On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 10:26 PM, Jim Elliott
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> For the most part my view is from observation, not actual
> studies. And as Mark pointed out, we are talking about two REAL
> processors here with a Virtual 2-way running on it. IBM
> recommends that you always run Domi
barton wrote:
I know that they are faster than the 747 i take to germany, i see them
fly
every 4th of july, they are fast. but also, i know they won't make it
across the
atlantic, and they don't carry so many people.
It's miserly penny pinchers like you that killed the Concorde ;-)
mark
-
I'm running 160+ Oracle virtual servers on 3 IFLs. None run virtual MP. All
are UP. Everyone is happy. I am not saying that this is one size fits all -
most of the DBs are measured in Gb not Tb, so lotsa medium sized servers. Just
tremendous horizontal growth. What are the users doing? All so
There's a relatively new whitepaper on large memory configurations that also
has some CPU info.
MA
http://www-03.ibm.com/support/techdocs/atsmastr.nsf/WebIndex/WP101151
--
For LINUX-390 subscribe / signoff / archive access instru
This discussion is one I always find annoying. There are two migs parked
within 5 miles
of my house. I know that they are faster than the 747 i take to germany, i see
them fly
every 4th of july, they are fast. but also, i know they won't make it across
the
atlantic, and they don't carry so ma
>>> On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 2:52 PM, in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Shockley, Gerard
C" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What I should have indicated was there no NO plans to exceed the number
> of physical IFLs installed.
I didn't think you were suggesting that at all.
> The number specified on
> Jim, I find your "(like most products, including databases)
> runs better on more than one processor" and would be very
> interested to see the data supporting this claim. I trust this
> would not be from an artificial lab environment with only one
> virtual machine and an infinite number of real
On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 7:15 PM, Jim Elliott
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Huh? Oracle (like most products, including databases) runs better
> on more than one processor. Most of my customers running Oracle
> on running on Linux guests with 2 processors (sometimes more). At
> the zSeries Oracle
lf Of
Jim Elliott
Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2008 1:15 PM
To: LINUX-390@VM.MARIST.EDU
Subject: Re: Running Oracle on GT 2 IFLs
> Excuse the generally vague nature of this question. Here goes
> Anyone have any experience pro/con running Oracle under zVM/Linux with
> GT N+1 engines
in the quest directory entry.
TIA
Gerard
-Original Message-
From: Linux on 390 Port [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Mark Post
Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2008 2:17 PM
To: LINUX-390@VM.MARIST.EDU
Subject: Re: Running Oracle on GT 2 IFLs
>>> On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 1:
>>> On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 1:10 PM, in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Shockley, Gerard
C" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Excuse the generally vague nature of this question. Here goes ...
>
> Anyone have any experience pro/con running Oracle under zVM/Linux with
> GT N+1 engines.
>
> Are there b
> Excuse the generally vague nature of this question. Here goes
> Anyone have any experience pro/con running Oracle under
> zVM/Linux with GT N+1 engines.
> Are there benchmark numbers something like LSPR? Here is why.
> We are discussing sizing's and I've heard that it may be
> advisable to rem
Excuse the generally vague nature of this question. Here goes ...
Anyone have any experience pro/con running Oracle under zVM/Linux with
GT N+1 engines.
Are there benchmark numbers something like LSPR? Here is why.
We are discussing sizing's and I've heard that it may be advisable to
remove MA
13 matches
Mail list logo
