On Fri, Apr 6, 2012 at 8:16 AM, Shane G <ibm-m...@tpg.com.au> wrote: > <heresy> > Why not indeed. > Hipervisors are becoming a commodity item. IBM (and its ISVs) has fought > rear-guard actions on (costly) proprietary options in the past. > And lost. > Anyone remember SNA ?. Token-ring ?. > Maybe IBM were ahead of their time with VIF - time for a resurrection maybe ?. > > Instead of trying to force users to conform to z/VM, maybe the powers that be > should be looking to contribute useful metrics upstream, and merely make z/VM > a generic hipervisor so users can concentrate on the things that earn them a > buck. > Or just toss it all in and get the z KVM module up to spec. > </heresy>
Heretic ... welcome to z/VM. We're all a bit heretical here. Shane, many of us will agree with your overall purpose (standardized metrics). But two things to note: z/VM is already better instrumented than the other hypervisors, and mapping metrics is a small matter of programming. I'm excited about virtualization on other platforms, used VMware as far back as beta 1.0, and use Xen for production services on my home network. WHAT I MISS, and have sought since first downloading VMware, is controls ... an API, a CLI, and a way for the guest to reliably signal the host. Some things are only just now beginning to appear, even monitoring. As a community, we need to enumerate the vital features of z/VM and require them from the others. -- R; Rick Troth Velocity Software http://www.velocitysoftware.com/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For LINUX-390 subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@vm.marist.edu with the message: INFO LINUX-390 or visit http://www.marist.edu/htbin/wlvindex?LINUX-390 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For more information on Linux on System z, visit http://wiki.linuxvm.org/
