9672, so no hiper-sockets. In trial mode, so no money to buy a distribution or support, but with the potential to do so if / when it goes into production. Potentially running DB2 and WebSphere, so SuSE instead of RedHat, as IBM supports SuSE more so than RedHat, in our experience.
I'd like to work within the confines I have. ---- Robert P. Nix internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mayo Clinic phone: 507-284-0844 200 1st St. SW page: 507-255-3450 Rochester, MN 55905 ---- "In theory, theory and practice are the same, but in practice, theory and practice are different." > -----Original Message----- > From: Adam Thornton [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, November 08, 2002 9:59 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Virtual network topology questions... > > On Fri, Nov 08, 2002 at 08:44:20AM -0600, Nix, Robert P. wrote: > > Given an IFL running zVM and several Linux/390 images, is it better to > > fan out to all the Linux images from zVM's TCPIP, or should TCPIP talk to a > > selection of images, with these images each handling several end > > machines, more like a tree structure? What would be the advantages and > > disadvantages of either method, and is there a "break-even" point > > below which you'd want to fan from TCPIP, but above which you'd want > > "helper" images? > > I'd say that the answer is "none of the above." > > Which version of z/VM? If at all possible, use a guest LAN. It makes > your life a *whole* lot simpler. If you can't, I'd say use about six > downstream Linux images per upstream router; IUCV is theoretically > faster, but I have found CTC somewhat easier to configure. > > Now, you're using SuSE, so that may be a stumbling block too. IIRC, the > totally-free version (beer, not speech, for those of you keeping score > at home) of SuSE doesn't do HiperSockets. But if you have either the > $500 trial or a support contract then you have access to the service > releases, which do let you use HiperSockets. And if you don't, then > (IMHO) you shouldn't be using SuSE--if you're going to be your own > support, you may as well be your own support with a less antiquated > distribution. I'm going to surprise exactly no one by saying here, > "Debian." Largely because I haven't played with RH in a long time, and > I know that Debian works just fine (albeit taintedly) with the qeth > drivers and guest LANs. To wit: >
