Re: question to mixed CP an IFL in one LPAR
How else is a software company going to increase the output of the cow? :-( Regards, Richard Schuh > -Original Message- > From: The IBM z/VM Operating System > [mailto:ib...@listserv.uark.edu] On Behalf Of Dave Jones > Sent: Thursday, July 15, 2010 7:59 AM > To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU > Subject: Re: question to mixed CP an IFL in one LPAR > > Rcihard S. and Ray M. both point out situations where having > the LAPRs be IFL-only or CP-only ones is not feasible, or > desirable, for a number of reasons. In these situations, > having the ability to "mix-and-match" > engines in an LPAR is a good thing. > > I just wish we didn't have to deal with all of this silliness > of different types of engines in the first place. Sigh > > Have a good one. > > On 07/14/2010 03:09 PM, Mrohs, Ray wrote: > > Sometimes human resources may be stretched so thin that only one > > production VM environment is possible. There may be established > > billing procedures, various government and departmental > > certifications, complex ESMs, performance monitoring, and > hardware constraints that make separate IFL-only and CP-only > production LPARS a daunting contemplation. > > > > Ray Mrohs > > U.S. Department of Justice > > 202-307-6896 > > > > > >> -Original Message- > >> From: The IBM z/VM Operating System > >> [mailto:ib...@listserv.uark.edu] On Behalf Of Dave Jones > >> Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2010 3:49 PM > >> To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU > >> Subject: Re: question to mixed CP an IFL in one LPAR > >> > >> And that's why I find the terminology a bit > confusing:-) A client > >> had a mixed mode LAPR (1 fractional CP and one IFL), and > was puzzled > >> as to why their Oracle workload was experiencing such poor > >> performance. > >> PERFKIT showed that almost all of the work was being dispatched on > >> the fractional CP with the IFL basically idle. The fix was > to remove > >> the CP from the LPAR definition, making it, as Alan notes, > it "Linux > >> only". > >> > >> IMHO, unless there is a clear cut need to combine CPs and > IFLs in a > >> single LPAR(so, e.g., to run z/OS as a guest), it's best > not to do so. > >> > >> On 07/14/2010 01:37 PM, Alan Altmark wrote: > >>> On Wed, 14 Jul 2010 13:06:22 -0400, Alan > >> Altmark > >>> wrote: > >>> > >>>> o A "Linux only" mode LPAR is a term used by the HMC to > >> refer to an LPAR > >>>> that has only IFLs, by defintion. > >>> > >>> I am hoist on my own petard: > >>> o A "Linux only" mode LPAR contains *either* CPs or IFLs. > >>> > >>> Alan Altmark > >>> z/VM Development > >>> IBM Endicott > >> > >> -- > >> Dave Jones > >> V/Soft > >> www.vsoft-software.com > >> Houston, TX > >> 281.578.7544 > > -- > Dave Jones > V/Soft > www.vsoft-software.com > Houston, TX > 281.578.7544 >
Re: question to mixed CP an IFL in one LPAR
Rcihard S. and Ray M. both point out situations where having the LAPRs be IFL-only or CP-only ones is not feasible, or desirable, for a number of reasons. In these situations, having the ability to "mix-and-match" engines in an LPAR is a good thing. I just wish we didn't have to deal with all of this silliness of different types of engines in the first place. Sigh Have a good one. On 07/14/2010 03:09 PM, Mrohs, Ray wrote: Sometimes human resources may be stretched so thin that only one production VM environment is possible. There may be established billing procedures, various government and departmental certifications, complex ESMs, performance monitoring, and hardware constraints that make separate IFL-only and CP-only production LPARS a daunting contemplation. Ray Mrohs U.S. Department of Justice 202-307-6896 -Original Message- From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:ib...@listserv.uark.edu] On Behalf Of Dave Jones Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2010 3:49 PM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: question to mixed CP an IFL in one LPAR And that's why I find the terminology a bit confusing:-) A client had a mixed mode LAPR (1 fractional CP and one IFL), and was puzzled as to why their Oracle workload was experiencing such poor performance. PERFKIT showed that almost all of the work was being dispatched on the fractional CP with the IFL basically idle. The fix was to remove the CP from the LPAR definition, making it, as Alan notes, it "Linux only". IMHO, unless there is a clear cut need to combine CPs and IFLs in a single LPAR(so, e.g., to run z/OS as a guest), it's best not to do so. On 07/14/2010 01:37 PM, Alan Altmark wrote: On Wed, 14 Jul 2010 13:06:22 -0400, Alan Altmark wrote: o A "Linux only" mode LPAR is a term used by the HMC to refer to an LPAR that has only IFLs, by defintion. I am hoist on my own petard: o A "Linux only" mode LPAR contains *either* CPs or IFLs. Alan Altmark z/VM Development IBM Endicott -- Dave Jones V/Soft www.vsoft-software.com Houston, TX 281.578.7544 -- Dave Jones V/Soft www.vsoft-software.com Houston, TX 281.578.7544
Re: question to mixed CP an IFL in one LPAR
We are thinking more like running a couple of Linux guests that exist specifically to support z/TPF development under the z/VM system that exists for the same reason. The Linux systems do not hog resources so we would get the benefits of more memory, additional disks, only 1 z/VM and associated SVMs to support, less complicated NJE network, only 1 VTAPE (VSSI) library needed, etc. That would give us Linux a many z/TPFs in the same LPAR. Is that a need? Probably not. Is it a cleaner, simpler to support configuration? Seems probable. Is it a better or worse than using 2 LPARS? I don't know, do you? Regards, Richard Schuh > -Original Message- > From: The IBM z/VM Operating System > [mailto:ib...@listserv.uark.edu] On Behalf Of Dave Jones > Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2010 12:49 PM > To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU > Subject: Re: question to mixed CP an IFL in one LPAR > > And that's why I find the terminology a bit confusing:-) > A client had a mixed mode LAPR (1 fractional CP and one IFL), > and was puzzled as to why their Oracle workload was > experiencing such poor performance. > PERFKIT showed that almost all of the work was being > dispatched on the fractional CP with the IFL basically idle. > The fix was to remove the CP from the LPAR definition, making > it, as Alan notes, it "Linux only". > > IMHO, unless there is a clear cut need to combine CPs and > IFLs in a single LPAR(so, e.g., to run z/OS as a guest), it's > best not to do so. > > On 07/14/2010 01:37 PM, Alan Altmark wrote: > > On Wed, 14 Jul 2010 13:06:22 -0400, Alan > > Altmark > > wrote: > > > >> o A "Linux only" mode LPAR is a term used by the HMC to > refer to an > >> LPAR that has only IFLs, by defintion. > > > > I am hoist on my own petard: > > o A "Linux only" mode LPAR contains *either* CPs or IFLs. > > > > Alan Altmark > > z/VM Development > > IBM Endicott > > -- > Dave Jones > V/Soft > www.vsoft-software.com > Houston, TX > 281.578.7544 >
Re: question to mixed CP an IFL in one LPAR
Sometimes human resources may be stretched so thin that only one production VM environment is possible. There may be established billing procedures, various government and departmental certifications, complex ESMs, performance monitoring, and hardware constraints that make separate IFL-only and CP-only production LPARS a daunting contemplation. Ray Mrohs U.S. Department of Justice 202-307-6896 > -Original Message- > From: The IBM z/VM Operating System > [mailto:ib...@listserv.uark.edu] On Behalf Of Dave Jones > Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2010 3:49 PM > To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU > Subject: Re: question to mixed CP an IFL in one LPAR > > And that's why I find the terminology a bit confusing:-) A client > had a mixed mode LAPR (1 fractional CP and one IFL), and was > puzzled as > to why their Oracle workload was experiencing such poor performance. > PERFKIT showed that almost all of the work was being > dispatched on the > fractional CP with the IFL basically idle. The fix was to > remove the CP > from the LPAR definition, making it, as Alan notes, it "Linux only". > > IMHO, unless there is a clear cut need to combine CPs and IFLs in a > single LPAR(so, e.g., to run z/OS as a guest), it's best not to do so. > > On 07/14/2010 01:37 PM, Alan Altmark wrote: > > On Wed, 14 Jul 2010 13:06:22 -0400, Alan > Altmark > > wrote: > > > >> o A "Linux only" mode LPAR is a term used by the HMC to > refer to an LPAR > >> that has only IFLs, by defintion. > > > > I am hoist on my own petard: > > o A "Linux only" mode LPAR contains *either* CPs or IFLs. > > > > Alan Altmark > > z/VM Development > > IBM Endicott > > -- > Dave Jones > V/Soft > www.vsoft-software.com > Houston, TX > 281.578.7544 >
Re: question to mixed CP an IFL in one LPAR
And that's why I find the terminology a bit confusing:-) A client had a mixed mode LAPR (1 fractional CP and one IFL), and was puzzled as to why their Oracle workload was experiencing such poor performance. PERFKIT showed that almost all of the work was being dispatched on the fractional CP with the IFL basically idle. The fix was to remove the CP from the LPAR definition, making it, as Alan notes, it "Linux only". IMHO, unless there is a clear cut need to combine CPs and IFLs in a single LPAR(so, e.g., to run z/OS as a guest), it's best not to do so. On 07/14/2010 01:37 PM, Alan Altmark wrote: On Wed, 14 Jul 2010 13:06:22 -0400, Alan Altmark wrote: o A "Linux only" mode LPAR is a term used by the HMC to refer to an LPAR that has only IFLs, by defintion. I am hoist on my own petard: o A "Linux only" mode LPAR contains *either* CPs or IFLs. Alan Altmark z/VM Development IBM Endicott -- Dave Jones V/Soft www.vsoft-software.com Houston, TX 281.578.7544
Re: question to mixed CP an IFL in one LPAR
The answer to that is most like going to be ask your IBM sales person. Marcy "This message may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the addressee or authorized to receive this for the addressee, you must not use, copy, disclose, or take any action based on this message or any information herein. If you have received this message in error, please advise the sender immediately by reply e-mail and delete this message. Thank you for your cooperation." -Original Message- From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:ib...@listserv.uark.edu] On Behalf Of Schuh, Richard Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2010 11:56 AM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: [IBMVM] question to mixed CP an IFL in one LPAR The big question is, if an LPAR has mixed IFLs and CPs, does having the IFLs available for Linux processing affect the license fees for software running on the CPs? Also, does the existence of the CPs in the LPAR affect the fees for software running on IFLs? Regards, Richard Schuh > -Original Message- > From: The IBM z/VM Operating System > [mailto:ib...@listserv.uark.edu] On Behalf Of Alan Altmark > Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2010 10:06 AM > To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU > Subject: Re: question to mixed CP an IFL in one LPAR > > On Wednesday, 07/14/2010 at 12:29 EDT, Dave Jones > wrote: > > Mike's explanation as to why Linux LPARs should have only IFLs > > available is spot on.this write-up would be a good > candidate for > > the wiki, I think. > > Let's be careful with terminology. There are three relevant > LPAR "modes": > o A "Linux only" mode LPAR is a term used by the HMC to > refer to an LPAR that has only IFLs, by defintion. > o A "z/VM" mode LPAR has at least one CP and may also have > one or more IFLs. If you want a virtual machine to run on > IFLs in a z/VM mode LPAR, then you must alter the directory > entry for that virtual machine. > o An "ESA/390" mode LPAR has only CPs. > > Linux should run on IFLs whenever possible and advisable, > letting common sense, your performance monitors, and your > wallet be your guides. I hesitate to use the vague term > "Linux LPARs" since a z/VM mode LPAR can be both a Linux LPAR > and z/OS LPAR simultaneously. > > Alan Altmark > z/VM Development > IBM Endicott >
Re: question to mixed CP an IFL in one LPAR
The big question is, if an LPAR has mixed IFLs and CPs, does having the IFLs available for Linux processing affect the license fees for software running on the CPs? Also, does the existence of the CPs in the LPAR affect the fees for software running on IFLs? Regards, Richard Schuh > -Original Message- > From: The IBM z/VM Operating System > [mailto:ib...@listserv.uark.edu] On Behalf Of Alan Altmark > Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2010 10:06 AM > To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU > Subject: Re: question to mixed CP an IFL in one LPAR > > On Wednesday, 07/14/2010 at 12:29 EDT, Dave Jones > wrote: > > Mike's explanation as to why Linux LPARs should have only IFLs > > available is spot on.this write-up would be a good > candidate for > > the wiki, I think. > > Let's be careful with terminology. There are three relevant > LPAR "modes": > o A "Linux only" mode LPAR is a term used by the HMC to > refer to an LPAR that has only IFLs, by defintion. > o A "z/VM" mode LPAR has at least one CP and may also have > one or more IFLs. If you want a virtual machine to run on > IFLs in a z/VM mode LPAR, then you must alter the directory > entry for that virtual machine. > o An "ESA/390" mode LPAR has only CPs. > > Linux should run on IFLs whenever possible and advisable, > letting common sense, your performance monitors, and your > wallet be your guides. I hesitate to use the vague term > "Linux LPARs" since a z/VM mode LPAR can be both a Linux LPAR > and z/OS LPAR simultaneously. > > Alan Altmark > z/VM Development > IBM Endicott >
Re: question to mixed CP an IFL in one LPAR
On Wed, 14 Jul 2010 13:06:22 -0400, Alan Altmark wrote: >o A "Linux only" mode LPAR is a term used by the HMC to refer to an LPA R >that has only IFLs, by defintion. I am hoist on my own petard: o A "Linux only" mode LPAR contains *either* CPs or IFLs. Alan Altmark z/VM Development IBM Endicott
Re: question to mixed CP an IFL in one LPAR
thanks to all who have responded. I know that it must be configured in the USER DIRECT for the users who must run on the IFL. As I have heard IBM is trying to make it possible to communicate through shared memory with zLinux's DB2. This I think would be a great advantage over DRDA and TCPIP. regards Franz Josef Pohlen Am 14.07.2010 15:09, schrieb Alan Altmark: On Wednesday, 07/14/2010 at 03:35 EDT, Franz Josef Pohlen wrote: an IBMer has told me that a mixture of CPs and IFLs in one LPAR are supported on z10 not only with z/VM 6 but also with zVM 5.4. Is this correct? I thought that for those environments you must have z/VM 6. As others have said, the IBMer was correct. I think you're confusing "z/VM [V5 and V6] support of z/VM mode LPARs on a z10*" with "z/VM V6 requires a z10*." (z/VM V5 runs on all z machines.) Alan Altmark z/VM Development IBM Endicott *Jim's posts give me the vague impression that there may be another machine on the horizon. If that is the case, then you could read "z10" as "z10 or later", for various values of "later".
Re: question to mixed CP an IFL in one LPAR
On Wednesday, 07/14/2010 at 12:29 EDT, Dave Jones wrote: > Mike's explanation as to why Linux LPARs should have only IFLs available > is spot on.this write-up would be a good candidate for the wiki, I > think. Let's be careful with terminology. There are three relevant LPAR "modes": o A "Linux only" mode LPAR is a term used by the HMC to refer to an LPAR that has only IFLs, by defintion. o A "z/VM" mode LPAR has at least one CP and may also have one or more IFLs. If you want a virtual machine to run on IFLs in a z/VM mode LPAR, then you must alter the directory entry for that virtual machine. o An "ESA/390" mode LPAR has only CPs. Linux should run on IFLs whenever possible and advisable, letting common sense, your performance monitors, and your wallet be your guides. I hesitate to use the vague term "Linux LPARs" since a z/VM mode LPAR can be both a Linux LPAR and z/OS LPAR simultaneously. Alan Altmark z/VM Development IBM Endicott
Re: question to mixed CP an IFL in one LPAR
Mike's explanation as to why Linux LPARs should have only IFLs available is spot on.this write-up would be a good candidate for the wiki, I think. Have a good one. On 07/14/2010 10:54 AM, Mike Walter wrote: General Purpose processors are built to be capable of reaching speed 'x', but depending on what System z you ordered, may be capped at a lower speed - and thus priced at a lower price. Think: sub-capacity This makes upgrades very fast and easy for IBM and customers - after an upgrade (within that model range) has been agreed to, the CE goes into the machine room and enters the appropriate mystical incantations and the processor suddenly runs at the faster, agreed on speed. I don't recall if any outage is even required. It also means that IBM does not have to build, test, and maintain so many different chips - just one high-speed chip per model group that can be knee-capped and upgraded though micro-code as required. IFLs always run at the model group's maximum speed 'x'. That's part of the incentive for new Linux for System z customers, they get the full speed the chip at a much lower cost than if it were running as a General Processor, and IFL upgrades come along for "free" when the box is upgraded while you pay for General Purpose CPU engine upgrades. If Linux work is included on General Processor CPU, they will consume General Processor CPU cycles. If that Linux work causes an upgrade of the General Processor, then some software licenses may require an upgrade fee related to the General Processor upgrade. If the Linux work is confined to IFL's, when they need more resources you add another (lower-priced, but full-speed) IFL, which does not affect General Processor product licensing charges. It is likely that the IFL engine is already aboard your present System z, too - just not turned on. Mike Walter Hewitt Associates The opinions expressed herein are mine alone, not my employer's. "Schuh, Richard" Sent by: "The IBM z/VM Operating System" 07/14/2010 10:38 AM Please respond to "The IBM z/VM Operating System" To IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU cc Subject Re: question to mixed CP an IFL in one LPAR Do you not control whether a Linux guest is dispatched on IFLs or regular CPUs via the directory? If a guest can only run on IFLs and not regular CPUs because of this, do the license fees increase if a Linux workload is melded in with a regular workload instead of running it in a separate LPAR? When did the IFL become faster than a regular CPU? Regards, Richard Schuh -Original Message- From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:ib...@listserv.uark.edu] On Behalf Of Dave Jones Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2010 8:06 AM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: question to mixed CP an IFL in one LPAR Franz, the IBM-er is right, you can mix CP and IFL in a single LPAR with either z/VM 5.4 or 6.1..if you are running 6.1, your system must be a z10. However, even if it is technically possible to mix engines, I generally recommend that you limit your Linux LPARs to IFLs only. It guarantees that all work in the LPAR will be dispatched on the faster IFL engines, and may have financial implications with respect to software licensing charges. On 07/14/2010 02:34 AM, Franz Josef Pohlen wrote: Hello listers, an IBMer has told me that a mixture of CPs and IFLs in one LPAR are supported on z10 not only with z/VM 6 but also with zVM 5.4. Is this correct? I thought that for those environments you must have z/VM 6. -- Dave Jones V/Soft www.vsoft-software.com Houston, TX 281.578.7544 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. -- Dave Jones V/Soft www.vsoft-software.com Houston, TX 281.578.7544
Re: question to mixed CP an IFL in one LPAR
Yes you define in the DIRECTORY if a guest will run on an IFL. If you do not change anything, then the guest will run on a CP by default. On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 11:38 AM, Schuh, Richard wrote: > Do you not control whether a Linux guest is dispatched on IFLs or regular > CPUs via the directory? If a guest can only run on IFLs and not regular CPUs > because of this, do the license fees increase if a Linux workload is melded > in with a regular workload instead of running it in a separate LPAR? > > When did the IFL become faster than a regular CPU? > > > > Regards, > Richard Schuh > > > > > -Original Message- > > From: The IBM z/VM Operating System > > [mailto:ib...@listserv.uark.edu] On Behalf Of Dave Jones > > Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2010 8:06 AM > > To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU > > Subject: Re: question to mixed CP an IFL in one LPAR > > > > Franz, the IBM-er is right, you can mix CP and IFL in a > > single LPAR with either z/VM 5.4 or 6.1..if you are > > running 6.1, your system must be a z10. > > > > However, even if it is technically possible to mix engines, I > > generally recommend that you limit your Linux LPARs to IFLs > > only. It guarantees that all work in the LPAR will be > > dispatched on the faster IFL engines, and may have financial > > implications with respect to software licensing charges. > > > > On 07/14/2010 02:34 AM, Franz Josef Pohlen wrote: > > > Hello listers, > > > > > > an IBMer has told me that a mixture of CPs and IFLs in one LPAR are > > > supported on z10 not only with z/VM 6 but also with zVM > > 5.4. Is this > > > correct? I thought that for those environments you must have z/VM 6. > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Dave Jones > > V/Soft > > www.vsoft-software.com > > Houston, TX > > 281.578.7544 > > > -- Mark Pace Mainline Information Systems 1700 Summit Lake Drive Tallahassee, FL. 32317
Re: question to mixed CP an IFL in one LPAR
General Purpose processors are built to be capable of reaching speed 'x', but depending on what System z you ordered, may be capped at a lower speed - and thus priced at a lower price. Think: sub-capacity This makes upgrades very fast and easy for IBM and customers - after an upgrade (within that model range) has been agreed to, the CE goes into the machine room and enters the appropriate mystical incantations and the processor suddenly runs at the faster, agreed on speed. I don't recall if any outage is even required. It also means that IBM does not have to build, test, and maintain so many different chips - just one high-speed chip per model group that can be knee-capped and upgraded though micro-code as required. IFLs always run at the model group's maximum speed 'x'. That's part of the incentive for new Linux for System z customers, they get the full speed the chip at a much lower cost than if it were running as a General Processor, and IFL upgrades come along for "free" when the box is upgraded while you pay for General Purpose CPU engine upgrades. If Linux work is included on General Processor CPU, they will consume General Processor CPU cycles. If that Linux work causes an upgrade of the General Processor, then some software licenses may require an upgrade fee related to the General Processor upgrade. If the Linux work is confined to IFL's, when they need more resources you add another (lower-priced, but full-speed) IFL, which does not affect General Processor product licensing charges. It is likely that the IFL engine is already aboard your present System z, too - just not turned on. Mike Walter Hewitt Associates The opinions expressed herein are mine alone, not my employer's. "Schuh, Richard" Sent by: "The IBM z/VM Operating System" 07/14/2010 10:38 AM Please respond to "The IBM z/VM Operating System" To IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU cc Subject Re: question to mixed CP an IFL in one LPAR Do you not control whether a Linux guest is dispatched on IFLs or regular CPUs via the directory? If a guest can only run on IFLs and not regular CPUs because of this, do the license fees increase if a Linux workload is melded in with a regular workload instead of running it in a separate LPAR? When did the IFL become faster than a regular CPU? Regards, Richard Schuh > -Original Message- > From: The IBM z/VM Operating System > [mailto:ib...@listserv.uark.edu] On Behalf Of Dave Jones > Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2010 8:06 AM > To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU > Subject: Re: question to mixed CP an IFL in one LPAR > > Franz, the IBM-er is right, you can mix CP and IFL in a > single LPAR with either z/VM 5.4 or 6.1..if you are > running 6.1, your system must be a z10. > > However, even if it is technically possible to mix engines, I > generally recommend that you limit your Linux LPARs to IFLs > only. It guarantees that all work in the LPAR will be > dispatched on the faster IFL engines, and may have financial > implications with respect to software licensing charges. > > On 07/14/2010 02:34 AM, Franz Josef Pohlen wrote: > > Hello listers, > > > > an IBMer has told me that a mixture of CPs and IFLs in one LPAR are > > supported on z10 not only with z/VM 6 but also with zVM > 5.4. Is this > > correct? I thought that for those environments you must have z/VM 6. > > > > > > -- > Dave Jones > V/Soft > www.vsoft-software.com > Houston, TX > 281.578.7544 > 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: question to mixed CP an IFL in one LPAR
On sub-capacity z models, the IFLs still run at full speed. 2010/7/14 Schuh, Richard > Do you not control whether a Linux guest is dispatched on IFLs or regular > CPUs via the directory? If a guest can only run on IFLs and not regular CPUs > because of this, do the license fees increase if a Linux workload is melded > in with a regular workload instead of running it in a separate LPAR? > > When did the IFL become faster than a regular CPU? > > > > Regards, > Richard Schuh > > > > > -Original Message- > > From: The IBM z/VM Operating System > > [mailto:ib...@listserv.uark.edu] On Behalf Of Dave Jones > > Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2010 8:06 AM > > To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU > > Subject: Re: question to mixed CP an IFL in one LPAR > > > > Franz, the IBM-er is right, you can mix CP and IFL in a > > single LPAR with either z/VM 5.4 or 6.1..if you are > > running 6.1, your system must be a z10. > > > > However, even if it is technically possible to mix engines, I > > generally recommend that you limit your Linux LPARs to IFLs > > only. It guarantees that all work in the LPAR will be > > dispatched on the faster IFL engines, and may have financial > > implications with respect to software licensing charges. > > > > On 07/14/2010 02:34 AM, Franz Josef Pohlen wrote: > > > Hello listers, > > > > > > an IBMer has told me that a mixture of CPs and IFLs in one LPAR are > > > supported on z10 not only with z/VM 6 but also with zVM > > 5.4. Is this > > > correct? I thought that for those environments you must have z/VM 6. > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Dave Jones > > V/Soft > > www.vsoft-software.com > > Houston, TX > > 281.578.7544 > > -- Kris Buelens, IBM Belgium, VM customer support
Re: question to mixed CP an IFL in one LPAR
Do you not control whether a Linux guest is dispatched on IFLs or regular CPUs via the directory? If a guest can only run on IFLs and not regular CPUs because of this, do the license fees increase if a Linux workload is melded in with a regular workload instead of running it in a separate LPAR? When did the IFL become faster than a regular CPU? Regards, Richard Schuh > -Original Message- > From: The IBM z/VM Operating System > [mailto:ib...@listserv.uark.edu] On Behalf Of Dave Jones > Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2010 8:06 AM > To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU > Subject: Re: question to mixed CP an IFL in one LPAR > > Franz, the IBM-er is right, you can mix CP and IFL in a > single LPAR with either z/VM 5.4 or 6.1..if you are > running 6.1, your system must be a z10. > > However, even if it is technically possible to mix engines, I > generally recommend that you limit your Linux LPARs to IFLs > only. It guarantees that all work in the LPAR will be > dispatched on the faster IFL engines, and may have financial > implications with respect to software licensing charges. > > On 07/14/2010 02:34 AM, Franz Josef Pohlen wrote: > > Hello listers, > > > > an IBMer has told me that a mixture of CPs and IFLs in one LPAR are > > supported on z10 not only with z/VM 6 but also with zVM > 5.4. Is this > > correct? I thought that for those environments you must have z/VM 6. > > > > > > -- > Dave Jones > V/Soft > www.vsoft-software.com > Houston, TX > 281.578.7544 >
Re: question to mixed CP an IFL in one LPAR
Franz, the IBM-er is right, you can mix CP and IFL in a single LPAR with either z/VM 5.4 or 6.1..if you are running 6.1, your system must be a z10. However, even if it is technically possible to mix engines, I generally recommend that you limit your Linux LPARs to IFLs only. It guarantees that all work in the LPAR will be dispatched on the faster IFL engines, and may have financial implications with respect to software licensing charges. On 07/14/2010 02:34 AM, Franz Josef Pohlen wrote: Hello listers, an IBMer has told me that a mixture of CPs and IFLs in one LPAR are supported on z10 not only with z/VM 6 but also with zVM 5.4. Is this correct? I thought that for those environments you must have z/VM 6. -- Dave Jones V/Soft www.vsoft-software.com Houston, TX 281.578.7544
Re: question to mixed CP an IFL in one LPAR
On Wednesday, 07/14/2010 at 03:35 EDT, Franz Josef Pohlen wrote: > an IBMer has told me that a mixture of CPs and IFLs in one LPAR are > supported on z10 not only with z/VM 6 but also with zVM 5.4. Is this > correct? I thought that for those environments you must have z/VM 6. As others have said, the IBMer was correct. I think you're confusing "z/VM [V5 and V6] support of z/VM mode LPARs on a z10*" with "z/VM V6 requires a z10*." (z/VM V5 runs on all z machines.) Alan Altmark z/VM Development IBM Endicott *Jim's posts give me the vague impression that there may be another machine on the horizon. If that is the case, then you could read "z10" as "z10 or later", for various values of "later".
Re: question to mixed CP an IFL in one LPAR
It works. We did it here for a few weeks before rolling out z/VM 6.1. Note that when you have a mixture of IFL and CP in the same LPAR you need to make some DIRECTORY changes to a guest to make it run on the IFL. On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 3:41 AM, Rob van der Heij wrote: > On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 9:34 AM, Franz Josef Pohlen > wrote: > > Hello listers, > > > > an IBMer has told me that a mixture of CPs and IFLs in one LPAR are > > supported on z10 not only with z/VM 6 but also with zVM 5.4. Is this > > correct? I thought that for those environments you must have z/VM 6. > > Your IBMer is correct. Be aware of the required licenses. > It's probably most attractive if you already had both sides of the z10 > licensed for z/VM 5.4 and want to lower your operating cost by having > just one single image. > > | Rob > -- Mark Pace Mainline Information Systems 1700 Summit Lake Drive Tallahassee, FL. 32317
Re: question to mixed CP an IFL in one LPAR
On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 9:34 AM, Franz Josef Pohlen wrote: > Hello listers, > > an IBMer has told me that a mixture of CPs and IFLs in one LPAR are > supported on z10 not only with z/VM 6 but also with zVM 5.4. Is this > correct? I thought that for those environments you must have z/VM 6. Your IBMer is correct. Be aware of the required licenses. It's probably most attractive if you already had both sides of the z10 licensed for z/VM 5.4 and want to lower your operating cost by having just one single image. | Rob
question to mixed CP an IFL in one LPAR
Hello listers, an IBMer has told me that a mixture of CPs and IFLs in one LPAR are supported on z10 not only with z/VM 6 but also with zVM 5.4. Is this correct? I thought that for those environments you must have z/VM 6. -- kind regards Franz Josef Pohlen
