No, nor announced. It's statement of direction thus far. Might not even be called 6.2 perhaps :) But go to share.org and look at the Anaheim - Franciscovich 8453.
Marcy -----Original Message----- From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU] On Behalf Of Austin, Alyce (CIV) Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2011 3:33 PM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: [IBMVM] zvm directions Has z/VM 6.2 been released? Regards, Alyce -----Original Message----- From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU] On Behalf Of PHILIP TULLY Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2011 8:31 AM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: zvm directions I see that the list traffic is kind of light right now and though I would toss out a topic for all of us to chew on. I am looking for your thoughts on the current direction of zVM in particular where development needs to be focused. I sense that z/VM 6.2 with SSI will ease the burden of medium to large shops in the area of multi-system maintenance, and hopefully will be extended beyond it's current meager 4 system max size, sooner rather than later. Given the difficulty in making any changes to production workloads I don't see SSI with Live Guest Migration (LGM) as a panacea to issue related to load balancing amongst lpars. Without more direct linux interaction I am concerned about the migration of workloads using dedicated fcp with or without NPIV as well as arp issues. The area I would like to see development is the utilization of the hardware some of us are lucky enough to have, the z196. With a machine that can be delivered with 3TB of memory(1.5TB on a z10), having a maximum size z/VM system of 256GB is very limiting. In reviewing presentations on memory limits, I have read comments that the system has been tested to more than 400GB central storage but no indication (statement of direction...rumor) that the current limit will be increased. So I am pushing for increasing the max z/VM LPAR to at least 512MB if not larger. Expansion of the link aggregation implementation allowing for shared OSA cards. In general I am focused on larger vm systems, so that is where I would like to see development. Phil Tully Viewpoints presented here are my own and not my employer's
