Re: 7.2 Was: IBM i 7.1 Technology Refresh 7 available Nov. 15-CLARIFICATION on POWER5

Thanks Sue, considering I'm putting up 8 hosted LPARs on an IBM i POWER 7 box starting tomorrow......

I'll bump the load source sizes. Question. Most of the other virtual drives in these LPARs are 35GB. Any reason to change those too? Now is the time to make that decision. We were interested in making sure there were sufficient drives for I/O queuing to mimic my customers, production environments in the field. ( they support many machines and this one is the development/Test/QA/distribution system )

Jim Oberholtzer
Chief Technical Architect
Agile Technology Architects

On 10/16/13 3:48 PM, Sue Baker wrote:

Evan Harris<auctionitis@xxxxxxxxx> wrote on Wed, 16 Oct 2013
17:17:30 GMT:

>Late last year Sue Baker recommended on this list a load
>source of 25gb or larger, and made a point of differentiating
>between physical disks and virtualised disks. See this post:
>http://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l/201209/msg00500.html
>
>I realize this list in not an official IBM channel, so I am
>not complaining about the difference between what was said and
>what you are saying. Key thing I think is that the minimum
>disk size for a guest*might* be smaller than the 70 GB but
>this is the smallest physical disk that will be allowed.
>

And I'll chime in that today's information about future load
source size is different than what it was a year ago.

This morning on the IBM i VUG webcast I stated to begin planning
for load source size of 70GB or larger regardless of whether it
is a physical disk, LUN created on SAN storage somewhere, or an
IBM i NWSSTG given to a client IBM i LPAR.

Also, I made the recommendation to plan to make this move at
your earliest convenience to be in a position to take advantage
of future hardware and operating system technologies as
migration to a larger load source will require an outage.

-- Sue IBM Americas Advanced Technical Skills (ATS) Power Systems Rochester, MN
--