If you¹re just IPLing CMS to set things up and then IPL Linux, is there really a reason to have multiple 191 minidisks? We share a single read/only 191 minidisk among all the Linux guests, in both LPARs. They all end up IPLing 391, and we¹ve added a piece to the profile that looks for userid() exec, and executes it, if found, as part of the process, allowing for the more odd of the Linux images to still share the one 191 minidisk.
If you can do it with one, it seems a shame to have all those one cyl minidisks hanging around everywhere. Plus, if you need to make a change to something in the way they¹re brought up, you can do it in one place, instead of having to link and fix hundreds of them. -- Robert P. Nix Mayo Foundation .~. RO-OE-5-55 200 First Street SW /V\ 507-284-0844 Rochester, MN 55905 /( )\ ----- ^^-^^ "In theory, theory and practice are the same, but in practice, theory and practice are different." On 10/28/08 11:13 AM, "Mary Anne Matyaz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hello all. We're bouncing around an idea to change the way we allocate Linux > guests. Currently, we have a mdisk that > has all of the Linux 191 disks on. We then have separate 200 disks (mod9's). > We're thinking of combining the two, such > that we have a 1 cylinder 191 mdisk, then 10015 cylinders for the 200 disks. > This would allow us to move the linuxes from > one lpar to another as needed. It would also make them more self-contained. > We're facing a dasd upgrade in the near future, > and this would make that a little easier. > Other than the fact that the 200 disk is backed up by TSM and the 191's via > MVS's FDR, can you guys shoot some holes > in this theory? Let me know if you see any other problem areas that I haven't > thought of? > > Thanks! > MA >
