Furthermore at V6R1/V7R1 you could allocate virtual disk at 17GB and then
build the partition as big as needed (still at least 6 disk images though)
but at V7R1 you are forced to provide an 80GB virtual drive for the Load
Source. That tends to start to push the swing over to iASPs.
You can also mitigate that by using some techniques Larry and I posted some
time back. At V7R2, build it 80GB for Load Source and it's enforced! (yea I
tried smaller disk and it won't work) and 5 more drives of the size you
need. Then set the load source drive to read only. That will avoid some
performance land mines and keep the size of the partition more reasonable,
but it also requires a bit more advanced thinking in your partition.
Chief Technical Architect
Agile Technology Architects
From: MIDRANGE-L [mailto:midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
Sent: Monday, June 16, 2014 10:02 AM
To: Midrange Systems Technical Discussion
Subject: Re: Why do companies partition their Power Servers?
They don't do a lot better than LPARs. Some better as you're not duplicating
the O/S code though.
That's why I mentioned that the disk 'underneath' these iASPs, as it often
is with LPARs, is already virtualized. That way you can allocate the proper
amount to each iASP, still give it enough 'arms' (virtual of
course) without having to allocate entire 139 or 283GB disk units.
That STILL leaves some waste as you need to allow for temp files and data
growth in EACH iASP.
- Larry "DrFranken" Bolhuis
How would IASP's reduce the "islands of disk" issue that I talked about?
Wouldn't they propagate it?
This is the Midrange Systems Technical Discussion (MIDRANGE-L) mailing list
To post a message email: MIDRANGE-L@xxxxxxxxxxxx To subscribe, unsubscribe,
or change list options,
or email: MIDRANGE-L-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx Before posting, please take a
moment to review the archives at http://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l