I was looking at the announcement letter for z/VM 5.4 I seem to remember something about (on a z10) being able to mix CP's and IFL's in the same LPAR and have z/VM dispatch LINUX machines on the IFL's Or maybe that was 'wishfull interpretation' on my part. Anyway (if true) I wonder if there is some type of new pricing to handle that senerio. There is no new pricing model. If you mix IFLs and CPs into a single z10 z/VM-mode LPAR, your z/VM license fee will be based on the sum of all active IFLs and CPs on the box, whether all the CPs are in the z/VM LPAR or not. At least, that's what the MSRP would be if IBM had MSRPs. But we don't, so you would need to talk to your IBM rep or BP. Don't even THINK about taking them to a nice restaurant and plying them with fine wines. No - don't even consider it. Perish the thought. Inappropriate. Highly. Alan Altmark z/VM Development IBM Endicott The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review retransmission dissemination or other use of or taking any action in reliance upon this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient or delegate is strictly prohibited. If you received this in error please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. The integrity and security of this message cannot be guaranteed on the Internet. The sender accepts no liability for the content of this e-mail or for the consequences of any actions taken on the basis of information provided. The recipient should check this e-mail and any attachments for the presence of viruses. The sender accepts no liability for any damage caused by any virus transmitted by this e-mail. This disclaimer is property of the TTC and must not be altered or circumvented in any manner.
Re: Lpar Vs VM
On Wednesday, 08/27/2008 at 01:32 EDT, Mark Post [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You'll have to go back and look, but I believe that was a statement of direction, not something that will actually be delivered with the GA of z/VM 5.4. z/VM 5.4 will enable you to use the z/VM-mode LPARs that you can create today on a z10. Alan Altmark z/VM Development IBM Endicott
Re: Lpar Vs VM
I can't speak to z/OS software charges, but for VSE, we pay for only one license for multiple instances running under z/VM. And we pay the VSE license for the total capacity of the machine. I don't think you can say that VM is better than LPAR as a general statement. In some cases VM definitely is better, and in others, LPAR is the winner. Do you need to create new z/OS instances on short notice for a brief testing period? z/VM is a clear winner. Do you need every last CPU cycle for your production z/OS? LPAR is better here. Do you need to frequently shift resources around between your LPARs? z/VM might make your life easier. Is your hardware environment fairly static? Could be better to stay with LPARs. Are you thinking of running Linux on your mainframe? You will almost certainly want to run z/VM then. z/VM brings you unmatched flexibility, but at a cost of some CPU cycles and money. If you have large numbers of LPARs though, it can reduce the complexity of your configuration, and allow better sharing of your resources. Perhaps if you expand on what you hope to achieve, we can provide more targeted responses. Peter -Original Message- From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ward, Mike S Sent: August 27, 2008 11:31 To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Lpar Vs VM Hello all, I have a question. When we set up and lpar with an operating environment such as MVS, we get software charges for both lpars from IBM. Third party vendors don't seem to care if it's on the same machine (Most don't) since they charge for the full mip rate of the machine regardless of whether it's utilized or not. Long ago, about 30 years I had a VM shop and we ran multiple instances of OS/VS1, MVS, etc, but were only charged for on license of software product. Is this still the case? Is it better to use VM instead of LPAR? All comments appreciated. Thanks. == This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. If you are not the intended recipient you are notified that disclosing, copying, distributing or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited. The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review retransmission dissemination or other use of or taking any action in reliance upon this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient or delegate is strictly prohibited. If you received this in error please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. The integrity and security of this message cannot be guaranteed on the Internet. The sender accepts no liability for the content of this e-mail or for the consequences of any actions taken on the basis of information provided. The recipient should check this e-mail and any attachments for the presence of viruses. The sender accepts no liability for any damage caused by any virus transmitted by this e-mail. This disclaimer is property of the TTC and must not be altered or circumvented in any manner.
Re: Lpar Vs VM
Alan, How many alter egos do you have. First Chuckie, and now Br'er Rabbit. Regards, Richard Schuh -Original Message- From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Alan Altmark Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2008 10:37 AM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: Lpar Vs VM On Wednesday, 08/27/2008 at 01:12 EDT, Huegel, Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: When I was looking at the announcement letter for z/VM 5.4 I seem to remember something about (on a z10) being able to mix CP's and IFL's in the same LPAR and have z/VM dispatch LINUX machines on the IFL's Or maybe that was 'wishfull interpretation' on my part. Anyway (if true) I wonder if there is some type of new pricing to handle that senerio. There is no new pricing model. If you mix IFLs and CPs into a single z10 z/VM-mode LPAR, your z/VM license fee will be based on the sum of all active IFLs and CPs on the box, whether all the CPs are in the z/VM LPAR or not. At least, that's what the MSRP would be if IBM had MSRPs. But we don't, so you would need to talk to your IBM rep or BP. Don't even THINK about taking them to a nice restaurant and plying them with fine wines. No - don't even consider it. Perish the thought. Inappropriate. Highly. Alan Altmark z/VM Development IBM Endicott
Re: Lpar Vs VM
On Wednesday, 08/27/2008 at 03:43 EDT, Schuh, Richard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Alan, How many alter egos do you have. First Chuckie, and now Br'er Rabbit. Seven, S!!! but we have a funny feeling that the only way we know there are seven is because there are actually eight of us. We feel like we're being WHAT WAS THAT? watched I DON'T KNOW. We could be wrong, DID YOU SEE IT? of course, but NO we have a strong system of checks SHUT UP - HE'S TYPING and balances. They're usually quiet, but I seem restless UH OH today for some reason. DAMN, HE HEARD US! HE KNOWS WE'RE HERE! EVERYBODY RUN!! The Usual Suspects z/VM Development IBM Endicott
Re: Lpar Vs VM
I was going to make a comment about Sybil, it seems you're all well on your way... :) Alan Altmark wrote: On Wednesday, 08/27/2008 at 03:43 EDT, Schuh, Richard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Alan, How many alter egos do you have. First Chuckie, and now Br'er Rabbit. Seven, S!!! but we have a funny feeling that the only way we know there are seven is because there are actually eight of us. We feel like we're being WHAT WAS THAT? watched I DON'T KNOW. We could be wrong, DID YOU SEE IT? of course, but NO we have a strong system of checks SHUT UP - HE'S TYPING and balances. They're usually quiet, but I seem restless UH OH today for some reason. DAMN, HE HEARD US! HE KNOWS WE'RE HERE! EVERYBODY RUN!! The Usual Suspects z/VM Development IBM Endicott -- Rich Smrcina VM Assist, Inc. Phone: 414-491-6001 Ans Service: 360-715-2467 rich.smrcina at vmassist.com http://www.linkedin.com/in/richsmrcina Catch the WAVV! http://www.wavv.org WAVV 2009 - Orlando, FL - May 15-19, 2009
Re: Lpar Vs VM
Fellow Listers, Based on the accurate and authoritative evidence provided in this forwarded e-mail, I would like to recommend that Alan Altmark be granted the most honorable and austere membership to the Knights of the z/VM Roundtable and from this day forward be recognized as Sir MVP (Multiple Virtual Personalities). All Ye in favour say AYE !!! ;-) HITACHI DATA SYSTEMS Raymond E. Noal Senior Technical Engineer Office: (408) 970 - 7978 -Original Message- From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Alan Altmark Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2008 2:25 PM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: Lpar Vs VM On Wednesday, 08/27/2008 at 03:43 EDT, Schuh, Richard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Alan, How many alter egos do you have. First Chuckie, and now Br'er Rabbit. Seven, S!!! but we have a funny feeling that the only way we know there are seven is because there are actually eight of us. We feel like we're being WHAT WAS THAT? watched I DON'T KNOW. We could be wrong, DID YOU SEE IT? of course, but NO we have a strong system of checks SHUT UP - HE'S TYPING and balances. They're usually quiet, but I seem restless UH OH today for some reason. DAMN, HE HEARD US! HE KNOWS WE'RE HERE! EVERYBODY RUN!! The Usual Suspects z/VM Development IBM Endicott
Re: Lpar Vs VM
On 8/27/2008 at 5:45 PM, in message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Raymond Noal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Fellow Listers, Based on the accurate and authoritative evidence provided in this forwarded e-mail, I would like to recommend that Alan Altmark be granted the most honorable and austere membership to the Knights of the z/VM Roundtable and from this day forward be recognized as Sir MVP (Multiple Virtual Personalities). He's already been appointed, but with the far more pedestrian title of Sir Alan, Lord of the Protocols. Mark Post
Re: Lpar Vs VM
Raymond, Were it not for the fact that Sir Alan, Lord of the Protocols was benighted on 21 Aug 2002, that would be an excellent suggestion. Yet given the alternate, and apparently growing, list of personalities perhaps one or more additional titles may be considered on z/VM's 40th birthday in 2012 (the next knighting date). Mike Walter Sir Mike the Prestidigitator (also of 2002) Hewitt Associates Raymond Noal [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent by: The IBM z/VM Operating System IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU 08/27/2008 04:45 PM Please respond to The IBM z/VM Operating System IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU To IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU cc Subject Re: Lpar Vs VM Fellow Listers, Based on the accurate and authoritative evidence provided in this forwarded e-mail, I would like to recommend that Alan Altmark be granted the most honorable and austere membership to the Knights of the z/VM Roundtable and from this day forward be recognized as Sir MVP (Multiple Virtual Personalities). All Ye in favour say AYE !!! ;-) HITACHI DATA SYSTEMS Raymond E. Noal Senior Technical Engineer Office: (408) 970 - 7978 -Original Message- From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Alan Altmark Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2008 2:25 PM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: Lpar Vs VM On Wednesday, 08/27/2008 at 03:43 EDT, Schuh, Richard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Alan, How many alter egos do you have. First Chuckie, and now Br'er Rabbit. Seven, S!!! but we have a funny feeling that the only way we know there are seven is because there are actually eight of us. We feel like we're being WHAT WAS THAT? watched I DON'T KNOW. We could be wrong, DID YOU SEE IT? of course, but NO we have a strong system of checks SHUT UP - HE'S TYPING and balances. They're usually quiet, but I seem restless UH OH today for some reason. DAMN, HE HEARD US! HE KNOWS WE'RE HERE! EVERYBODY RUN!! The Usual Suspects z/VM Development IBM Endicott The information contained in this e-mail and any accompanying documents may contain information that is confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, or if this message has been addressed to you in error, please immediately alert the sender by reply e-mail and then delete this message, including any attachments. Any dissemination, distribution or other use of the contents of this message by anyone other than the intended recipient is strictly prohibited. All messages sent to and from this e-mail address may be monitored as permitted by applicable law and regulations to ensure compliance with our internal policies and to protect our business. E-mails are not secure and cannot be guaranteed to be error free as they can be intercepted, amended, lost or destroyed, or contain viruses. You are deemed to have accepted these risks if you communicate with us by e-mail.
Re: Lpar Vs VM
...although he likes to throw his subtitle 'security weenie' at us once in a while... :) Mark Post wrote: He's already been appointed, but with the far more pedestrian title of Sir Alan, Lord of the Protocols. Mark Post -- Rich Smrcina VM Assist, Inc. Phone: 414-491-6001 Ans Service: 360-715-2467 rich.smrcina at vmassist.com http://www.linkedin.com/in/richsmrcina Catch the WAVV! http://www.wavv.org WAVV 2009 - Orlando, FL - May 15-19, 2009
Re: Lpar Vs VM
Too bad Token Rings died. Sir Alan, Lord of the Rings has a certain ring to it. (sorry for the repeated puns, but not too much). Mike Walter Mark Post [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent by: The IBM z/VM Operating System IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU 08/27/2008 04:50 PM Please respond to The IBM z/VM Operating System IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU To IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU cc Subject Re: Lpar Vs VM On 8/27/2008 at 5:45 PM, in message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Raymond Noal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Fellow Listers, Based on the accurate and authoritative evidence provided in this forwarded e-mail, I would like to recommend that Alan Altmark be granted the most honorable and austere membership to the Knights of the z/VM Roundtable and from this day forward be recognized as Sir MVP (Multiple Virtual Personalities). He's already been appointed, but with the far more pedestrian title of Sir Alan, Lord of the Protocols. Mark Post The information contained in this e-mail and any accompanying documents may contain information that is confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, or if this message has been addressed to you in error, please immediately alert the sender by reply e-mail and then delete this message, including any attachments. Any dissemination, distribution or other use of the contents of this message by anyone other than the intended recipient is strictly prohibited. All messages sent to and from this e-mail address may be monitored as permitted by applicable law and regulations to ensure compliance with our internal policies and to protect our business. E-mails are not secure and cannot be guaranteed to be error free as they can be intercepted, amended, lost or destroyed, or contain viruses. You are deemed to have accepted these risks if you communicate with us by e-mail.
Re: Lpar Vs VM
Well, you could bestow a different title on Chuckie or one of the other alter egos. Just think, he would be able to accumulate 8 titles. Regards, Richard Schuh From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mike Walter Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2008 2:54 PM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: Lpar Vs VM Raymond, Were it not for the fact that Sir Alan, Lord of the Protocols was benighted on 21 Aug 2002, that would be an excellent suggestion. Yet given the alternate, and apparently growing, list of personalities perhaps one or more additional titles may be considered on z/VM's 40th birthday in 2012 (the next knighting date). Mike Walter Sir Mike the Prestidigitator (also of 2002) Hewitt Associates Raymond Noal [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent by: The IBM z/VM Operating System IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU 08/27/2008 04:45 PM Please respond to The IBM z/VM Operating System IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU To IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU cc Subject Re: Lpar Vs VM Fellow Listers, Based on the accurate and authoritative evidence provided in this forwarded e-mail, I would like to recommend that Alan Altmark be granted the most honorable and austere membership to the Knights of the z/VM Roundtable and from this day forward be recognized as Sir MVP (Multiple Virtual Personalities). All Ye in favour say AYE !!! ;-) HITACHI DATA SYSTEMS Raymond E. Noal Senior Technical Engineer Office: (408) 970 - 7978 -Original Message- From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Alan Altmark Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2008 2:25 PM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: Lpar Vs VM On Wednesday, 08/27/2008 at 03:43 EDT, Schuh, Richard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Alan, How many alter egos do you have. First Chuckie, and now Br'er Rabbit. Seven, S!!! but we have a funny feeling that the only way we know there are seven is because there are actually eight of us. We feel like we're being WHAT WAS THAT? watched I DON'T KNOW. We could be wrong, DID YOU SEE IT? of course, but NO we have a strong system of checks SHUT UP - HE'S TYPING and balances. They're usually quiet, but I seem restless UH OH today for some reason. DAMN, HE HEARD US! HE KNOWS WE'RE HERE! EVERYBODY RUN!! The Usual Suspects z/VM Development IBM Endicott The information contained in this e-mail and any accompanying documents may contain information that is confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, or if this message has been addressed to you in error, please immediately alert the sender by reply e-mail and then delete this message, including any attachments. Any dissemination, distribution or other use of the contents of this message by anyone other than the intended recipient is strictly prohibited. All messages sent to and from this e-mail address may be monitored as permitted by applicable law and regulations to ensure compliance with our internal policies and to protect our business. E-mails are not secure and cannot be guaranteed to be error free as they can be intercepted, amended, lost or destroyed, or contain viruses. You are deemed to have accepted these risks if you communicate with us by e-mail.
Re: Lpar Vs VM
Mark Post wrote: He's already been appointed, but with the far more pedestrian title of Sir Alan, Lord of the Protocols. I thought it was Lord VOLDmort. -- Jack J. Woehr# Self-delusion is http://www.well.com/~jax # half the battle! http://www.softwoehr.com # - Zippy the Pinhead
Re: Lpar Vs VM
Thanks for the reply. Yours seems to be the best so far. I wanted to try and figure the cost of setting up multiple z/OS machines in a fairly quick manner. As I remember the old VM/BSEPP you could run as many operating systems as you wanted under VM and be charged for only 1 copy of the operating system. That doesn’t seem to be the case using LPAR’s . It seems that we get billed for running z/os on Lpar 1 and Lpar 2. They gather the amount from the SMF records that are produced. That’s why I was wondering if I would get billed for multiple z/os virtual machines under z/VM. From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2008 12:49 PM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: Lpar Vs VM I can’t speak to z/OS software charges, but for VSE, we pay for only one license for multiple instances running under z/VM. And we pay the VSE license for the total capacity of the machine. I don’t think you can say that VM is better than LPAR as a general statement. In some cases VM definitely is better, and in others, LPAR is the winner. Do you need to create new z/OS instances on short notice for a brief testing period? z/VM is a clear winner. Do you need every last CPU cycle for your production z/OS? LPAR is better here. Do you need to frequently shift resources around between your LPARs? z/VM might make your life easier. Is your hardware environment fairly static? Could be better to stay with LPARs. Are you thinking of running Linux on your mainframe? You will almost certainly want to run z/VM then. z/VM brings you unmatched flexibility, but at a cost of some CPU cycles and money. If you have large numbers of LPARs though, it can reduce the complexity of your configuration, and allow better sharing of your resources. Perhaps if you expand on what you hope to achieve, we can provide more targeted responses. Peter -Original Message- From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ward, Mike S Sent: August 27, 2008 11:31 To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Lpar Vs VM Hello all, I have a question. When we set up and lpar with an operating environment such as MVS, we get software charges for both lpars from IBM. Third party vendors don’t seem to care if it’s on the same machine (Most don’t) since they charge for the full mip rate of the machine regardless of whether it’s utilized or not. Long ago, about 30 years I had a VM shop and we ran multiple instances of OS/VS1, MVS, etc, but were only charged for on license of software product. Is this still the case? Is it better to use VM instead of LPAR? All comments appreciated. Thanks. == This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. If you are not the intended recipient you are notified that disclosing, copying, distributing or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited. The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review retransmission dissemination or other use of or taking any action in reliance upon this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient or delegate is strictly prohibited. If you received this in error please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. The integrity and security of this message cannot be guaranteed on the Internet. The sender accepts no liability for the content of this e-mail or for the consequences of any actions taken on the basis of information provided. The recipient should check this e-mail and any attachments for the presence of viruses. The sender accepts no liability for any damage caused by any virus transmitted by this e-mail. This disclaimer is property of the TTC and must not be altered or circumvented in any manner. == This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please
Re: Lpar Vs VM
On Wednesday, 08/27/2008 at 06:11 EDT, Jack Woehr [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Mark Post wrote: He's already been appointed, but with the far more pedestrian title of Sir Alan, Lord of the Protocols. I thought it was Lord VOLDmort. Oh, now THAT is going to cost you. One of us is a Druid with knowledge of the Old Ways and the Autumnal Equinox is just around the corner Alan Co.
Re: Lpar Vs VM
If the LPARS are not all on one box, it is the case that there is one charge based on the total number of engines. The same applies to running as guests of VM. As long as you stay within the footprint of the machine for which you bought the license, you can run multiple copies because you have licensed according too the total capacity. One point mentioned by Peter Webb, but maybe not emphasized enough, is that the hardware costs may be considerably lower if you can virtualized resources. For example, if you need to connect the guests using CTCAs,. you can define VCTCAs. Similarly, you may be able to save on OSA cards by using VSWITCH. Then there are things like minidisks and the ability to use the same memory for more than one guest. With LPARs, the storage needed for the z/OS or other system has to sit idle if the LPAR is not up and running. Even with z/VM 5.4 on a z10, you cannot take storage away from a running guest. You have do deactivate the LPAR and reconfigure its image to do that. (Alan, If Reed doesn't monitor the list, please tell him I brought it up again. Try to embarrass me, will he?) Boy does VM/BSEPP churn up memories. Today, the CP overhead is way smaller than it was in those days, so look at more modern systems before making any decision based on overhead. Running lots of LPARs has its overhead, too. The difference might not be as bad as you think. Regards, Richard Schuh From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ward, Mike S Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2008 3:08 PM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: Lpar Vs VM Thanks for the reply. Yours seems to be the best so far. I wanted to try and figure the cost of setting up multiple z/OS machines in a fairly quick manner. As I remember the old VM/BSEPP you could run as many operating systems as you wanted under VM and be charged for only 1 copy of the operating system. That doesn't seem to be the case using LPAR's . It seems that we get billed for running z/os on Lpar 1 and Lpar 2. They gather the amount from the SMF records that are produced. That's why I was wondering if I would get billed for multiple z/os virtual machines under z/VM. From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2008 12:49 PM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: Lpar Vs VM I can't speak to z/OS software charges, but for VSE, we pay for only one license for multiple instances running under z/VM. And we pay the VSE license for the total capacity of the machine. I don't think you can say that VM is better than LPAR as a general statement. In some cases VM definitely is better, and in others, LPAR is the winner. Do you need to create new z/OS instances on short notice for a brief testing period? z/VM is a clear winner. Do you need every last CPU cycle for your production z/OS? LPAR is better here. Do you need to frequently shift resources around between your LPARs? z/VM might make your life easier. Is your hardware environment fairly static? Could be better to stay with LPARs. Are you thinking of running Linux on your mainframe? You will almost certainly want to run z/VM then. z/VM brings you unmatched flexibility, but at a cost of some CPU cycles and money. If you have large numbers of LPARs though, it can reduce the complexity of your configuration, and allow better sharing of your resources. Perhaps if you expand on what you hope to achieve, we can provide more targeted responses. Peter -Original Message- From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ward, Mike S Sent: August 27, 2008 11:31 To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Lpar Vs VM Hello all, I have a question. When we set up and lpar with an operating environment such as MVS, we get software charges for both lpars from IBM. Third party vendors don't seem to care if it's on the same machine (Most don't) since they charge for the full mip rate of the machine regardless of whether it's utilized or not. Long ago, about 30 years I had a VM shop and we ran multiple instances of OS/VS1, MVS, etc, but were only charged for on license of software product. Is this still the case? Is it better to use VM instead of LPAR? All comments appreciated. Thanks. == This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system
