This is a multipart message in MIME format.
--=_alternative 0066729786256FB6_=
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"

IBM has this really cool micro-partitioning setup in their newer mid-range
servers where I can allocate 1/10 of a cpu's resources, for instance, to
one program. Some companies products we purchase charge us maintenance and
initial cost based on how many cpus we have in the server. Anyone
purchased any products lately from companies who are willing to charge
them for a fractional cpu, based on the micro-partitioning? (I would guess
not).
Thanks!

Catherine Geier
System Admin/IS support
St. Paul, MN

--=_alternative 0066729786256FB6_=
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"


<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">IBM has this really cool micro-partitioning
setup in their newer mid-range servers where I can allocate 1/10 of a cpu's
resources, for instance, to one program. Some companies products we purchase
charge us maintenance and initial cost based on how many cpus we have in
the server. Anyone purchased any products lately from companies who are
willing to charge them for a fractional cpu, based on the micro-partitioning?
(I would guess not). </font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Thanks!</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
Catherine Geier<br>
System Admin/IS support<br>
St. Paul, MN<br>
</font>
--=_alternative 0066729786256FB6_=--
sending to informix-list

<CKGeier@nwc.edu> wrote in message
news:1109621498.f3ba2a347ffe33e0d51595cbfa43822d@t eranews...
>
> This is a multipart message in MIME format.
> --=_alternative 0066729786256FB6_=
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
>
> IBM has this really cool micro-partitioning setup in their newer mid-range
> servers where I can allocate 1/10 of a cpu's resources, for instance, to
> one program. Some companies products we purchase charge us maintenance and
> initial cost based on how many cpus we have in the server. Anyone
> purchased any products lately from companies who are willing to charge
> them for a fractional cpu, based on the micro-partitioning? (I would guess
> not).
> Thanks!
>
> Catherine Geier
> System Admin/IS support
> St. Paul, MN

Nor of course will IBM. If you have an 8-way p570 and you partition it up
and run IDS in one LPAR with, say, 2 cpus, they'll hit you for an 8-cpu
licence.
If I understand it properly!

"Neil Truby" <neil.truby@ardenta.com> wrote in message
news:38hoe9F5obp9jU1@individual.net...
> <CKGeier@nwc.edu> wrote in message
> news:1109621498.f3ba2a347ffe33e0d51595cbfa43822d@t eranews...
> >
> > This is a multipart message in MIME format.
> > --=_alternative 0066729786256FB6_=
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
> >
> > IBM has this really cool micro-partitioning setup in their newer
mid-range
> > servers where I can allocate 1/10 of a cpu's resources, for instance, to
> > one program. Some companies products we purchase charge us maintenance
and
> > initial cost based on how many cpus we have in the server. Anyone
> > purchased any products lately from companies who are willing to charge
> > them for a fractional cpu, based on the micro-partitioning? (I would
guess
> > not).
> > Thanks!
> >
> > Catherine Geier
> > System Admin/IS support
> > St. Paul, MN
>
> Nor of course will IBM. If you have an 8-way p570 and you partition it up
> and run IDS in one LPAR with, say, 2 cpus, they'll hit you for an 8-cpu
> licence.
> If I understand it properly!

That is not the way it was explained by IBM to myself. We have a similar
setup 8 way = 4 x 2 cpu LPARs. We only license on an per LPAR basis, not
the server.

>
>

Neil Truby wrote:
> <CKGeier@nwc.edu> wrote in message
> news:1109621498.f3ba2a347ffe33e0d51595cbfa43822d@t eranews...
>
>>This is a multipart message in MIME format.
>>--=_alternative 0066729786256FB6_=
>>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
>>
>>IBM has this really cool micro-partitioning setup in their newer mid-range
>>servers where I can allocate 1/10 of a cpu's resources, for instance, to
>>one program. Some companies products we purchase charge us maintenance and
>>initial cost based on how many cpus we have in the server. Anyone
>>purchased any products lately from companies who are willing to charge
>>them for a fractional cpu, based on the micro-partitioning? (I would guess
>>not).
>>Thanks!
>>
>>Catherine Geier
>>System Admin/IS support
>>St. Paul, MN
>
>
> Nor of course will IBM. If you have an 8-way p570 and you partition it up
> and run IDS in one LPAR with, say, 2 cpus, they'll hit you for an 8-cpu
> licence.
> If I understand it properly!

I dunno about that. We are charged by the number of physical CPUs we affine
CPU VPs to. We run on 24-32 way Sun UltraSparc and normally use 2-8 processors
for CPU VPs and that's the number of licenses we account for.

Art S. Kagel

Art S. Kagel wrote:

[cutting]

>>
>> Nor of course will IBM. If you have an 8-way p570 and you partition
>> it up and run IDS in one LPAR with, say, 2 cpus, they'll hit you for
>> an 8-cpu licence.
>> If I understand it properly!
>
>
> I dunno about that. We are charged by the number of physical CPUs we
> affine
> CPU VPs to. We run on 24-32 way Sun UltraSparc and normally use 2-8
> processors
> for CPU VPs and that's the number of licenses we account for.
>
> Art S. Kagel
>

It seems to depend, I think the interpretion is more down to who you are
and your relationship with IBM. We have clients on big CPU boxes some
have full licenses even though they don't use them all the CPUs for
informix , some only license the Informix CPUs


--
Paul Watson #
Oninit Ltd # Growing old is mandatory
Tel: +44 1436 672201 # Growing up is optional
Fax: +44 1436 678693 #
Mob: +44 7818 003457 #
www.oninit.com #

"Art S. Kagel" <kagel@bloomberg.net> wrote in message
news:4225FCE7.2030309@bloomberg.net...

> I dunno about that. We are charged by the number of physical CPUs we
> affine
> CPU VPs to. We run on 24-32 way Sun UltraSparc and normally use 2-8
> processors
> for CPU VPs and that's the number of licenses we account for.

First of all, only an American could mangle the noun "affinity" and come up
with the verb "affine" :-)

I don't have a definitive answer to my assertion about LPARS or VPARS yet,
but you are definitely a special case here. No amount of pleading from
normal, non-leading-news-agency customers about affinity processing or
NUMCPUVPS settings will save ordinary mortals from being required to buy
32-cpu licences in the case you describe.

Of course, this type of issue will generally only affect larger sites, of
whom IBM is perhaps more likely to take more notice and maybe allow
exceptions?

"Paul Watson" <paul@oninit.com> wrote in message
news:d055hu$pe1$1@thorium.cix.co.uk...
> Art S. Kagel wrote:
> It seems to depend, I think the interpretion is more down to who you are
> and your relationship with IBM. We have clients on big CPU boxes some
> have full licenses even though they don't use them all the CPUs for
> informix , some only license the Informix CPUs

How much of this depends on whether the licences are supplied through PA?

Neil Truby wrote:
> "Art S. Kagel" <kagel@bloomberg.net> wrote in message
> news:4225FCE7.2030309@bloomberg.net...
>
>
>>I dunno about that. We are charged by the number of physical CPUs we
>>affine
>>CPU VPs to. We run on 24-32 way Sun UltraSparc and normally use 2-8
>>processors
>>for CPU VPs and that's the number of licenses we account for.
>
>
> First of all, only an American could mangle the noun "affinity" and come up
> with the verb "affine" :-)

Guilty as charged.

> I don't have a definitive answer to my assertion about LPARS or VPARS yet,
> but you are definitely a special case here. No amount of pleading from
> normal, non-leading-news-agency customers about affinity processing or
> NUMCPUVPS settings will save ordinary mortals from being required to buy
> 32-cpu licences in the case you describe.

Mm.

> Of course, this type of issue will generally only affect larger sites, of
> whom IBM is perhaps more likely to take more notice and maybe allow
> exceptions?

It's not like we're cheating them out of anything. We're still paying
WHOPPING numbers of $US for many hundreds of CPU licenses.

Art S. Kagel

Neil Truby wrote:
> "Art S. Kagel" <kagel@bloomberg.net> wrote in message
> news:4225FCE7.2030309@bloomberg.net...

>
> First of all, only an American could mangle the noun "affinity" and come up
> with the verb "affine" :-)

There's a logic to it. If 'unity' is the noun, 'united' the adjective, and
'unite' the verb, then for the noun 'affinity' there SHOULD exist the verb
'affine' if there exists the adjective 'affined'! Voila:

From The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language:

AFFINED
adj. Linked by a close relationship. Beholden to another; bound.


Which begs the equivalent definition:

AFFINE
v. To link by a close relationship. To create an affinity or objects which
are affined.

And as the final nail in the 'there ain't no such word' coffin:

From Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913) (web1913)
Affine \Af*fine"\, v. t. [F. affiner to refine; ? (L. ad) + fin fine. See
{Fine}.] To refine. [Obs.] --Holland.

Art S. Kagel

Please get out more :-)

Art S. Kagel wrote:

> Neil Truby wrote:
>
>> "Art S. Kagel" <kagel@bloomberg.net> wrote in message
>> news:4225FCE7.2030309@bloomberg.net...
>
>
>>
>> First of all, only an American could mangle the noun "affinity" and
>> come up with the verb "affine" :-)
>
>
> There's a logic to it. If 'unity' is the noun, 'united' the adjective,
> and 'unite' the verb, then for the noun 'affinity' there SHOULD exist
> the verb 'affine' if there exists the adjective 'affined'! Voila:
>
> From The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language:
>
> AFFINED
> adj. Linked by a close relationship. Beholden to another; bound.
>
>
> Which begs the equivalent definition:
>
> AFFINE
> v. To link by a close relationship. To create an affinity or objects
> which are affined.
>
> And as the final nail in the 'there ain't no such word' coffin:
>
> From Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913) (web1913)
> Affine \Af*fine"\, v. t. [F. affiner to refine; ? (L. ad) + fin fine.
> See {Fine}.] To refine. [Obs.] --Holland.
>
> Art S. Kagel


--
Paul Watson #
Oninit Ltd # Growing old is mandatory
Tel: +44 1436 672201 # Growing up is optional
Fax: +44 1436 678693 #
Mob: +44 7818 003457 #
www.oninit.com #