[Default] On 15 Jul 2016 18:51:42 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main [email protected] (Jesse 1 Robinson) wrote:
>In our upgrades over many years, our goal has generally been to keep MSUs more >or less the same unless actual growth is necessary. Few if any >vendors/products base price on number of CPs. Our upgrades are usually based >on technology--and the accompanying IBM price advantage. Because CPs have >gotten hugely faster since the advent of CMOS in the mid-90s, this has often >meant a reduction in the number of GP CPs from one generation to the next. > To sum up my question, would 2 general purpose CPUs each kneecapped to X MIPS plus a zIIP perform better than 3 general purpose CPUs each kneecapped to X MIPS and no zIIP? What are the workload characteristics that would influence the choice? What are the financial characteristics (software and hardware costs) that would influence the choice? Clark Morris >. >. >. >J.O.Skip Robinson >Southern California Edison Company >Electric Dragon Team Paddler >SHARE MVS Program Co-Manager >323-715-0595 Mobile >626-302-7535 Office >[email protected] > >-----Original Message----- >From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[email protected]] On >Behalf Of Clark Morris >Sent: Friday, July 15, 2016 5:11 PM >To: [email protected] >Subject: (External):Re: Any Gotchas going from V1.13 to V2.2 > >[Default] On 15 Jul 2016 04:46:21 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main >[email protected] (Tom Marchant) wrote: > >>On Thu, 14 Jul 2016 18:29:38 -0300, Clark Morris wrote: >> >>>[Default] On 14 Jul 2016 10:41:38 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main >>>[email protected] (Ed Jaffe) wrote: >>> >> >>>>What you don't know is that Dave is running a kneecapped 3-way with >>>>no zIIP where each CP delivers ~9 MSU. >>>> >>>>We run a kneecapped 3-way similar to Dave's, but we have a zIIP that >>>>delivers ~178MSU. It's 19 times faster than any of Dave's CPs and, in >>>>my experience, one needs that kind of power to get decent response >>>>times out of any significant Java workload. >>> >>>Would it make sense to make it a kneecapped 2 way with a zIIP? Are >>>there areas where this would improve performance? >> >>Are you assuming that in order to get a zIIP he'd have to give up a CP? >>That isn't the case. There are available processors on the box to turn >>in a zIIP. > >My thought in suggesting a 2-way plus a zIIP was to keep the total number of >processors the same . I was also thinking of a scenario where each of the two >remaining processors kept their original setting so the total z capacity would >be 2/3 of the original configuration plus the capacity of the zIIP. > >Clark Morris > >---------------------------------------------------------------------- >For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, >send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
