Dave, I know you can issue a "#cp def stor 64M" (for example) command to set the amount of virtual storage for a guest. In the past, that normally caused severe problems for the guest, requiring a re-IPL. I don't know if the same was/is true for CPs. How the dynamic changes get handled (or not) depends a lot on support being built into the guest.
Mark Post -----Original Message----- From: Dave Myers [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, August 30, 2002 10:18 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: H50 sandbox In a message dated 8/29/2002 10:36:43 PM Mountain Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Mark, David, Thanks for the input. I'm surprised that 100+mips isn't enough to run what I've laid out, given dynamically weighting for CP and dynamic storage reconfiguration. I agree that the flexibility of reconfiguration that VM gives you is a good reason to configure everything under VM. And...the learning experience of using guest lans and vctcs etc. will be valuable. I'm not up to speed on VM yet, so three followup questions: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- ------- >I would try not to have all the guests running simultaneously if at all possible. 1. Will VM give me more flexibility when I carve up the real memory to the individual guests (vs multiple lpars using dynamic storage reconfiguration). Can I add/delete real memory to guests on the fly? 2. Same question for CP ? >Dedicate two of the adapters to Linux guests and use guest LANs to connect >VM TCP and the z/OS systems 3. Are these two Linux guests suggested for the purpose of routing(to the other guests) DMZ, firewall, etc. as you have mentioned in the past? Tia Dave
