On Fri, 2006-03-24 at 05:36 -0600, Patrick Loftus wrote:
> We seem to be experiencing noticeably less MIPS than expected on our z/OS
> LPARs, and it almost looks like the speciality engines (zAAP, IFL etc) are
> contributing to the multiproccesor overheads and reducing the CPU resource.
Hadn't tho
>Hadn't thought about that. Would be surprised if IFLs got involved, but
I can imagine zAAPs (and zIIPs) might. They are exposed to the MVS
scheduler, and so would conceivably suffer the same interprocess
locking/spin issues.
I think it's more than lock/spin.
What about just making the decision to
On Fri, 2006-03-24 at 00:00 +, Ted MacNEIL wrote:
> >Hadn't thought about that. Would be surprised if IFLs got involved, but
> I can imagine zAAPs (and zIIPs) might. They are exposed to the MVS
> scheduler, and so would conceivably suffer the same interprocess
> locking/spin issues.
>
> I thin
rust Banks, Inc.
(404) 575-2798
Seeing beyond money (sm)
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Shane
Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 6:21 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: z990 multiprocessor overhead issue.
On Fr
On Fri, 2006-03-24 at 18:48 -0500, Richards.Bob wrote:
> With the CPs being "pooled", I doubt the specialties draw down
> the MIP MP effect. They might chew some quick cycles, but they should
> not impact MIP capacity like additional general purpose CPs would.
My take on this is that they are CPs
5 matches
Mail list logo
