In ,
on 03/12/2010
at 02:24 PM, Martin Packer said:
>Seymour, wrong by about a decade :-) ...
Eight years.
>3090 was first to have true Expanded Storage, 9021 the last.
What about the 9121 and 9221?
>With CMOS we had the "partition real memory" thing.
Weren't the low end ES/9000 boxen CMO
Seymour, wrong by about a decade :-) ...
3090 was first to have true Expanded Storage, 9021 the last. With CMOS we
had the "partition real memory" thing.
Unless it's ME that is wrong by about a decade. :-)
Martin Packer,
Mainframe Performance Consultant,
Worldwide Banking Center of Excellence,
In
<1228950277-1267928263-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-10127518...@bda026.bisx.prod.on.blackberry>,
on 03/07/2010
at 02:17 AM, Ted MacNEIL said:
>A rose is a rose is a rose.
But a rose is not a sardine.
>MSUs are just MIPS multiplied by a (marketting) constant or 5.
No.
--
In , on
03/08/2010
at 10:35 AM, George Henke said:
>I don't see anyone complaining about 64-bit memory being to much and
>asking to bring back Expanded Storage and paging.
Apples and oranges. AFAIK the 308x boxen were the last to have true
expanded storage instead of arbitrarily labelling
In ,
on 03/07/2010
at 06:35 AM, Timothy Sipples said:
>There are, and very many.
You're not speaking the same language that he is.
>In my previous post it should be obvious that "smaller" means anybody
>with capacity below a hypothetical non-kneecapped 7-way System z9 BC.
Just as it should
In , on
03/08/2010
at 02:37 PM, George Henke said:
>What is not just or equitable is for IBM to view EDS' efficiency and
>profits from "economies of scale" as a loss of revenue to themselves
>(IBM) and then create a pricing scheme that appropriates those profits
>from such efficiencies for th
On 10 March 2010 16:30, zMan wrote:
>
> On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 4:11 PM, Rick Fochtman wrote:
>
> > Not so much high-horsepower engines, but rather high-compression engines.
> > Makes a HUGE difference in aircraft reciprocating engines. Higher
> > compression leads to higher heat buildup in the c
On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 4:11 PM, Rick Fochtman wrote:
> Not so much high-horsepower engines, but rather high-compression engines.
> Makes a HUGE difference in aircraft reciprocating engines. Higher
> compression leads to higher heat buildup in the cylinder and that can lead
> to pre-ignition, wit
Not so much high-horsepower engines, but rather high-compression
engines. Makes a HUGE difference in aircraft reciprocating engines.
Higher compression leads to higher heat buildup in the cylinder and that
can lead to pre-ignition, with seriously detrimental effect on the
engine and the power c
Steve,
So how good is this petrol that avoids detonation? I don't see that idea
catching on... (GD&R)
Ron
>
> 100LL (Low Lead -- as in TetraEthyl Lead) is needed to avoid detonation
> in high horsepower engines.
>
--
For IBM-
Bruno Sugliani wrote:
On non z/OS platform like x86 with Linux or Windows servers, we often use
Dev or Test machines at a purposely less than 50% capacity allowing DR on
the test machines as the remaining CPU power is available.
Contrary to what a lot of people say about mainframe, using CPU's at
speed of a 1 cpu z/10. There is a huge chunk of
> this equation that I'm totally missing. How does a z/10 get so much more
> done?
> >
> > kind regards, Lindy
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.
On Mon, 8 Mar 2010 14:43:07 -0600, Rick Fochtman wrote:
>But it makes excellent sense in the context of failure and recovery.
>Having a spare "engine" to switch over to in the event of a failure in
>the primaty engine(s) can make a HUGE difference for a shop that needs
>to maximize availability.
...@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of
George Henke
Sent: Monday, March 08, 2010 7:15 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Subject: Re: z9 / z10 instruction speed(s)
>And, the real reason (as unpopular as it may be), is cost.
No, the real reason is manipulation of supply and de
Timothy Sipples wrote:
Steve Comstock writes:
I would guess the focus here was on jobs, plain and simple.
Maybe installed mainframe MIPS are increasing, but jobs,
especially for z/OS staff, appear to be declining (esp. in
the US, but some on the list have mentioned similar trends
in Europe).
Steve Comstock writes:
>I would guess the focus here was on jobs, plain and simple.
>Maybe installed mainframe MIPS are increasing, but jobs,
>especially for z/OS staff, appear to be declining (esp. in
>the US, but some on the list have mentioned similar trends
>in Europe).
I'm not sure if that's
On 3/8/2010 7:15 PM, George Henke wrote:
And, the real reason (as unpopular as it may be), is cost.
No, the real reason is manipulation of supply and demand by a monopoly.
Perhaps some remember the days of the Cabbage Patch dolls.
The manufacturer limited production while aggressively creating
z/10 get so much more done?
>
> kind regards, Lindy
>
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf
> Of R.S.
> Sent: 7. maaliskuuta 2010 2:23
> To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
> Subject: Re: z9 / z10 instruction speed(
>And, the real reason (as unpopular as it may be), is cost.
No, the real reason is manipulation of supply and demand by a monopoly.
Perhaps some remember the days of the Cabbage Patch dolls.
The manufacturer limited production while aggressively creating within every
young girl the uncontrollable
>why would I NOT use every CP available?
I think this is a strawman argument.
The CP's are installed, but not available.
The microcode determines what is available.
And, the real reason (as unpopular as it may be), is cost.
You didn't pay to see those cards.
-
Too busy driving to stop for gas!
>Failover is but one of many reasons why not using every CPU in the >book
>makes sense. However, George Henke's contention is that >kneecapping CPUs
is
>somehow "wrong" -- that not using all the available speed is a bad idea.
>Taken to its logical conclusion, not firing up every CPU in the book is
On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 3:45 PM, zMan wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 3:43 PM, Rick Fochtman wrote:
>
>> -
>>
>> Given the axioms of the discussion, it would be an entire book. The
>> contention was that IBM shipping capacity that is
On 8 March 2010 15:43, Rick Fochtman wrote:
> -
>
> Given the axioms of the discussion, it would be an entire book. The
> contention was that IBM shipping capacity that isn't used "doesn't make
> sense".
> ---
Timothy Sipples wrote:
Radoslaw Skorupka writes:
Can I ask where are new customers of this very
affordable platform?
Many (though not all) are in the developing world. That's why it's called
"developing," I guess. :-) Some places need new credit card processing
systems (to pick an example) bec
Radoslaw Skorupka writes:
>Can I ask where are new customers of this very
>affordable platform?
Many (though not all) are in the developing world. That's why it's called
"developing," I guess. :-) Some places need new credit card processing
systems (to pick an example) because they don't have them
On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 3:43 PM, Rick Fochtman wrote:
> -
>
> Given the axioms of the discussion, it would be an entire book. The
> contention was that IBM shipping capacity that isn't used "doesn't make
> sense".
> --
---SNIP
-
Town & Country charge seems right but do not remember.
---
T &
-
Given the axioms of the discussion, it would be an entire book. The
contention was that IBM shipping capacity that isn't used "doesn't make
sense".
-
But it makes excell
---
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On
Behalf Of Scott Rowe
Sent: Monday, March 08, 2010 12:32 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Subject: Re: z9 / z10 instruction speed(s)
Wow, what an inappropriate analogy.
>>> George Henke 3/8/2010 12:24 PM >>>
Agr
-
Hershey bars cost a nickel")
I'm dating myself, but I can remember buying Hershey bars at two for a
nickel.
The following message is a courtesy copy of an article
that has been posted to bit.listserv.ibm-main,alt.folklore.computers as well.
eamacn...@yahoo.ca (Ted MacNEIL) writes:
> A contention which I disagree with.
> It's cheaper to build one type of chip/card, and use other methods to
> limit capac
du] On
Behalf Of Ted MacNEIL
Sent: Monday, March 08, 2010 3:15 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Subject: Re: [IBM-MAIN] z9 / z10 instruction speed(s)
>So the next time I fill up at the gas station the price should be based
>on
horsepower.
Actually, that analogy is a bit flawed.
Higher horsepower r
>So the next time I fill up at the gas station the price should be based on
horsepower.
Actually, that analogy is a bit flawed.
Higher horsepower requires, usually, more gas/octane.
So, at the same price per gallon, the more powerful vehicles are already
'penalised'.
-
Too busy driving to stop f
> So the next time I fill up at the gas station the price should be
based on
> horsepower. All the SUV's should pay vastlly more for the same gas
that I
> use for my Honda Civic.
>
> I always use high-test since high-octane is always better even for
small
> cars, better mileage and cooler runnin
It is comforting to know that satire is alive and well in IT. How boring
life would be without it.
>However, as I recall it being explained to me by another, the "tier >based"
pricings started when a big outsourcer (EDS?) would bid for >small
companies' IT business. EDS was cheaper because they h
capacity and features you will never need.
Back to sitting on the sidelines watching the debate. :-)
Rex
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On
Behalf Of Scott Rowe
Sent: Monday, March 08, 2010 12:32 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Subject:
George Henke wrote:
Capacity based pricing has nothing but "greed" written all over it.
I'm glad IBM and many ISVs offer such steep discounts to smaller
customers that choose to enable/use only a subset of the potential
processing capacity available on the z10. Without those discounts, man
Wow, what an inappropriate analogy.
>>> George Henke 3/8/2010 12:24 PM >>>
Agreed.
So the next time I fill up at the gas station the price should be based on
horsepower. All the SUV's should pay vastlly more for the same gas that I
use for my Honda Civic.
I always use high-test since high-octa
On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 12:24 PM, George Henke wrote:
> So the next time I fill up at the gas station the price should be based on
> horsepower. All the SUV's should pay vastlly more for the same gas that I
> use for my Honda Civic.
>
Well, they do pay more for their vehicles -- and engine upgra
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
> [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of George Henke
> Sent: Monday, March 08, 2010 11:24 AM
> To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
> Subject: Re: z9 / z10 instruction speed(s)
>
> Agreed.
>
> So the
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
> [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of George Henke
> Sent: Monday, March 08, 2010 9:08 AM
> To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
> Subject: Re: z9 / z10 instruction speed(s)
>
> How can anyone have too many mai
Agreed.
So the next time I fill up at the gas station the price should be based on
horsepower. All the SUV's should pay vastlly more for the same gas that I
use for my Honda Civic.
I always use high-test since high-octane is always better even for small
cars, better mileage and cooler running en
>The contention was that IBM shipping capacity that isn't used "doesn't make
>sense".
A contention which I disagree with.
It's cheaper to build one type of chip/card, and use other methods to limit
capacity, which is what software pricing is based on.
I knew, in the mid-1980's, when IBM introdu
E
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2010e.html#31 What was old is new again (water
chilled)
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2010e.html#36 What was old is new again (water
chilled)
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2010e.html#42 search engine history, was Happy
DEC-10 Day
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2010e.h
Let's not be "bit wise, and byte foolish".
There is merit in "intentionally overcapcitating" not just in MIPS, but also
DASD.
I don't see anyone complaining about 64-bit memory being to much and
asking to bring back Expanded Storage and paging.
On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 10:30 AM, zMan wrote
On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 10:24 AM, Scott Rowe wrote:
> Timothy,
>
> Even if there was no kneecapping, there could still be CPUs turned off and
> on, so the minimal configuration would be a single CPU z9BC, not a 7 way.
>
Given the axioms of the discussion, it would be an entire book. The
contentio
Timothy,
Even if there was no kneecapping, there could still be CPUs turned off and on,
so the minimal configuration would be a single CPU z9BC, not a 7 way.
>>> Timothy Sipples 3/7/2010 6:35 AM >>>
Peter Farley writes:
>But Tim, there *aren't* any "smaller" mainframe customers
>any more (at
How can anyone have too many mainframe MIPS?
Really?
Dahh.
Just look at SHADOW, the Data Direct Product that enables a TCB workload,
through some niffty fancy footwork, to run workloads on a Ziip processor
which handles SRB only workloads.
I have a former client who automagicall
On Sat, 6 Mar 2010 19:25:35 -0500, Timothy Sipples wrote:
>a fully
>configured System z9 BC (until end of June). I don't like MIPS metrics, but
>for those that still do it'd be thousands of MIPS.
Thousands? Not quite.
>Now IBM introduces the System z10 BC, and you upgrade. You get thousands
>mo
Timothy Sipples pisze:
[...]
By the way, IBM substantially reduced the price of z/VSE for many/most
customers (including smaller ones) via the new MWLC sub-capacity licensing
for Version 4, so again I have no idea where you're getting your
information. Same with z/VM: IBM has slashed the price, b
On 3/8/2010 1:03 AM, Tony Harminc wrote:
I don't know about a total IT budget of $38k, but in 1975 licensed software
was pretty much a novelty. The first priced version of MVS (or any other IBM
OS except perhaps ACP/TPF?) had yet to appear, and most software was written
in house.
I worked for A
--SNIP-
Hershey bars cost a nickel")
>
I don't know about a total IT budget of $38k, but in 1975 licensed software
was pretty much a novelty. The first priced version of MVS (or any other IBM
OS exce
On 7 March 2010 06:35, Timothy Sipples wrote:
>
> For reference, when you convert $150,000 in 2009 to 1975, you get $38,040.
> That is, a total IT budget of $38,040 in 1975 would be equivalent, in
> Consumer Price Index terms, to a $150,000 budget in 2009.
>
> I don't know Did anybody work fo
Peter Farley writes:
>But Tim, there *aren't* any "smaller" mainframe customers
>any more (at least not in the USA).
There are, and very many. I don't know where you're getting your
information.
In my previous post it should be obvious that "smaller" means anybody with
capacity below a hypothetic
li...@akphs.com (Phil Smith III) writes:
> If you look at carefully written PC software like, say, Steve Gibson's
> stuff (www.grc.com -- not a plug, just an example that comes to mind),
> you'll see incredibly rich and powerful stuff that fits in the palm of
> your PC's hand, so to speak. http://w
On Sat, Mar 6, 2010 at 8:43 PM, Lindy Mayfield
wrote:
>This has been a very interesting thread for me. If I remember correctly from
>the time I saw the z/10 with plexiglass outsides and a hardware guy there to
>explain what was what, and one of the things he told me was the cpu speed was
>(I
>I don't like MIPS metrics
A rose is a rose is a rose.
MSUs are just MIPS multiplied by a (marketting) constant or 5.
-
Too busy driving to stop for gas!
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send ema
more done?
kind regards, Lindy
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of
R.S.
Sent: 7. maaliskuuta 2010 2:23
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Subject: Re: z9 / z10 instruction speed(s)
Edward Jaffe pisze:
[...]
> People with PC-only experien
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On
Behalf Of Timothy Sipples
Sent: Saturday, March 06, 2010 7:26 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Subject: Re: z9 / z10 instruction speed(s)
> Note that I don't speak for IBM, but let me come right out
Henry Willard pisze:
"R.S." wrote:
Edward Jaffe pisze:
[...]
People with PC-only experience are always astonished when I tell them
about modern mainframe provisioning capabilities. They always assume
when your hard drive fills up you need a new one or when your CPU is too
slow you need a new o
"R.S." wrote:
> Edward Jaffe pisze:
> [...]
> > People with PC-only experience are always astonished when I tell them
> > about modern mainframe provisioning capabilities. They always assume
> > when your hard drive fills up you need a new one or when your CPU is too
> > slow you need a new one. W
Now there you go being logical again.
Charles
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf
Of Timothy Sipples
Sent: Saturday, March 06, 2010 4:26 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Subject: Re: z9 / z10 instruction speed(s)
Leaving aside the
Leaving aside the important point that System z is certainly not the only
CPU to offer the option of kneecapped CPUs -- Intel Celeron, anyone? --
imagine (briefly) a world in which CPU kneecapping was not available. Now,
what would be the smallest capacity System z available? Answer: a fully
config
Edward Jaffe pisze:
[...]
People with PC-only experience are always astonished when I tell them
about modern mainframe provisioning capabilities. They always assume
when your hard drive fills up you need a new one or when your CPU is too
slow you need a new one. What we do seems like magic to t
The following message is a courtesy copy of an article
that has been posted to bit.listserv.ibm-main,alt.folklore.computers as well.
jmfbahciv writes:
> ROTFLMAO. A typing fo-paw?
re:
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2010e.html#47 z9 / z10 instruction speed(s)
yep ... oh well .. s/invented/invi
Until you tell them the (upfront) cost to get into a mainframe - or the
cost to turn on those CPs.
Then the look of awe turns to derisive laughter.
And growing DASD is only a big deal to us because of our history - ask
gil about ZFS; ask a Linux admin about LVM (or even EVMS). Who cares
about the
zMan wrote:
... distributed folks don't understand issues like "small" volumes
(226GB being smaller than the hard drive in my laptop)...
It has already been said by IBM, but obviously bears repeating... The
226GB per volume EAV limit is nowhere near the *architectural* limit of
EAV--which is
rocessors
turned on. $
Chris Blaicher
Phone: 512-340-6154
Mobile: 512-627-3803
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of
zMan
Sent: Friday, March 05, 2010 1:46 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Subject: Re: z9 / z10 instruction sp
On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 2:01 PM, Edward Jaffe wrote:
> Today's mainframe dynamic provisioning capabilities are truly leading-edge,
> and improving with each new generation.
>
> We can dynamically grow any DASD volume--on the fly--up to 226GB in size.
> We can download and dynamically apply a patch
George Henke wrote:
This is simply incredible, to think that IBM would deliberately run BCT
loops to throttle, slowdown, CPs.
It is one thing to cut back the CPU cache. It is quite another to
deliberate slow things down.
IBM's current knee-capping approach is far superior to the old
adjus
The following message is a courtesy copy of an article
that has been posted to bit.listserv.ibm-main,alt.folklore.computers as well.
eamacn...@yahoo.ca (Ted MacNEIL) writes:
> Why? If you don't need the capacity, what's the issue?
> Would you rather pay full hardware & software costs for capacity
On Fri, 5 Mar 2010 11:02:22 -0500, George Henke wrote:
>This is simply incredible, to think that IBM would deliberately run BCT
>loops to throttle, slowdown, CPs.
Check the archives for discussions of kneecapped processors.
This has been covered many times.
>It is one thing to cut back the CPU c
On Fri, 5 Mar 2010 11:18:08 -0500, zMan wrote:
>On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 11:02 AM, George Henke wrote:
>
>> This is simply incredible, to think that IBM would deliberately run BCT
>> loops to throttle, slowdown, CPs.
>>
>> It is one thing to cut back the CPU cache. It is quite another to
>> delib
>This is simply incredible, to think that IBM would deliberately run BCT loops
>to throttle, slowdown, CPs.
Why? This kind of thing has been around nearly as long as commercial computing.
I remember when upgrades consisted of removing circuitry that slowed the
processor down.
The AMD470 had bui
The following message is a courtesy copy of an article
that has been posted to bit.listserv.ibm-main,alt.folklore.computers as well.
gahe...@gmail.com (George Henke) writes:
> The current trend towards CMMI and the Six Sigma standard of quality, 6
> standard deviations (3.4 defects in a million)
On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 11:02 AM, George Henke wrote:
> This is simply incredible, to think that IBM would deliberately run BCT
> loops to throttle, slowdown, CPs.
>
> It is one thing to cut back the CPU cache. It is quite another to
> deliberate slow things down.
>
I thought this debate ended w
This is simply incredible, to think that IBM would deliberately run BCT
loops to throttle, slowdown, CPs.
It is one thing to cut back the CPU cache. It is quite another to
deliberate slow things down.
When will they ever learn that quality sells more than anything else and
that making anything l
McKown, John wrote:
There are multiple z9 "models". Each model has its own MSU rating, which is basically related to the number of CPs enabled and their
"speed". Now, I know that all the CPs on all z9 run same hardware speed. So, I'm wondering how they are "knee capped"? Now, I
know that the "k
On 2 March 2010 16:59, McKown, John wrote:
> There are multiple z9 "models". Each model has its own MSU rating, which is
> basically related to the number of CPs enabled and their "speed". Now, I know
> that all the CPs on all z9 run same hardware speed. So, I'm wondering how
> they are "knee c
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On
Behalf Of McKown, John
Sent: Tuesday, March 02, 2010 3:59 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Subject: z9 / z10 instruction speed(s)
There are multiple z9 "models". Each model has its own MSU rating
I was told (years ago,different hardware) that the pipeline was filled
with the appropriate number of NOPs. Might have just been an engineer
finding a convenient explanation for a sysprog though ...
I always wondered how that worked across different workloads - with all
the smarts built into the
There are multiple z9 "models". Each model has its own MSU rating, which is
basically related to the number of CPs enabled and their "speed". Now, I know
that all the CPs on all z9 run same hardware speed. So, I'm wondering how they
are "knee capped"? Now, I know that the "knee capping" is done
Tom Marchant pisze:
On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 10:00:30 -0500, zMan wrote:
On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 9:58 AM, Tom Marchant wrote:
A z10 is not 4 times faster than a
z9 with the same number of engines, or even for maximum z9 compared to
maximum z10. Not even close. It is closer to a 50% increase. Ch
On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 10:00:30 -0500, zMan wrote:
>On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 9:58 AM, Tom Marchant wrote:
>
>> A z10 is not 4 times faster than a
>> z9 with the same number of engines, or even for maximum z9 compared to
>> maximum z10. Not even close. It is closer to a 50% increase. Check the
>> LS
On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 9:58 AM, Tom Marchant wrote:
> A z10 is not 4 times faster than a
> z9 with the same number of engines, or even for maximum z9 compared to
> maximum z10. Not even close. It is closer to a 50% increase. Check the
> LSPR for details.
>
Isn't it more like 2x, "reduced" to
On Wed, 10 Feb 2010 19:18:40 -0600, Trivers Software wrote:
>isn't it also 4 times faster, for only 50% increase.
>Wouldn't 4 times as many servers would be 400% increase in power,
>so 50% versus 400% increase is a big savings. So it might actually be green?
It would be helpful if you'd quote a
isn't it also 4 times faster, for only 50% increase.
Wouldn't 4 times as many servers would be 400% increase in power,
so 50% versus 400% increase is a big savings. So it might actually be green?
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / sign
I should have said "...in normal operations."
- - - - -
Timothy Sipples
IBM Consulting Enterprise Software Architect
Based in Tokyo, Serving IBM Japan / Asia-Pacific
E-Mail: timothy.sipp...@us.ibm.com
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe /
On Mon, 8 Feb 2010 16:03:56 +0100, Vernooij, CP - SPLXM wrote:
>
>No, based in the internal activity. The modern version of the 360, so
>you can again see what's going on inside, more or less.
>
Gee! A mood ring for your computer. Hang it in front of
the blower exhaust.
-- gil
-
On Mon, 8 Feb 2010 14:21:28 +0100, R.S. wrote:
>>>
>> So, no power reduction when a processor is in a wait state?
>
>I don't know. I suspect no. In PC program hang usually means 100% CPU
>utilization. BTW: Power consuption depends on type of instruction
>performed. I was told that it was analyzed b
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
> [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of Vernooij, CP - SPLXM
> Sent: Monday, February 08, 2010 9:04 AM
> To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
> Subject: Re: z9 / z10 hardware question - unused CPs
> No, based in
On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 10:03 AM, Vernooij, CP - SPLXM
wrote:
>
> No, based in the internal activity. The modern version of the 360, so
> you can again see what's going on inside, more or less.
>
That would be way cool! But I'm betting on green -- maybe 2 stripes. Or 11.
-
d have put in a
sealed water tube behind the purple stripe and ran a bubbler through it,
like an old-time jukebox!
Rex
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On
Behalf Of Chase, John
Sent: Monday, February 08, 2010 7:07 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Vernooij, CP - SPLXM wrote:
"McKown, John" wrote in message
news:.
..
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
[mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of zMan
Sent: Sunday, February 07, 2010 10:49 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Subject: Re: z9 / z10 hardwar
"McKown, John" wrote in message
news:.
..
> > -Original Message-
> > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
> > [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of zMan
> > Sent: Sunday, February 07, 2010 10:49 AM
> > To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
> > Su
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
> [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of zMan
> Sent: Sunday, February 07, 2010 10:49 AM
> To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
> Subject: Re: z9 / z10 hardware question - unused CPs
>
> On Sun, Feb 7, 2010 a
Compare the total power consumption of a z/10 to the consumption of the
server farm (potentially 1000's of squatty boxes) it can replace. This
is why it can be considered a "green machine".
An example would be "green z10" - I wouldn't really care about power
consumption unless I heard opinions "o
On Mon, 8 Feb 2010 09:09:20 +0100, R.S. wrote:
>Timothy Sipples pisze:
>[...]
>> Also, I'm quite sure that there's presently no cycle steering or other
>> clock speed tricks to adjust power consumption dynamically, at least on the
>> z cores. Considering the role mainframes play (running at high
Paul Gilmartin pisze:
On Mon, 8 Feb 2010 09:09:20 +0100, R.S. wrote:
Timothy Sipples pisze:
[...]
Also, I'm quite sure that there's presently no cycle steering or other
clock speed tricks to adjust power consumption dynamically, at least on the
z cores. Considering the role mainframes play (ru
On Mon, 8 Feb 2010 09:09:20 +0100, R.S. wrote:
>Timothy Sipples pisze:
>[...]
>> Also, I'm quite sure that there's presently no cycle steering or other
>> clock speed tricks to adjust power consumption dynamically, at least on the
>> z cores. Considering the role mainframes play (running at high u
1 - 100 of 122 matches
Mail list logo
