Can't happen on the current machine without adding a book. If that happens, it is not likely that any of the storage would be left unassigned to one LPAR or another, so yes, it would still be useless to me. We still would be looked on with disfavor by our users and management if we had to once again schedule VM outages to remove borrowed storage.
I do not deny that it may be useful to some, but since I was not consulted during the design of this, I thought that I might give IBM an idea about another enhancement that would make the product even more useful and attractive. Regards, Richard Schuh > -----Original Message----- > From: The IBM z/VM Operating System > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mark Post > Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2008 10:12 AM > To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU > Subject: Re: Some IBM Announcements for z/OS, z/VM, z/VSE > (Aug 5, 2008) > > >>> On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 12:38 PM, in message > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > , "Schuh, Richard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > -snip- > > The new capability is > > absolutely useless to us. Nice boilerplate to show in sales > pitches to > > management, perhaps, but no practical value here. Our VM is > as close > > to > > 24 X 365.25 as we can make it. Taking it down to reconfigure the > > storage is unacceptable. > > Just because you view it as unusable, doesn't mean it is > unusable for everyone. This is most definitely not a > marketing stunt. There were a number of people at the z/VM > and Linux Train the Trainer meetings last week that saw this > as a very good thing for a number of their customers. > > If your company decides to buy more real storage, for > example, you will be able to add some or all of it to your > z/VM system without disruption. Would that be useless to you? > > > Mark Post >
