Re: external vs internal coupling facility
- From: JO.Skip.Robinson@xxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: 17 Feb 2006 15:19:35 -0800
We also moved from standalone CF to ICF for financial reasons. But our
management had the foresight to spring for some ICF engines in the
process. They reasoned that enough money would be saved just on
maintenance to justify the extra CPs.
An additional saving for many shops is memory. Unused/unusable memory in a
standalone CF can now be pooled with MVS memory. That is, external CFs
need memory installed in whatever increments the hardware requires
regardless of how much is needed for CF LPARs. We had to over-buy memory
because if we ran out, only an upgrade could relieve the shortage. With
ICF, memory can be allocated into or out of other LPARs in order to more
precisely satisfy structure requirements without wasteful overkill.
Adjustments can be made with nothing more disruptive than bouncing a
couple of LPARs.
In other words, try hard to sell the idea of at least one ICF CP--which
can be shared among LPARs under favorable conditions. You will still save
money by eliminating footprint(s) without tossing performance into a tar
pit.
.
- References:
- Re: external vs internal coupling facility
- From: ibm-main
- Re: external vs internal coupling facility
- Prev by Date: Re: external vs internal coupling facility
- Next by Date: RE: CAZ????? modules
- Previous by thread: Re: external vs internal coupling facility
- Next by thread: Re: external vs internal coupling facility
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|