Kuredjian, Michael wrote:
Does IBM make a co-processor add-in that can provide an assist for the JVM
overhead?
zAAPs
--
Edward E Jaffe
Phoenix Software International, Inc
5200 W Century Blvd, Suite 800
Los Angeles, CA 90045
310-338-0400 x318
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.phoenixsoftware.com
: Why is zSeries so CPU poor?
Kuredjian, Michael wrote:
> Does IBM make a co-processor add-in that can provide an assist for the JVM
> overhead?
>
zAAPs
--
Edward E Jaffe
Phoenix Software International, Inc
5200 W Century Blvd, Suite 800
Los Angeles, CA 90045
310-338-0400 x3
PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Kuredjian, Michael
Sent: Wednesday, July 19, 2006 12:53 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Why is zSeries so CPU poor?
Does zLinux have a kernel patch that allows it to offload the JVM to
this co-proc when running in an LPAR
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Edward Jaffe
> Sent: Wednesday, July 19, 2006 12:48 PM
> To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
> Subject: Re: Why is zSeries so CPU poor?
>
>
> Kuredjian, Michael wr
It's an interpreted language.
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Behalf Of Goforth, Mark
Sent: Wednesday, July 19, 2006 1:56 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Why is zSeries so CPU poor?
zAAPs do not work under zLinux. They only
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Kuredjian, Michael
> Sent: Wednesday, July 19, 2006 12:53 PM
> To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
> Subject: Re: Why is zSeries so CPU poor?
>
>
> Does zLinux have a ker
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Kuredjian, Michael
> Sent: Wednesday, July 19, 2006 12:59 PM
> To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
> Subject: Re: Why is zSeries so CPU poor?
>
>
> It's an interpre
Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Behalf Of McKown, John
Sent: Wednesday, July 19, 2006 2:03 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Why is zSeries so CPU poor?
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
> [mailt
McKown, John wrote:
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Kuredjian, Michael
Sent: Wednesday, July 19, 2006 12:53 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Why is zSeries so CPU poor?
Does zLinux have a kernel patch that allows
===
-Original Message-
From: "McKown, John" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: 7/19/2006 11:58 AM
To: "IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU"
Subject: Re: Why is zSeries so CPU poor?
> -Original Message-
> Fro
>
> I doubt that IBM could remove generally documented machine
> instructions or system services. The JVM is allowed to call
> JNI (Java Native Interface) routines, written in any language
> (usually C), which are allowed by definition to use any
> operating system services and any machine depen
McKown, John wrote:
No. a zAAP can only be used by a z/OS system. Not z/VM, z/Linux, z/VSE,
or z/TPF.
That's what I get for "jumping in" without reading the thread. Yes. zAAP
works only with Java code running under z/OS ... not Linux for z or
other operating systems.
I question the premi
2006 11:03
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Why is zSeries so CPU poor?
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Kuredjian, Michael
> Sent: Wednesday, July 19, 2006 12:59 PM
> To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
> Sub
McKown, John wrote:
Again, not really. The Java source code is actually compiled to a binary
form which is called "Java Byte Code". This byte code is similar in
nature to a normal processor's instruction set.
I guess you could say that the JVM "inteprets" the byte code. But I
think of it more l
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Edward Jaffe
> Sent: Wednesday, July 19, 2006 1:41 PM
> To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
> Subject: Re: Why is zSeries so CPU poor?
>
>
> I question the premise of t
-Original Message-
From: "McKown, John" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: 7/19/2006 12:23 PM
To: "IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU"
Subject: Re: Why is zSeries so CPU poor?
>
> I doubt that IBM could remove generally docu
>UCSD Pascal. It created and ran byte code. It was slower than
It was called p-code.
IIRC, didn't one of the JAVA 'inventors' have something to do with p-code
development?
Also, at one time wasn't it called j-code?
When in doubt.
PANIC!!
--
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ted MacNEIL
> Sent: Tuesday, July 18, 2006 7:00 PM
> To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
> Subject: Re: Why is zSeries so CPU poor?
>
>
> >UCSD Pascal. It created and
McKown, John wrote:
OK, then why is there such a perception that the zSeries is CPU
underpowered? It is because the other "servers" are, in reality, usually
"one trick ponies", doing only a single function whereas the zSeries is
usually doing literally 100s and even 1000s of functions concurrentl
x27;m not impressed with the speed of Java versus compiled code
on Windoze boxes.
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Of McKown, John
Sent: Wednesday July 19 2006 12:42
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Why is zSeries so CPU
McKown, John wrote:
Since we are recalling the past, IIRC there was some CPU designed and
manufactured to natively execute p-code. It didn't really make a very
good showing in the market.
To be totally off topic: I really liked what I read about the Intel iAPX
432. Built from the ground up to be
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on 07/19/2006
at 10:48 AM, Edward Jaffe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>zAAPs
Those are normal processors; they are not engineered to run Java byte
code more efficiently. They are essentially a marketing gimmick.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
ISO
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on 07/19/2006
at 11:40 AM, Edward Jaffe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>I question the premise of this entire thread. System z CPU
>performance is not poor! It's state of the art technology!
The issue isn't the quality of the engineering, it's economics of
scale. The zSerie
In
,
on 07/19/2006
at 11:44 AM, Ray Mullins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>That reminds me of the "next great thing" in the PC world (which
>then was mostly Apple, with a few 8080 and z80 boxes thrown in)
>circa 1981 - UCSD Pascal. It created and ran byte code.
ITYM P-code.
>is - it's never gonn
Here is an interesting Redbook which contrasts the zSeries processor design
with the pSeries processor when choosing a WebSphere solution:
http://www.redbooks.ibm.com/abstracts/redp3968.html
Aaron
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / sig
Craddock, Chris wrote:
[...]
The memory model is also more complex, but then again people tend to
expect reliability rather than speed when they are messing with bank
balances. There's not a lot of point clocking the cpu faster than it can
eat data, so to a large extent the cpu is gated by the c
>It's an interpreted language.
And its an OO language which has somewhat more overhead than
traditional non-OO languages.
Peter Hunkeler
CREDIT SUISSE
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send emai
>Then the question becomes: Does the JVM tell the z/OS dispatcher
>move the work from the zAAP to a general CPU while doing a JNI
>call? Or does it leave it on the zAAP?
The JVM "marks" the task as being zAAP eligible or non-eligible.
The dispatcher puts zAAP eligible tasks on the zAAP work unit
Radoslaw writes
> The memory is not unique design. There are regular DIMMs inside the
> book. High quality, ECC, good brand, but still same technology as in
PC.
> Memory controllers are probably completely different, but the
"back-end"
> (DIMMs) are not.
The PARTS that are used in the box are pr
Craddock, Chris wrote:
Radoslaw writes
The memory is not unique design. There are regular DIMMs inside the
book. High quality, ECC, good brand, but still same technology as in
PC.
Memory controllers are probably completely different, but the
"back-end"
(DIMMs) are not.
The PARTS th
There are quite a few reasons, rather than just one single one. The
biggie IMO is that z architecture is demonically complex to implement in
silicon.
It has always amazed me that IBM is able to put out a new processor
every year or two with little or no hardware logic errors. I know from
artic
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Behalf Of Bruce Black
Sent: Thursday, July 20, 2006 10:46 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Why is zSeries so CPU poor?
>
> There are quite a few reasons, rather than just one single one. The
> biggie IMO is that z a
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Kuredjian, Michael
> Sent: Thursday, July 20, 2006 9:59 AM
> To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
> Subject: Re: Why is zSeries so CPU poor?
>
>
> How do we know the numbe
===
-Original Message-
From: "McKown, John" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: 7/20/2006 9:13 AM
To: "IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU"
Subject: Re: Why is zSeries so CPU poor?
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Main
How do we know the number of hardware design errors? With IA32, it's easier to discover these problems because the CPU is used by many people under many operating systems. IBM designs the OS and CPU, making it much easier to cover up any problems that do exist.
IA32???
Nothing in the OS is goi
On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 10:45:37 -0400, Bruce Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>>
>> There are quite a few reasons, rather than just one single one. The
>> biggie IMO is that z architecture is demonically complex to implement in
>> silicon.
>It has always amazed me that IBM is able to put out a new p
Jeffrey D. Smith wrote:
When TRAP2/TRAP4 was first released on the P390 (sometime
around circa 1998-1999 IIRC), it was broken (storing into
the TRAPSA in the primary space instead of the home space).
And I still wonder why they defined the traps the way they did - for my
use it would have been
==
-Original Message-
From: "Gerhard Postpischil" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: 7/20/2006 3:53 PM
To: "IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU"
Subject: Re: Why is zSeries so CPU poor?
Jeffrey D. Smith wrote:
> When TRAP2/TR
On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 12:10:12 -0500 "McKown, John"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:>Just out of curiousity, why is the zSeries CPU so poor at CPU-intensive
:>workloads, like Java? Is it the "clock speed" of the circuitry? Is it
:>the complexity of the instructions? Is it the fact that the machine does
Does IBM make a co-processor add-in that can provide an assist for the JVM
overhead?
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Behalf Of McKown, John
Sent: Wednesday, July 19, 2006 1:10 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Why is zSeries so CPU poor?
In
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
on 07/19/2006
at 01:29 PM, "Kuredjian, Michael" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
said:
>Does IBM make a co-processor add-in that can provide an assist for
>the JVM overhead?
No, but they provide an option to dedicate a processor to Java work at
a lower cost than processors allowed t
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
on 07/19/2006
at 12:10 PM, "McKown, John" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>Just out of curiousity, why is the zSeries CPU so poor at
>CPU-intensive workloads, like Java? Is it the "clock speed" of the
>circuitry? Is it the complexity of the instructions? Is it the fact
>that t
> Just out of curiousity, why is the zSeries CPU so poor at
CPU-intensive
> workloads, like Java? Is it the "clock speed" of the circuitry? Is it
> the complexity of the instructions? Is it the fact that the machine
does
> a lot of internal checking / checkpointing for reliability and
recovery?
We
43 matches
Mail list logo
