I was not aware of this. This is why I ask the experts.
-----Original Message-----
From: midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Pete Massiello - ML
Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2013 5:28 PM
To: Midrange Systems Technical Discussion
Subject: RE: Partition Properties-Maximum Numbers (Opinion Needed)
Be careful with doing this with the memory, I agree no problem with processors. Memory and processor behave differently. If you assign "too much" memory to every partition, it will actually reduce the total amount of memory that is available for all partitions. Has to do with the Hardware Paging table keeping more information about all those potential extra memory pages per partition.
Pete
--
Pete Massiello
iTech Solutions
http://www.itechsol.com
http://www.iInTheCloud.com
-----Original Message-----
From: midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Jim Oberholtzer
Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2013 1:21 PM
To: Midrange Systems Technical Discussion
Subject: Re: Partition Properties-Maximum Numbers (Opinion Needed)
Becky,
I will frequently do as your business partner did. Reason is if you do decide to use more memory/processor that you expected to then you do not have to change the high end limits and deactivate (shut down entirely) and reactivate it in order to reset the high limits. Usually that's the default when the customer does not have a very good idea or desire about where the limits should be set.
The rational for the method you use is to be sure a specific partition does not get past licensing limits, or other constraints; or worse case scenario, run away with all the processing resources. Be aware though that the minimums are important too. Another partition cannot use processor capability that pushes a partition below it's minimums.
You don't mention what hardware your on but a method to control it in a different way is to use processor pools. You can set them up and run specific partitions in specific pools and limit your usage that way too.
Jim Oberholtzer
Chief Technical Architect
Agile Technology Architects
On 3/27/2013 12:05 PM, Bakutis, Becky wrote:
I am using uncapped processors. Typically I set the maximum for both processing units and virtual processors to the maximum a specific partition will ever use. My Business Partner set up a system with the maximum for both processing units and virtual processors as the total processors on the entire frame. Is one way better than the other? Does it matter what the Maximum number is as long as it is greater than the Assigned number?
For example this system has 20 processors for the entire frame:
SYSTEM A:
Processing Units
Minimum: 0.5
Assigned: 5.0
Maximum: 20.0
Virtual Processors
Minimum: 1.0
Assigned: 6.0
Maximum: 20.0
It seems my Business Partner does the same thing with memory. Making the maximum number for each partition the maximum for the entire frame:
SYSTEM A:
Dedicated: 10GB
Assigned: 100GB
Maximum: 400GB
Becky Bakutis
Systems Engineer
Republic Services
480.627.2760 (w)
bbakutis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
--
--
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,
visit:
http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/midrange-l
or email: MIDRANGE-L-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives at
http://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l.
midrange.com
