As much as I like VM, I would not recommend running your VAL/DEV workload in a second-level VM system under VM in your PRODUCTION LPAR. Have at least two LPARs, PRODUCTION and VAL/DEV. Run VM in each. VM's architecture will provide the separation to meet your 3 zone business requirement.
If you need to run z/OS, run that in yet another LPAR, save VM for CMS and Linux systems. /Tom Kern Martin, Terry R. (CMS/CTR) (CTR) wrote: > Hi > > We are moving toward taking our POC into production. This workload is > moving from Solaris running UNIX. The environment is 3 zone > architecture. Our client’s business requirements calls for this 3 zone > environment to remain separated. It requires UAL5 security level. > > To this end we have six LPARS each sharing 7 IFLS with plenty of real > memory on each. One of the six LPARS is our test LPAR that will have > multiple levels of VM for testing and such. > > My question: some of our folks believe that this is an excessive number > of LPARS and that it defeats the purpose of VM. Now I understand how VM > works and its’ ability to virtualize reducing the need for large LPAR > configurations. I know that we could, lets’ say combine our PROD and > VAL/DEV environments that are currently running in separate LPARS into > one LPAR and run a second LEVEL VM for the VAL/DEV. My contention is > that if it is what is needed to fit the business requirements of the > client then having six LPARS is not catastrophic. We have plans for > another 16 z/Linux guests to run in the existing configuration in the > next few months not requiring additional LPARS. I am not an LPAR bigot. > > Can anyone comment in general on the pros and cons of running LPARS as > opposed to running the multiple environments under one LPAR and getting > separation logically by having multi levels of VM rather then physical > separation by having the environments running under a single level of VM? > > In the end it probably will not matter if the client insists that we > need to proceed as we are. Just trying to get a prospective of those who > are more experienced then myself!! > > Thanks, > > Terry
