On Wednesday, 05/02/2007 at 11:09 AST, David Boyes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I'd second (third?) the notion that SFS is the right answer, and > should be > > workable; I'd be interested to hear the reasons why it's not (boy, > that > > sounds challenging, but I mean it as a straight question!) > > SFS is the right answer, but it does impose a bunch of caveats. > > The biggest downside is that SFS breaks the ability to do good backups > using simple tools (eg, DDR), and is administratively orders of > magnitude more complex than minidisks if all you run VM for is to > support Linux. Observing new shops, J Random VM Newbie *will* screw up > SFS administration and lose data -- the tools aren't there to let > someone with little VM experience successfully manage SFS.
Puhleeze. That's like saying that running DB2 or Oracle is a bad idea because you can't (shouldn't) perform out-of-band backups while it's running. In any case, SFS support is integrated into the commercial z/VM backup/restore offerings from IBM and others. No worries. (I woudn't run a VM system without an ESM or performance monitor, either.) As to "administratively orders of magnitude more complex", I can only say "phooey". :-) Adding disks and allocating space is orders of magnitude simpler, IMO. "Even a caveman can do it." (That covers most sysprogs I know, btw.) :-) You can make it more complicated, sure, but it doesn't have to be that way. Alan Altmark z/VM Development IBM Endicott
