I don't think the use of SFS is really as major effort or impediment at new sites.....I've
seen several client adapt it for their situations with little problem; although it would
be nice if IBM gave us a MKPOOL tool as DB suggested.......
I'm much more concerned at this point about IBM introducing new functions into VM without
adequate documentation. Yes, the VM DCCS name can be changed, but to seem that it can be,
pone must actually read the comments in the configuration file; it's not mentioned in the
manual at all.
And I agree with Marcy; we need a supported method for remote SFS (and Perfkit, etc.) over
IP. IPGATE is nice and it does work, but.....
Marcy Cortes wrote:
I'd like more reliance on SFS for our own stuff.
But it needs to be highly available (run on more than 1 VM system at a
time).
It also needs to work over IP in a vendor supported manner.
Marcy
"This message may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If
you are not the addressee or authorized to receive this for the
addressee, you must not use, copy, disclose, or take any action based on
this message or any information herein. If you have received this
message in error, please advise the sender immediately by reply e-mail
and delete this message. Thank you for your cooperation."
-----Original Message-----
From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Alan Altmark
Sent: Monday, November 24, 2008 9:33 AM
To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
Subject: Re: [IBMVM] new VSMDCSS in z/VM 5.4
On Monday, 11/24/2008 at 11:06 EST, David Boyes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
They still retain SFS as a requirement for implementing a shared
logging
facility for the SMAPI servers, so none of that complexity is
alleviated.
Ugh. Well, that frankly sucks. Having simple UIs depend on one of the
more complicated CMS features seems suboptimal in just about every way
I can think of, especially with all the other choices available for
reasonable logging methods.
For the last few years I've been saying that we are moving forward with
MORE reliance on SFS to solve problems for us that we otherwise have to
write code to deal with. If I could easily get the TCP/IP suite to be
able to use SFS for the 198 and 191, I'd do it in a heartbeat.
Those sysprogs who've been in the biz for the past 20 years have had
plenty of time to learn and integrate SFS into their daily lives. Those
who are new should be learning Best Practices for managing SFS and BFS
from the grizzled veterans.
Would also make sense. As I said, just a guess on my part. I don't
claim to know the Mind of Alan.
It may seem like it from time to time, judging by some e-mail he gets
and posts here, but Alan is not attached to a wish-granting machine.
;-) Rather, there is a team of fine people who breathe life into VM,
doing planning, architecture, design, code, test, documentation,
delivery, and service. I can tell you that they aren't interested in
doing unnecessary work; they don't have time. If an existing VM
facility provides what they need, they are encouraged to use it.
Let me take this opportunity, in fact, to publicly thank the rest of the
z/VM development team, spread across the globe, for their support of my
"ombudsmanship". Their efforts make me look good. :-)
Alan Altmark
z/VM Development
IBM Endicott
--
DJ
V/Soft
z/VM and mainframe Linux expertise, training,
consulting, and software development
www.vsoft-software.com
