On Wednesday, 05/25/2011 at 11:07 EDT, Philip Tully
wrote:
> With all do respect: Contacting our IBM rep under NDA does not fit
> "publc road map".
I'm not trying to be contrary or anything, Phil, just practical. If your
or anyone else feels they need more information about IBM's plans for the
On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 5:06 AM, Philip Tully wrote:
> With all do respect: Contacting our IBM rep under NDA does not fit " public
> road map "
>
> I think the customers are letting IBM know, that they are not ready to
> relinquish control of this asset. It may not be the story IBM mgmt wants to
With all do respect: Contacting our IBM rep under NDA does not fit " publ
ic
road map "
I think the customers are letting IBM know, that they are not ready to
relinquish control of this asset. It may not be the story IBM mgmt wants
to
hear but it is the one that is being told. I may no longer
On Wednesday, 05/25/2011 at 09:46 EDT, PHILIP TULLY
wrote:
> IBM needs to step up to a more definitive public road map for the z/VM
> operating system, with a multiple year outlook.
As always, feel free to contact your IBM rep or business partner to
request a conference call with z/VM Developm
Thanks for the reply's as soon as I sent that I was swamped and couldn't
really reply.
I have thrown my hat toward share, thanks for the suggestion.
Some good points, 10G is def the way we are going but with the number of
lpars being thrust on us by the severe memory limitations we are
concer
z/VM directions, an interesting subject that we also discussed at the
Technical University in Vienna, where I also got the tip to join this list.
As a long time z/VM user my main concern is NOT exploiting new areas and
new technologies, it is rather exploiting existing or new hardware
functions a
Wow ... so many possible directions *this* thread could go.
For fifty years, the platform now known as "z" has been all about scalability.
For more than forty years, the environment we call "z/VM" has been all
about resource sharing.
Multi-system maint is something most people in the industry (wh
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
no.
On 05/18/2011 05:32 PM, Austin, Alyce (CIV) wrote:
> 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@LIST
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
On Wednesday, 05/18/2011 at 02:46 EDT, Marcy Cortes
wrote:
> Depends on how far, right?
> You have to share DASD so PPRC distances apply.
> You probably need the same subnet so you need a consultation with your
network
> folks.
> But should be doable if you do those things (at least that's the
Message-
> From: The IBM z/VM Operating System
> [mailto:IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU] On Behalf Of Alan Altmark
> Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2011 11:28 AM
> To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
> Subject: Re: zvm directions
>
> On Wednesday, 05/18/2011 at 12:07 EDT, Marcy Cortes
> wr
The tongue benefit is huge. Gotta keep up with them other guys ;)
The other really useful case I see is in the dev/test environment.
Say we want to get some good measurements from an app before they go production
or to size them properly for their prod server purchase, but we have some pigs
(uh
STSERV.UARK.EDU
> Subject: Re: zvm directions
>
> On Wednesday, 05/18/2011 at 12:07 EDT, Marcy Cortes
> wrote:
>
> > I don't see LGR as a load balancing solution at all. We
> will continue
> to use
> > our F5 load balancers as well as the WAS IHS plugin
On Wednesday, 05/18/2011 at 12:07 EDT, Marcy Cortes
wrote:
> I don't see LGR as a load balancing solution at all. We will continue
to use
> our F5 load balancers as well as the WAS IHS plugin for that effort. I
see it
> more for a planned outage move for things you want to move away for a
On Wednesday, 05/18/2011 at 11:33 EDT, PHILIP TULLY
wrote:
> 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.
>
> Give
Phil, I'll 2nd your opinion that 4 systems in the SSI is meager. I'm already
in a quandary there with 4 prod systems and capacity planning asking where we
put the next ones. So now I'm not sure if we step into SSI with all 4 or have
to immediately start with 2 plexes. If two, we're giving up
Phil,
Have you considered getting involved with the Linux & VM Program (LVM) at
SHARE? In particular, the LVM Technical Steering Committee has been working
with IBM on this sort of topic for a number of years. I know they're always
looking for interested members from the user community.
18 matches
Mail list logo
