We have a project that is being setup to run on RHEL under z/VM. The sizing
parameters for the guests (Oracle DB, and WebLogic) are being sent to us based
on intel platform sizing. How do some of you handle the sizing conversion from
Intel to IFL's? Are there some rules of thumb, we should kn
just enough so it doesn't swap, then add 300K perhaps and two small (max 100k)
virtual swapdisks
and a larger 'real' swapdisk.
In your case I would start with 2GB and see how it works.
Cordialement / Vriendelijke Groeten / Best Regards / Med Vänliga Hälsningar
Tore Agblad
Volvo Information
Good advice. Note, from experience, there is no way to compare apples to
apples on zVM/Linux specs and Intel. We constantly get hammered by this when
Managers cannot make valid cost evals when comparing the platforms.
-Original Message-
From: Linux on 390 Port [mailto:linux-...@vm.mari
First rule of thumb, don't guess. Since Oracle SGA can be anywhere from
a few hundred megabytes to 10's of gigabytes, you need to size the
server larger than the SGA. If you undersize the server, you WILL have
undesirable performance. On intel they size based on low cost of
storage and I/O avoid
If you're using IBM style DASD as your disk storage, you'll want to size the
linux image's memory considerably smaller than what is suggested for an
Intel processor.
The first reason is that you have several levels of cache before the data
even gets to the linux image. These layers (controller, z/
We have some oracle guests that have been set to 1G. And they actually
need only 300M. The rest is occupied in cache (between 650 and 710M).
I'd like to decrease the machines but it is quite hard to convince the
oracle group that the machines do not need the memory. Instead, they
even want to incre
Berry,
I'd be interested in seeing a 60 minute statspack or AWR/ADDM from one of these
instances at peak hour - we generally recommend direct and asynch IO, which
bypasses the cache. The reports will tell you what Oracle thinks it needs based
on throughput, which you can compare to what z/VM an
sounds familiar >> the book tells them to..
From:
"van Sleeuwen, Berry"
To:
LINUX-390@VM.MARIST.EDU
Date:
02/04/2010 08:32 AM
Subject:
Re: A Question on Sizing z/VM Linux Guests
Sent by:
Linux on 390 Port
We have some oracle guests that have been set to 1G. And they actually
need only 300M
Yep - I'd be interested to know which books if they are Oracle publications.
-Original Message-
From: Ron Wells [mailto:rwe...@agfinance.com]
Sent: 04 February 2010 15:02
To: LINUX-390@vm.marist.edu
Subject: Re: A Question on Sizing z/VM Linux Guests
sounds familiar >> the book tells the
Yeah, but in this case it's the wrong book.
With Oracle dropping support for their products on z/OS, the only
mainframe platform now supported is Linux running as a guest of z/VM (or
in an LPAR, I suppose). I think we'll soon see more z/VM-Linux specific
performance guidelines from them in the fu
Everyone,
This is something I have never ran into.
It is coming out of a system running SAP. (Our main test system.)
# uname -a
Linux bus0104 2.6.16.60-0.34-default #1 SMP Fri Jan 16 14:59:01 UTC 2009
s390x s390x s390x GNU/Linux
Any ideas:
Feb 4 10:05:45 bus0104g syslog-ng[1630]: STATS: dr
I run my Oracle guests GT 90% mem and use Velocity to watch the WSS size and +-
SGA for good performance on s390x.
This approach is opposite of what (as you may of heard) you may do to improve
performance on I686-RHEL.
NONE of the individual guest DBs are over 4.0G MEM.
Here is a recent tuning
Never seen it. I am running both SAP 640 and 701 on Linux SAP005
2.6.16.60-0.54.5-default.
Best regards,
Pieter Harder
pieter.har...@brabantwater.nl
tel +31-73-6837133 / +31-6-47272537
-Oorspronkelijk bericht-
Van: Linux on 390 Port [mailto:linux-...@vm.marist.edu] Namens Ron Foster at
>>> On 2/4/2010 at 11:53 AM, Ron Foster at Baldor-IS
>>> wrote:
> Any ideas:
>
>
>
> Feb 4 10:05:45 bus0104g syslog-ng[1630]: STATS: dropped 0
> Feb 4 10:08:34 bus0104g kernel: Unable to handle kernel pointer
> dereference at virtual kernel address fffe76ffc000
> Feb 4 10:08:34 bus0104
Hi Ron,
Any chance you can re-create the problem on an EXT3 (or 4) FS. I would get
away from reiserfs.
A related earlier issue (non s390x) reiserfs_cut_from_item
http://lkml.indiana.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0102.1/1435.html
Gerard C. Shockley
Boston University
gsh...@bu.edu
617.353.98
On Thu, Feb 04, 2010 at 10:53:15AM -0600, Ron Foster at Baldor-IS wrote:
> Everyone,
>
> This is something I have never ran into.
> It is coming out of a system running SAP. (Our main test system.)
> # uname -a
> Linux bus0104 2.6.16.60-0.34-default #1 SMP Fri Jan 16 14:59:01 UTC 2009
> s390x s390
Mark,
I have followed your suggestion.
Ron
Mark Post wrote:
On 2/4/2010 at 11:53 AM, Ron Foster at Baldor-IS wrote:
Any ideas:
Feb 4 10:05:45 bus0104g syslog-ng[1630]: STATS: dropped 0
Feb 4 10:08:34 bus0104g kernel: Unable to handle kernel pointer
dereference at virtual kernel address
>>> On 2/3/2010 at 11:04 AM, Bernie Wu wrote:
> Hi Listers,
> Where is sshfs in SLES11 ?
To circle back and close this, I contacted our Product Management team. The
official answer (at this moment in time) is that we don't ship or support any
of the FUSE modules/plugins. We've only enabled t
18 matches
Mail list logo
