MIDRANGE dot COM Mailing List Archive



Home » MIDRANGE-L » September 2012

Re: Load source versus virtual disks



fixed

rob@xxxxxxxxx wrote on Thu, 13 Sep 2012 19:55:05 GMT:

I am hearing that load source sizes do not apply when using
virtual disks.
For example, if PartitionA hosts PartitionB then I could have
twenty 20GB
drives on PartitionB, for example, and not be concerned about
the 35GB load source minimum.


Partially correct.

From a POWER systems internal physcial drive perspective, current
support for Power7 systems says minimum drive size is 35G.

Since V5R4M5 came out, minimum load source size from an operation
system perspective has been 17.5G. This was based on physical
drives at the time and applied not only to the internal drives
but also to ESS or DS8000 technology.

As of V7R1, IBM has not revised the perating system specific
statement as to load source size and simply implied it is 35G
based on the requirement for Power7 systems.

From experience, 17.5G is not quite large enough to hold
everything (LIC + base OS + QGPL + QUSRSYS). The next release of
IBM i will need a larger load source.

From an IBM i hosting IBM i perspective, if you don't think
you'll need to grow the GBs in the client LPAR, I would recommend
a minimum load source size of 25G. Yup, if you also follow the
guidance of 6 virtual drives of approximately the same size, you
will allocate 150G for the client LPAR.







Return to Archive home page | Return to MIDRANGE.COM home page

This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2014 by MIDRANGE dot COM and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available here. If you have questions about this, please contact