Re: z/VM 6.1 G.A. targeted for this Friday, Oct 23
And while we're debating correct terminology, remember that it's "z/VM". The slash is required: it's software. z/VM, z/OS, z/VSE, z/TPF, z/Architecture (yeah, that's considered software). z10, z9, z900, z800, etc. -- hardware.
Re: z/VM 6.1 G.A. targeted for this Friday, Oct 23
On Friday 23 October 2009, Schuh, Richard wrote: > That sentence wasn't red, it was black. :-)(This must be Friday.) ...and not a moment too soon! :-) Cheers, Bob -- Bob Woodside Woodsway Consulting, Inc. http://www.woodsway.com
Re: z/VM 6.1 G.A. targeted for this Friday, Oct 23
That sentence wasn't red, it was black. :-)(This must be Friday.) Regards, Richard Schuh > > Thanks - I didn't notice the unmatched parens even though I > red the whole sentence.
Re: z/VM 6.1 G.A. targeted for this Friday, Oct 23
On Friday, 10/23/2009 at 12:34 EDT, "O'Brien, Dennis L" wrote: > >I don't know what "zVM0" is, so I can't answer your question. > > Reading the whole sentence, (zVM0 was meant to be (zVM). He just didn't hold > the shift key down for the right paren. Yes, I know it should be z/VM. Thanks - I didn't notice the unmatched parens even though I red the whole sentence. KVM has a widget called "Dom0", so I was afraid that I was unwittingly going to wander down a dark and dangerous path. Alan Altmark z/VM Development IBM Endicott
Re: z/VM 6.1 G.A. targeted for this Friday, Oct 23
>I don't know what "zVM0" is, so I can't answer your question. Reading the whole sentence, (zVM0 was meant to be (zVM). He just didn't hold the shift key down for the right paren. Yes, I know it should be z/VM. Dennis My computer beat me at chess, but it was no match for me in kickboxing. -Original Message- From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:ib...@listserv.uark.edu] On Behalf Of Alan Altmark Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2009 23:10 To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: [IBMVM] z/VM 6.1 G.A. targeted for this Friday, Oct 23 On Thursday, 10/22/2009 at 10:41 EDT, Stephen Frazier wrote: > So SSI (zVM0 is HA (VMware) and Live Guest Relocation (zVM) is vmotion > (VMware). I don't know what "zVM0" is, so I can't answer your question. > The architecture is SSI or HA and LGR or vmotion is what you can do with > the architecture. As I said, LGR is *one* of the services intended to be provided by a z/VM SSI cluster. Alan Altmark z/VM Development IBM Endicott
Re: z/VM 6.1 G.A. targeted for this Friday, Oct 23
What a novel suggestion, speak to the level of the intended audience. Strunk and White could not convince folks to do it. I wish you good luck in your efforts. Regards, Richard Schuh > -Original Message- > From: The IBM z/VM Operating System > [mailto:ib...@listserv.uark.edu] On Behalf Of Mike Walter > Sent: Friday, October 23, 2009 7:37 AM > To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU > Subject: Re: z/VM 6.1 G.A. targeted for this Friday, Oct 23 > > > I also wish people would quit referring to vmWARE "VM"... It only > confuses those in the executive suite. > > What's wrong with referring to "VMware" (proper case > sensitivity) as "VM"? > > > Oh wait... that's right, "VM" _really_ means: > "Virtual Memory" ooops, > "Voice Mail"... hmmm, > "Java Virtual Machines" e, > "Vulnerability Management" uhhh, > "Value Multiplicity"... ummm, > "the IBM z/VM operating system", or > "Very Mixed-up"? > > > It only confuses those in the executive suite. > OK, let's say that everyone uses the right acronym, and when > there are > multiple meanings, always spells out the proper meaning > before referring > to the acronym subsequently in that communication. The those > occupying > the executive suites are still going to be confused. IT is not their > strong point, it's ours. So we have to be especially careful > to translate > into their obfuscated executive language, or risk losing > their attention, > understanding, and what we're requesting no matter how strong > the business > case (communicating a strong business case is the part where WE are > weakest). > > Mike Walter > Hewitt Associates > The opinions expressed herein are mine alone, certainly not > my employer's. > > > > "Huegel, Thomas" > > Sent by: "The IBM z/VM Operating System" > 10/23/2009 08:50 AM > Please respond to > "The IBM z/VM Operating System" > > > > To > IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU > cc > > Subject > Re: z/VM 6.1 G.A. targeted for this Friday, Oct 23 > > > > > > > Personally I wish people would quit trying to compare z/VM > with vmWARE. > There is really no comparison. > I also wish people would quit referring to vmWARE "VM"... It > only confuses > those in the executive suite. > > > -Original Message- > From: The IBM z/VM Operating System on behalf of Alan Altmark > Sent: Fri 10/23/2009 1:10 AM > To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU > Subject: Re: z/VM 6.1 G.A. targeted for this Friday, Oct 23 > > On Thursday, 10/22/2009 at 10:41 EDT, Stephen Frazier > wrote: > > So SSI (zVM0 is HA (VMware) and Live Guest Relocation (zVM) > is vmotion > > (VMware). > > I don't know what "zVM0" is, so I can't answer your question. > > > The architecture is SSI or HA and LGR or vmotion is what > you can do with > > the architecture. > > As I said, LGR is *one* of the services intended to be > provided by a z/VM > SSI cluster. > > Alan Altmark > z/VM Development > IBM Endicott > > > > > > > The information contained in this e-mail and any accompanying > documents may contain information that is confidential or > otherwise protected from disclosure. If you are not the > intended recipient of this message, or if this message has > been addressed to you in error, please immediately alert the > sender by reply e-mail and then delete this message, > including any attachments. Any dissemination, distribution or > other use of the contents of this message by anyone other > than the intended recipient is strictly prohibited. All > messages sent to and from this e-mail address may be > monitored as permitted by applicable law and regulations to > ensure compliance with our internal policies and to protect > our business. E-mails are not secure and cannot be guaranteed > to be error free as they can be intercepted, amended, lost or > destroyed, or contain viruses. You are deemed to have > accepted these risks if you communicate with us by e-mail. >
Re: z/VM 6.1 G.A. targeted for this Friday, Oct 23
When you must support both you need to always state which you are referring to (zVM) or (VMware). Scott Rohling wrote: I just say zVM (or zed-VM) whenever referring to 'our' VM -- that seems to keep everyone clear. And I don't refer to VMWare at all - which keeps it even clearer ;-) Scott -- Stephen Frazier Information Technology Unit Oklahoma Department of Corrections 3400 Martin Luther King Oklahoma City, Ok, 73111-4298 Tel.: (405) 425-2549 Fax: (405) 425-2554 Pager: (405) 690-1828 email: stevef%doc.state.ok.us
Re: z/VM 6.1 G.A. targeted for this Friday, Oct 23
I just say zVM (or zed-VM) whenever referring to 'our' VM -- that seems to keep everyone clear. And I don't refer to VMWare at all - which keeps it even clearer ;-) Scott On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 8:37 AM, Mike Walter wrote: > > I also wish people would quit referring to vmWARE "VM"... It only > confuses those in the executive suite. > > What's wrong with referring to "VMware" (proper case sensitivity) as "VM"? > > > Oh wait... that's right, "VM" _really_ means: > "Virtual Memory" ooops, > "Voice Mail"... hmmm, > "Java Virtual Machines" e, > "Vulnerability Management" uhhh, > "Value Multiplicity"... ummm, > "the IBM z/VM operating system", or > "Very Mixed-up"? > > > It only confuses those in the executive suite. > OK, let's say that everyone uses the right acronym, and when there are > multiple meanings, always spells out the proper meaning before referring > to the acronym subsequently in that communication. The those occupying > the executive suites are still going to be confused. IT is not their > strong point, it's ours. So we have to be especially careful to translate > into their obfuscated executive language, or risk losing their attention, > understanding, and what we're requesting no matter how strong the business > case (communicating a strong business case is the part where WE are > weakest). > > Mike Walter > Hewitt Associates > The opinions expressed herein are mine alone, certainly not my employer's. > > > > "Huegel, Thomas" > > Sent by: "The IBM z/VM Operating System" > 10/23/2009 08:50 AM > Please respond to > "The IBM z/VM Operating System" > > > > To > IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU > cc > > Subject > Re: z/VM 6.1 G.A. targeted for this Friday, Oct 23 > > > > > > > Personally I wish people would quit trying to compare z/VM with vmWARE. > There is really no comparison. > I also wish people would quit referring to vmWARE "VM"... It only confuses > those in the executive suite. > > > -Original Message- > From: The IBM z/VM Operating System on behalf of Alan Altmark > Sent: Fri 10/23/2009 1:10 AM > To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU > Subject: Re: z/VM 6.1 G.A. targeted for this Friday, Oct 23 > > On Thursday, 10/22/2009 at 10:41 EDT, Stephen Frazier > wrote: > > So SSI (zVM0 is HA (VMware) and Live Guest Relocation (zVM) is vmotion > > (VMware). > > I don't know what "zVM0" is, so I can't answer your question. > > > The architecture is SSI or HA and LGR or vmotion is what you can do with > > the architecture. > > As I said, LGR is *one* of the services intended to be provided by a z/VM > SSI cluster. > > Alan Altmark > z/VM Development > IBM Endicott > > > > > > > The information contained in this e-mail and any accompanying documents may > contain information that is confidential or otherwise protected from > disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, or if > this message has been addressed to you in error, please immediately alert > the sender by reply e-mail and then delete this message, including any > attachments. Any dissemination, distribution or other use of the contents of > this message by anyone other than the intended recipient is strictly > prohibited. All messages sent to and from this e-mail address may be > monitored as permitted by applicable law and regulations to ensure > compliance with our internal policies and to protect our business. E-mails > are not secure and cannot be guaranteed to be error free as they can be > intercepted, amended, lost or destroyed, or contain viruses. You are deemed > to have accepted these risks if you communicate with us by e-mail. >
Re: z/VM 6.1 G.A. targeted for this Friday, Oct 23
> I also wish people would quit referring to vmWARE "VM"... It only confuses those in the executive suite. What's wrong with referring to "VMware" (proper case sensitivity) as "VM"? Oh wait... that's right, "VM" _really_ means: "Virtual Memory" ooops, "Voice Mail"... hmmm, "Java Virtual Machines" e, "Vulnerability Management" uhhh, "Value Multiplicity"... ummm, "the IBM z/VM operating system", or "Very Mixed-up"? > It only confuses those in the executive suite. OK, let's say that everyone uses the right acronym, and when there are multiple meanings, always spells out the proper meaning before referring to the acronym subsequently in that communication. The those occupying the executive suites are still going to be confused. IT is not their strong point, it's ours. So we have to be especially careful to translate into their obfuscated executive language, or risk losing their attention, understanding, and what we're requesting no matter how strong the business case (communicating a strong business case is the part where WE are weakest). Mike Walter Hewitt Associates The opinions expressed herein are mine alone, certainly not my employer's. "Huegel, Thomas" Sent by: "The IBM z/VM Operating System" 10/23/2009 08:50 AM Please respond to "The IBM z/VM Operating System" To IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU cc Subject Re: z/VM 6.1 G.A. targeted for this Friday, Oct 23 Personally I wish people would quit trying to compare z/VM with vmWARE. There is really no comparison. I also wish people would quit referring to vmWARE "VM"... It only confuses those in the executive suite. -Original Message- From: The IBM z/VM Operating System on behalf of Alan Altmark Sent: Fri 10/23/2009 1:10 AM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: z/VM 6.1 G.A. targeted for this Friday, Oct 23 On Thursday, 10/22/2009 at 10:41 EDT, Stephen Frazier wrote: > So SSI (zVM0 is HA (VMware) and Live Guest Relocation (zVM) is vmotion > (VMware). I don't know what "zVM0" is, so I can't answer your question. > The architecture is SSI or HA and LGR or vmotion is what you can do with > the architecture. As I said, LGR is *one* of the services intended to be provided by a z/VM SSI cluster. Alan Altmark z/VM Development IBM Endicott The information contained in this e-mail and any accompanying documents may contain information that is confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, or if this message has been addressed to you in error, please immediately alert the sender by reply e-mail and then delete this message, including any attachments. Any dissemination, distribution or other use of the contents of this message by anyone other than the intended recipient is strictly prohibited. All messages sent to and from this e-mail address may be monitored as permitted by applicable law and regulations to ensure compliance with our internal policies and to protect our business. E-mails are not secure and cannot be guaranteed to be error free as they can be intercepted, amended, lost or destroyed, or contain viruses. You are deemed to have accepted these risks if you communicate with us by e-mail.
Re: z/VM 6.1 G.A. targeted for this Friday, Oct 23
Personally I wish people would quit trying to compare z/VM with vmWARE. There is really no comparison. I also wish people would quit referring to vmWARE "VM"... It only confuses those in the executive suite. -Original Message- From: The IBM z/VM Operating System on behalf of Alan Altmark Sent: Fri 10/23/2009 1:10 AM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: z/VM 6.1 G.A. targeted for this Friday, Oct 23 On Thursday, 10/22/2009 at 10:41 EDT, Stephen Frazier wrote: > So SSI (zVM0 is HA (VMware) and Live Guest Relocation (zVM) is vmotion > (VMware). I don't know what "zVM0" is, so I can't answer your question. > The architecture is SSI or HA and LGR or vmotion is what you can do with > the architecture. As I said, LGR is *one* of the services intended to be provided by a z/VM SSI cluster. Alan Altmark z/VM Development IBM Endicott
Re: z/VM 6.1 G.A. targeted for this Friday, Oct 23
On Thursday, 10/22/2009 at 10:41 EDT, Stephen Frazier wrote: > So SSI (zVM0 is HA (VMware) and Live Guest Relocation (zVM) is vmotion > (VMware). I don't know what "zVM0" is, so I can't answer your question. > The architecture is SSI or HA and LGR or vmotion is what you can do with > the architecture. As I said, LGR is *one* of the services intended to be provided by a z/VM SSI cluster. Alan Altmark z/VM Development IBM Endicott
Re: z/VM 6.1 G.A. targeted for this Friday, Oct 23
Alan Altmark wrote: On Thursday, 10/22/2009 at 04:04 EDT, Stephen Frazier wrote: Now zVM is adding vmotion from VMware, so they call it Single System Image. Actually, no. "Single System Image" is a cluster architecture. "Live Guest Relocation" (which requires an SSI cluster) is just one of the services that an SSI cluster will provide. [See my other post.] Alan Altmark z/VM Development IBM Endicott So SSI (zVM0 is HA (VMware) and Live Guest Relocation (zVM) is vmotion (VMware). The architecture is SSI or HA and LGR or vmotion is what you can do with the architecture. -- Stephen Frazier Information Technology Unit Oklahoma Department of Corrections 3400 Martin Luther King Oklahoma City, Ok, 73111-4298 Tel.: (405) 425-2549 Fax: (405) 425-2554 Pager: (405) 690-1828 email: stevef%doc.state.ok.us
Re: z/VM 6.1 G.A. targeted for this Friday, Oct 23
Adesse. That's the name I couldn't remember, only the final e was upside down. Regards, Richard Schuh > -Original Message- > From: The IBM z/VM Operating System > [mailto:ib...@listserv.uark.edu] On Behalf Of Mike Walter > Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2009 4:21 PM > To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU > Subject: Re: z/VM 6.1 G.A. targeted for this Friday, Oct 23 > > Until Romney does, Gerald Depass (and perhaps Romney) started Adesse. > Adesse had some pretty nifty products! > > IIRC, Single System Image was Romney's idea, after he started > VM/CMS Unlimited. > > It was the Thursday afternoon before we (Hewitt Associates) > were going live with a production implementation of SSI > coupling an Amdahl and an IBM > 4381 when we were informed that Romney was leaving VM/CMS > Unlimited. Alex > (Kodat?) at VM/CMS Unlimited was a terrific tech, but he > wasn't Romney. I could not put the fate of Hewitt's VM > system, and a very complex set of mods, into the hands of > company that just lost its senior leader. Before 5PM on > Friday we canceled all the production cutover plans and > changed our VM direction to go with a larger processor. > > Mike Walter > Hewitt Associates > The opinions expressed herein are mine alone, not my employer's. > > > > "Hughes, Jim" > > Sent by: "The IBM z/VM Operating System" > 10/22/2009 04:00 PM > Please respond to > "The IBM z/VM Operating System" > > > > To > IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU > cc > > Subject > Re: z/VM 6.1 G.A. targeted for this Friday, Oct 23 > > > > > > > Romney was with another outfit before VM/CMS Unlimited. For > some reason the name Gerald Depass jumps out at me. Perhaps > Romney can clear up all doubt. > > > Jim Hughes > 603-271-5586 > "It is fun to do the impossible." > > ==>-Original Message- > ==>From: The IBM z/VM Operating System > [mailto:ib...@listserv.uark.edu] On ==>Behalf Of Schuh, Richard > ==>Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2009 4:56 PM > ==>To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU > ==>Subject: Re: z/VM 6.1 G.A. targeted for this Friday, Oct > 23 ==> ==>That Company was VM/CMS Unlimited, IIRC. > ==> > ==>Regards, > ==>Richard Schuh > ==> > ==> > ==> > ==>> -Original Message- > ==>> From: The IBM z/VM Operating System ==>> > [mailto:ib...@listserv.uark.edu] On Behalf Of David Boyes > ==>> Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2009 1:43 PM ==>> To: > IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU ==>> Subject: Re: z/VM 6.1 G.A. > targeted for this Friday, Oct 23 ==>> ==>> On 10/22/09 4:03 > PM, "Stephen Frazier" > wrote: > ==>> > ==>> > On VMware you can move a running virtual machine from > one ==>> ESX machine ==>> > to another without the operating > systems running on the virtual ==>> > machine knowing it. > ==>> > There are many good ideas from zVM that have been > copied by VMware. > ==>> > This is an example going the other way - zVM is using > a VMware idea. > ==>> > Both VMware and zVM developers will tell you that they > ==>> don't get ideas ==>> > from the other - but as an > administrator of both systems I can see ==>> > what is happening. > ==>> > Same thing different names - a minidisk on zVM is a > vmdk on ==>> VMware. A ==>> > vSwitch on VMware is ... > ==>> > Now zVM is adding vmotion from VMware, so they call it > ==>> Single System Image. > ==>> > ==>> It's a little older than that. In the VM/SP and HPO > days, ==>> there was a VM/SSI add-on from a 3rd party > company. It ==>> implemented a truly enormous number of CP > mods to allow ==>> virtual machines to move between a group > of physical systems ==>> with the SWITCH command. Worked > extremely well, till VM/XA ==>> came along. > ==>> > > > > > > > The information contained in this e-mail and any accompanying > documents may contain information that is confidential or > otherwise protected from disclosure. If you are not the > intended recipient of this message, or if this message has > been addressed to you in error, please immediately alert the > sender by reply e-mail and then delete this message, > including any attachments. Any dissemination, distribution or > other use of the contents of this message by anyone other > than the intended recipient is strictly prohibited. All > messages sent to and from this e-mail address may be > monitored as permitted by applicable law and regulations to > ensure compliance with our internal policies and to protect > our business. E-mails are not secure and cannot be guaranteed > to be error free as they can be intercepted, amended, lost or > destroyed, or contain viruses. You are deemed to have > accepted these risks if you communicate with us by e-mail. >
Re: z/VM 6.1 G.A. targeted for this Friday, Oct 23
On Thursday, 10/22/2009 at 04:04 EDT, Stephen Frazier wrote: > Now zVM is adding vmotion from VMware, so they call it Single System Image. Actually, no. "Single System Image" is a cluster architecture. "Live Guest Relocation" (which requires an SSI cluster) is just one of the services that an SSI cluster will provide. [See my other post.] Alan Altmark z/VM Development IBM Endicott
Re: z/VM 6.1 G.A. targeted for this Friday, Oct 23
Until Romney does, Gerald Depass (and perhaps Romney) started Adesse. Adesse had some pretty nifty products! IIRC, Single System Image was Romney's idea, after he started VM/CMS Unlimited. It was the Thursday afternoon before we (Hewitt Associates) were going live with a production implementation of SSI coupling an Amdahl and an IBM 4381 when we were informed that Romney was leaving VM/CMS Unlimited. Alex (Kodat?) at VM/CMS Unlimited was a terrific tech, but he wasn't Romney. I could not put the fate of Hewitt's VM system, and a very complex set of mods, into the hands of company that just lost its senior leader. Before 5PM on Friday we canceled all the production cutover plans and changed our VM direction to go with a larger processor. Mike Walter Hewitt Associates The opinions expressed herein are mine alone, not my employer's. "Hughes, Jim" Sent by: "The IBM z/VM Operating System" 10/22/2009 04:00 PM Please respond to "The IBM z/VM Operating System" To IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU cc Subject Re: z/VM 6.1 G.A. targeted for this Friday, Oct 23 Romney was with another outfit before VM/CMS Unlimited. For some reason the name Gerald Depass jumps out at me. Perhaps Romney can clear up all doubt. Jim Hughes 603-271-5586 "It is fun to do the impossible." ==>-Original Message- ==>From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:ib...@listserv.uark.edu] On ==>Behalf Of Schuh, Richard ==>Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2009 4:56 PM ==>To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU ==>Subject: Re: z/VM 6.1 G.A. targeted for this Friday, Oct 23 ==> ==>That Company was VM/CMS Unlimited, IIRC. ==> ==>Regards, ==>Richard Schuh ==> ==> ==> ==>> -Original Message- ==>> From: The IBM z/VM Operating System ==>> [mailto:ib...@listserv.uark.edu] On Behalf Of David Boyes ==>> Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2009 1:43 PM ==>> To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU ==>> Subject: Re: z/VM 6.1 G.A. targeted for this Friday, Oct 23 ==>> ==>> On 10/22/09 4:03 PM, "Stephen Frazier" wrote: ==>> ==>> > On VMware you can move a running virtual machine from one ==>> ESX machine ==>> > to another without the operating systems running on the virtual ==>> > machine knowing it. ==>> > There are many good ideas from zVM that have been copied by VMware. ==>> > This is an example going the other way - zVM is using a VMware idea. ==>> > Both VMware and zVM developers will tell you that they ==>> don't get ideas ==>> > from the other - but as an administrator of both systems I can see ==>> > what is happening. ==>> > Same thing different names - a minidisk on zVM is a vmdk on ==>> VMware. A ==>> > vSwitch on VMware is ... ==>> > Now zVM is adding vmotion from VMware, so they call it ==>> Single System Image. ==>> ==>> It's a little older than that. In the VM/SP and HPO days, ==>> there was a VM/SSI add-on from a 3rd party company. It ==>> implemented a truly enormous number of CP mods to allow ==>> virtual machines to move between a group of physical systems ==>> with the SWITCH command. Worked extremely well, till VM/XA ==>> came along. ==>> The information contained in this e-mail and any accompanying documents may contain information that is confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, or if this message has been addressed to you in error, please immediately alert the sender by reply e-mail and then delete this message, including any attachments. Any dissemination, distribution or other use of the contents of this message by anyone other than the intended recipient is strictly prohibited. All messages sent to and from this e-mail address may be monitored as permitted by applicable law and regulations to ensure compliance with our internal policies and to protect our business. E-mails are not secure and cannot be guaranteed to be error free as they can be intercepted, amended, lost or destroyed, or contain viruses. You are deemed to have accepted these risks if you communicate with us by e-mail.
Re: z/VM 6.1 G.A. targeted for this Friday, Oct 23
Romney was with another outfit before VM/CMS Unlimited. For some reason the name Gerald Depass jumps out at me. Perhaps Romney can clear up all doubt. Jim Hughes 603-271-5586 "It is fun to do the impossible." ==>-Original Message- ==>From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:ib...@listserv.uark.edu] On ==>Behalf Of Schuh, Richard ==>Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2009 4:56 PM ==>To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU ==>Subject: Re: z/VM 6.1 G.A. targeted for this Friday, Oct 23 ==> ==>That Company was VM/CMS Unlimited, IIRC. ==> ==>Regards, ==>Richard Schuh ==> ==> ==> ==>> -Original Message- ==>> From: The IBM z/VM Operating System ==>> [mailto:ib...@listserv.uark.edu] On Behalf Of David Boyes ==>> Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2009 1:43 PM ==>> To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU ==>> Subject: Re: z/VM 6.1 G.A. targeted for this Friday, Oct 23 ==>> ==>> On 10/22/09 4:03 PM, "Stephen Frazier" wrote: ==>> ==>> > On VMware you can move a running virtual machine from one ==>> ESX machine ==>> > to another without the operating systems running on the virtual ==>> > machine knowing it. ==>> > There are many good ideas from zVM that have been copied by VMware. ==>> > This is an example going the other way - zVM is using a VMware idea. ==>> > Both VMware and zVM developers will tell you that they ==>> don't get ideas ==>> > from the other - but as an administrator of both systems I can see ==>> > what is happening. ==>> > Same thing different names - a minidisk on zVM is a vmdk on ==>> VMware. A ==>> > vSwitch on VMware is ... ==>> > Now zVM is adding vmotion from VMware, so they call it ==>> Single System Image. ==>> ==>> It's a little older than that. In the VM/SP and HPO days, ==>> there was a VM/SSI add-on from a 3rd party company. It ==>> implemented a truly enormous number of CP mods to allow ==>> virtual machines to move between a group of physical systems ==>> with the SWITCH command. Worked extremely well, till VM/XA ==>> came along. ==>>
Re: z/VM 6.1 G.A. targeted for this Friday, Oct 23
Here is a link to an article from February 1988 that has a bit of a description. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0SMG/is_n2_v8/ai_6289666/ Bob -Original Message- From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:ib...@listserv.uark.edu] On Behalf Of Schuh, Richard Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2009 3:56 PM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: z/VM 6.1 G.A. targeted for this Friday, Oct 23 That Company was VM/CMS Unlimited, IIRC. Regards, Richard Schuh > -Original Message- > From: The IBM z/VM Operating System > [mailto:ib...@listserv.uark.edu] On Behalf Of David Boyes > Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2009 1:43 PM > To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU > Subject: Re: z/VM 6.1 G.A. targeted for this Friday, Oct 23 > > On 10/22/09 4:03 PM, "Stephen Frazier" wrote: > > > On VMware you can move a running virtual machine from one > ESX machine > > to another without the operating systems running on the virtual > > machine knowing it. > > There are many good ideas from zVM that have been copied by VMware. > > This is an example going the other way - zVM is using a VMware idea. > > Both VMware and zVM developers will tell you that they > don't get ideas > > from the other - but as an administrator of both systems I can see > > what is happening. > > Same thing different names - a minidisk on zVM is a vmdk on > VMware. A > > vSwitch on VMware is ... > > Now zVM is adding vmotion from VMware, so they call it > Single System Image. > > It's a little older than that. In the VM/SP and HPO days, there was a > VM/SSI add-on from a 3rd party company. It implemented a truly > enormous number of CP mods to allow virtual machines to move between a > group of physical systems with the SWITCH command. Worked extremely > well, till VM/XA came along. > = This electronic transmission and any documents accompanying this electronic transmission contain confidential information belonging to the sender. This information may be legally privileged. The information is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or the taking of any action in reliance on or regarding the contents of this electronically transmitted information is strictly prohibited.
Re: z/VM 6.1 G.A. targeted for this Friday, Oct 23
That Company was VM/CMS Unlimited, IIRC. Regards, Richard Schuh > -Original Message- > From: The IBM z/VM Operating System > [mailto:ib...@listserv.uark.edu] On Behalf Of David Boyes > Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2009 1:43 PM > To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU > Subject: Re: z/VM 6.1 G.A. targeted for this Friday, Oct 23 > > On 10/22/09 4:03 PM, "Stephen Frazier" wrote: > > > On VMware you can move a running virtual machine from one > ESX machine > > to another without the operating systems running on the virtual > > machine knowing it. > > There are many good ideas from zVM that have been copied by VMware. > > This is an example going the other way - zVM is using a VMware idea. > > Both VMware and zVM developers will tell you that they > don't get ideas > > from the other - but as an administrator of both systems I can see > > what is happening. > > Same thing different names - a minidisk on zVM is a vmdk on > VMware. A > > vSwitch on VMware is ... > > Now zVM is adding vmotion from VMware, so they call it > Single System Image. > > It's a little older than that. In the VM/SP and HPO days, > there was a VM/SSI add-on from a 3rd party company. It > implemented a truly enormous number of CP mods to allow > virtual machines to move between a group of physical systems > with the SWITCH command. Worked extremely well, till VM/XA > came along. >
Re: z/VM 6.1 G.A. targeted for this Friday, Oct 23
On 10/22/09 4:03 PM, "Stephen Frazier" wrote: > On VMware you can move a running virtual machine from one ESX machine to > another without the operating systems running on the virtual machine > knowing it. > There are many good ideas from zVM that have been copied by VMware. This > is an example going the other way - zVM is using a VMware idea. > Both VMware and zVM developers will tell you that they don't get ideas > from the other - but as an administrator of both systems I can see what > is happening. > Same thing different names - a minidisk on zVM is a vmdk on VMware. A > vSwitch on VMware is ... > Now zVM is adding vmotion from VMware, so they call it Single System Image. It's a little older than that. In the VM/SP and HPO days, there was a VM/SSI add-on from a 3rd party company. It implemented a truly enormous number of CP mods to allow virtual machines to move between a group of physical systems with the SWITCH command. Worked extremely well, till VM/XA came along.
Re: z/VM 6.1 G.A. targeted for this Friday, Oct 23
Many years ago at the University of Waterloo, multiple VM systems were connected together in a Single System Image and running virtual machines were moved from one physical system to another based on need. This is nothing new. This is just finally coming out from IBM. Thank you Romney. /Tom Kern On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 15:03:12 -0500, Stephen Frazier wrote: >On VMware you can move a running virtual machine from one ESX machine to >another without the operating systems running on the virtual machine >knowing it. >There are many good ideas from zVM that have been copied by VMware. This >is an example going the other way - zVM is using a VMware idea. >Both VMware and zVM developers will tell you that they don't get ideas >from the other - but as an administrator of both systems I can see what >is happening. >Same thing different names - a minidisk on zVM is a vmdk on VMware. A >vSwitch on VMware is ... >Now zVM is adding vmotion from VMware, so they call it Single System Ima ge. > >Alain Benveniste wrote: >> I'm not sure what should be understood by "Single System Image" ? >> Could you give me a brief explanation of this meaning ? >-- >Stephen Frazier >Information Technology Unit >Oklahoma Department of Corrections >3400 Martin Luther King >Oklahoma City, Ok, 73111-4298 >Tel.: (405) 425-2549 >Fax: (405) 425-2554 >Pager: (405) 690-1828 >email: stevef%doc.state.ok.us
Re: z/VM 6.1 G.A. targeted for this Friday, Oct 23
On VMware you can move a running virtual machine from one ESX machine to another without the operating systems running on the virtual machine knowing it. There are many good ideas from zVM that have been copied by VMware. This is an example going the other way - zVM is using a VMware idea. Both VMware and zVM developers will tell you that they don't get ideas from the other - but as an administrator of both systems I can see what is happening. Same thing different names - a minidisk on zVM is a vmdk on VMware. A vSwitch on VMware is ... Now zVM is adding vmotion from VMware, so they call it Single System Image. Alain Benveniste wrote: I'm not sure what should be understood by "Single System Image" ? Could you give me a brief explanation of this meaning ? -- Stephen Frazier Information Technology Unit Oklahoma Department of Corrections 3400 Martin Luther King Oklahoma City, Ok, 73111-4298 Tel.: (405) 425-2549 Fax: (405) 425-2554 Pager: (405) 690-1828 email: stevef%doc.state.ok.us
Re: z/VM 6.1 G.A. targeted for this Friday, Oct 23
Alan I suppose we could compare this to a z/OS complex. And is it true to say that if I pay to use 30mips for one VM, i could divide the work to 4 VM, each one having 30mips for the same price ? Alain Envoyé de mon iPhone Le 22 oct. 2009 à 08:05, Alan Altmark a écrit : On Wednesday, 10/21/2009 at 12:36 EDT, Alain Benveniste wrote: I'm not sure what should be understood by "Single System Image" ? Could you give me a brief explanation of this meaning ? A Single System Image will be a cluster of 2, 3, or 4 z/VM LPARs that has the following characteristics: a) All member systems are in an ISFC collection created by FICON CTC connections b) All members are connected to the same SANs and Ethernet LAN segments, with the same access rights c) They share dasd volumes. d) With special exceptions, the users have identical directory entries on each system e) The users all have the same "security context". That is, users have the same privileges and access rights without regard to which of the member systems they log onto. Attributes of the cluster include: 1) System programmer-defined cluster configuration (the systems can share a single SYSTEM CONFIG) 2) Except for those above-mentioned special exceptions, a user can logon to only one member of the cluster at a time 3) Subject to those same exceptions, users can access their spool files from any member of the cluster, regardless of which system they were logged onto when they created them. (The cluster member must be up in order to see spool files created on that member.) 4) Class G users will generally experience a single image. I.e. QUERY NAMES shows the users from all of the systems. TELL ALAN works without regard to the system ALAN is logged on to. SET SECUSER doesn't care where in the cluster either user is located. 5) There are cross-system LINK protections (similar to XLINK-protected disks) 6) The ability to maintain (SERVICE) all of the member systems from a single system. 7) The capability to move most running Linux guests from one member to another without having to hibernate it or shut it down 8) Built-in data and virtual server integrity protections during guest relocation 9) Other cool stuff Except for item 7, people may recognize this as being similar to Cross System Extensions. It's true that CSE provided inspiration, but unlike CSE, a single system image (SSI) cluster is managed by CP himself and has more capabilities than CSE. Note that the above are a Statement of Direction. "Such statements are subject to change or withdrawal without notice and represent goals and objectives only." Alan Altmark z/VM Development IBM Endicott
Re: z/VM 6.1 G.A. targeted for this Friday, Oct 23
On Wednesday, 10/21/2009 at 12:36 EDT, Alain Benveniste wrote: > I'm not sure what should be understood by "Single System Image" ? > Could you give me a brief explanation of this meaning ? A Single System Image will be a cluster of 2, 3, or 4 z/VM LPARs that has the following characteristics: a) All member systems are in an ISFC collection created by FICON CTC connections b) All members are connected to the same SANs and Ethernet LAN segments, with the same access rights c) They share dasd volumes. d) With special exceptions, the users have identical directory entries on each system e) The users all have the same "security context". That is, users have the same privileges and access rights without regard to which of the member systems they log onto. Attributes of the cluster include: 1) System programmer-defined cluster configuration (the systems can share a single SYSTEM CONFIG) 2) Except for those above-mentioned special exceptions, a user can logon to only one member of the cluster at a time 3) Subject to those same exceptions, users can access their spool files from any member of the cluster, regardless of which system they were logged onto when they created them. (The cluster member must be up in order to see spool files created on that member.) 4) Class G users will generally experience a single image. I.e. QUERY NAMES shows the users from all of the systems. TELL ALAN works without regard to the system ALAN is logged on to. SET SECUSER doesn't care where in the cluster either user is located. 5) There are cross-system LINK protections (similar to XLINK-protected disks) 6) The ability to maintain (SERVICE) all of the member systems from a single system. 7) The capability to move most running Linux guests from one member to another without having to hibernate it or shut it down 8) Built-in data and virtual server integrity protections during guest relocation 9) Other cool stuff Except for item 7, people may recognize this as being similar to Cross System Extensions. It's true that CSE provided inspiration, but unlike CSE, a single system image (SSI) cluster is managed by CP himself and has more capabilities than CSE. Note that the above are a Statement of Direction. "Such statements are subject to change or withdrawal without notice and represent goals and objectives only." Alan Altmark z/VM Development IBM Endicott
Re: z/VM 6.1 G.A. targeted for this Friday, Oct 23
Alain, Basically, it allows a customer to connect up to 4 z/VM systems (even on 4 separate CECs, i.e. separate z10's) into more of a single system, but not exactly. Many userids can be moved from one system to another, without taking them down to move them. The z/VM systems will not need to be at the same z/VM maintenance level (but at least at some future version/maintenance level to get the support). The new CP code to let this happen will most certainly require a substantial design effort for the IBM z/VM Development Lab. It appears to be all aimed at hosting highly availability servers. I don't want to try to translate IBM's words into even English. You'd probably be best served by googling: IBM z/VM Single System Image The IBM web sites displayed should provide overviews, and as much information as IBM currently has made public. Mike Walter Hewitt Associates The opinions expressed herein are mine alone, not my employer's. "Alain Benveniste" Sent by: "The IBM z/VM Operating System" 10/21/2009 11:35 AM Please respond to "The IBM z/VM Operating System" To IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU cc Subject Re: z/VM 6.1 G.A. targeted for this Friday, Oct 23 Mike, I'm not sure what should be understood by "Single System Image" ? Could you give me a brief explanation of this meaning ? The french guy Alain Le 21 oct. 2009 à 17:55, Mike Walter a écrit : > I don't have any IBM inside information, but I suspect that there > may be a > few reasons, including: > > 1- It's an Architectural Level Set, requiring a z10. A big deal. A > version number increment may help make that more obvious (to those > with > IBM history). > 2- It's the base for the z/VM Single System Image statement of > direction. > A bigger deal. Single System Image is going to be a MAJOR change to > z/VM. > 3- Because they can. :-) > > Mike Walter > Hewitt Associates > The opinions expressed herein are mine alone, not my employer's. > > > > "P S" > > Sent by: "The IBM z/VM Operating System" > 10/21/2009 10:47 AM > Please respond to > "The IBM z/VM Operating System" > > > > To > IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU > cc > > Subject > Re: z/VM 6.1 G.A. targeted for this Friday, Oct 23 > > > > > > > On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 12:34 AM, Alan Altmark > > wrote: > On Tuesday, 10/20/2009 at 06:46 EDT, Marcy Cortes > wrote: >> Did pricing change? > > No. > > One does wonder, "Why the version number change?" > > > > > The information contained in this e-mail and any accompanying > documents may contain information that is confidential or otherwise > protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient of > this message, or if this message has been addressed to you in error, > please immediately alert the sender by reply e-mail and then delete > this message, including any attachments. Any dissemination, > distribution or other use of the contents of this message by anyone > other than the intended recipient is strictly prohibited. All > messages sent to and from this e-mail address may be monitored as > permitted by applicable law and regulations to ensure compliance > with our internal policies and to protect our business. E-mails are > not secure and cannot be guaranteed to be error free as they can be > intercepted, amended, lost or destroyed, or contain viruses. You are > deemed to have accepted these risks if you communicate with us by e- > mail. > The information contained in this e-mail and any accompanying documents may contain information that is confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, or if this message has been addressed to you in error, please immediately alert the sender by reply e-mail and then delete this message, including any attachments. Any dissemination, distribution or other use of the contents of this message by anyone other than the intended recipient is strictly prohibited. All messages sent to and from this e-mail address may be monitored as permitted by applicable law and regulations to ensure compliance with our internal policies and to protect our business. E-mails are not secure and cannot be guaranteed to be error free as they can be intercepted, amended, lost or destroyed, or contain viruses. You are deemed to have accepted these risks if you communicate with us by e-mail.
Re: z/VM 6.1 G.A. targeted for this Friday, Oct 23
On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 12:21 PM, Mike Walter wrote: > SSI appears to provide a means of using communications architectures to > couple up to 4 (maximum: FOUR) z/VM systems into one Single System Image. > Heh. I remember when ISF (the same idea, badly done, on HPO) was announced. It was supposed to support up to four systems, but at the last minute before announce, someone lost their nerve or found a bug or something, and the announcement read that you could connect "up to two systems" to each other!
Re: z/VM 6.1 G.A. targeted for this Friday, Oct 23
Mike, I'm not sure what should be understood by "Single System Image" ? Could you give me a brief explanation of this meaning ? The french guy Alain Le 21 oct. 2009 à 17:55, Mike Walter a écrit : I don't have any IBM inside information, but I suspect that there may be a few reasons, including: 1- It's an Architectural Level Set, requiring a z10. A big deal. A version number increment may help make that more obvious (to those with IBM history). 2- It's the base for the z/VM Single System Image statement of direction. A bigger deal. Single System Image is going to be a MAJOR change to z/VM. 3- Because they can. :-) Mike Walter Hewitt Associates The opinions expressed herein are mine alone, not my employer's. "P S" Sent by: "The IBM z/VM Operating System" 10/21/2009 10:47 AM Please respond to "The IBM z/VM Operating System" To IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU cc Subject Re: z/VM 6.1 G.A. targeted for this Friday, Oct 23 On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 12:34 AM, Alan Altmark > wrote: On Tuesday, 10/20/2009 at 06:46 EDT, Marcy Cortes wrote: Did pricing change? No. One does wonder, "Why the version number change?" The information contained in this e-mail and any accompanying documents may contain information that is confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, or if this message has been addressed to you in error, please immediately alert the sender by reply e-mail and then delete this message, including any attachments. Any dissemination, distribution or other use of the contents of this message by anyone other than the intended recipient is strictly prohibited. All messages sent to and from this e-mail address may be monitored as permitted by applicable law and regulations to ensure compliance with our internal policies and to protect our business. E-mails are not secure and cannot be guaranteed to be error free as they can be intercepted, amended, lost or destroyed, or contain viruses. You are deemed to have accepted these risks if you communicate with us by e- mail.
Re: z/VM 6.1 G.A. targeted for this Friday, Oct 23
>So if that's all there is, why would anyone bother to install z/VM 6.1? 1. To keep your capacity planning people from moving your system to an old z9 that they're trying to find a use for. 2. Performance improvements for virtual switch. 3. To have something to put on your performance plan. Dennis O'Brien My computer beat me at chess, but it was no match for me in kickboxing. -Original Message- From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:ib...@listserv.uark.edu] On Behalf Of Alan Ackerman Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2009 23:43 To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: [IBMVM] z/VM 6.1 G.A. targeted for this Friday, Oct 23 >The only z/VM 6.1 only items I found were: > >1. Limited to z10 only >2. Prefetch guest data into processor cache >3. Closer integration with IBM Systems Director So if that's all there is, why would anyone bother to install z/VM 6.1? Alan Ackerman Alan (dot) Ackerman (at) Bank of America (dot) com
Re: z/VM 6.1 G.A. targeted for this Friday, Oct 23
> Is "Single System Image" conceptually akin to z/OS's "Parallel Sysplex"? IMHO, the direct answer is "It depends" (TM Bill Bitner). I doubt you could call Parallel Sysplex and SSI "akin". Not even close enough to be called "kissing cousins". There's no Coupling Facility support defined in the announcement. I don't know the maximum number of z/OS systems that can exist in a sysplex. SSI appears to provide a means of using communications architectures to couple up to 4 (maximum: FOUR) z/VM systems into one Single System Image. Guest service machines can be moved between systems with little to no service interruption. It appears that at G.A. there will be a long laundry list of things that would prevent some service machines from being moved between z/VM systems in the SSI. But that initial laundry list would presumably be cleaned up as time progresses. Read the announcement for details. Anything not in the announcement or IBM's public presentations is pure speculation, including mine above. Mike Walter Hewitt Associates The opinions expressed herein are mine alone, not my employer's. "McKown, John" Sent by: "The IBM z/VM Operating System" 10/21/2009 11:10 AM Please respond to "The IBM z/VM Operating System" To IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU cc Subject Re: z/VM 6.1 G.A. targeted for this Friday, Oct 23 > -Original Message- > From: The IBM z/VM Operating System > [mailto:ib...@listserv.uark.edu] On Behalf Of Mike Walter > Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 2009 10:55 AM > To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU > Subject: Re: z/VM 6.1 G.A. targeted for this Friday, Oct 23 > > I don't have any IBM inside information, but I suspect that > there may be a > few reasons, including: > > 1- It's an Architectural Level Set, requiring a z10. A big deal. A > version number increment may help make that more obvious (to > those with > IBM history). > 2- It's the base for the z/VM Single System Image statement > of direction. > A bigger deal. Single System Image is going to be a MAJOR > change to z/VM. > 3- Because they can. :-) > > Mike Walter > Hewitt Associates > The opinions expressed herein are mine alone, not my employer's. Is "Single System Image" conceptually akin to z/OS's "Parallel Sysplex"? -- John McKown Systems Engineer IV IT Administrative Services Group HealthMarkets(r) 9151 Boulevard 26 * N. Richland Hills * TX 76010 (817) 255-3225 phone * (817)-961-6183 cell john.mck...@healthmarkets.com * www.HealthMarkets.com Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message may contain confidential or proprietary information. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. HealthMarkets(r) is the brand name for products underwritten and issued by the insurance subsidiaries of HealthMarkets, Inc. -The Chesapeake Life Insurance Company(r), Mid-West National Life Insurance Company of TennesseeSM and The MEGA Life and Health Insurance Company.SM The information contained in this e-mail and any accompanying documents may contain information that is confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, or if this message has been addressed to you in error, please immediately alert the sender by reply e-mail and then delete this message, including any attachments. Any dissemination, distribution or other use of the contents of this message by anyone other than the intended recipient is strictly prohibited. All messages sent to and from this e-mail address may be monitored as permitted by applicable law and regulations to ensure compliance with our internal policies and to protect our business. E-mails are not secure and cannot be guaranteed to be error free as they can be intercepted, amended, lost or destroyed, or contain viruses. You are deemed to have accepted these risks if you communicate with us by e-mail.
Re: z/VM 6.1 G.A. targeted for this Friday, Oct 23
> -Original Message- > From: The IBM z/VM Operating System > [mailto:ib...@listserv.uark.edu] On Behalf Of Mike Walter > Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 2009 10:55 AM > To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU > Subject: Re: z/VM 6.1 G.A. targeted for this Friday, Oct 23 > > I don't have any IBM inside information, but I suspect that > there may be a > few reasons, including: > > 1- It's an Architectural Level Set, requiring a z10. A big deal. A > version number increment may help make that more obvious (to > those with > IBM history). > 2- It's the base for the z/VM Single System Image statement > of direction. > A bigger deal. Single System Image is going to be a MAJOR > change to z/VM. > 3- Because they can. :-) > > Mike Walter > Hewitt Associates > The opinions expressed herein are mine alone, not my employer's. Is "Single System Image" conceptually akin to z/OS's "Parallel Sysplex"? -- John McKown Systems Engineer IV IT Administrative Services Group HealthMarkets(r) 9151 Boulevard 26 * N. Richland Hills * TX 76010 (817) 255-3225 phone * (817)-961-6183 cell john.mck...@healthmarkets.com * www.HealthMarkets.com Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message may contain confidential or proprietary information. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. HealthMarkets(r) is the brand name for products underwritten and issued by the insurance subsidiaries of HealthMarkets, Inc. -The Chesapeake Life Insurance Company(r), Mid-West National Life Insurance Company of TennesseeSM and The MEGA Life and Health Insurance Company.SM
Re: z/VM 6.1 G.A. targeted for this Friday, Oct 23
I don't have any IBM inside information, but I suspect that there may be a few reasons, including: 1- It's an Architectural Level Set, requiring a z10. A big deal. A version number increment may help make that more obvious (to those with IBM history). 2- It's the base for the z/VM Single System Image statement of direction. A bigger deal. Single System Image is going to be a MAJOR change to z/VM. 3- Because they can. :-) Mike Walter Hewitt Associates The opinions expressed herein are mine alone, not my employer's. "P S" Sent by: "The IBM z/VM Operating System" 10/21/2009 10:47 AM Please respond to "The IBM z/VM Operating System" To IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU cc Subject Re: z/VM 6.1 G.A. targeted for this Friday, Oct 23 On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 12:34 AM, Alan Altmark wrote: On Tuesday, 10/20/2009 at 06:46 EDT, Marcy Cortes wrote: > Did pricing change? No. One does wonder, "Why the version number change?" The information contained in this e-mail and any accompanying documents may contain information that is confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, or if this message has been addressed to you in error, please immediately alert the sender by reply e-mail and then delete this message, including any attachments. Any dissemination, distribution or other use of the contents of this message by anyone other than the intended recipient is strictly prohibited. All messages sent to and from this e-mail address may be monitored as permitted by applicable law and regulations to ensure compliance with our internal policies and to protect our business. E-mails are not secure and cannot be guaranteed to be error free as they can be intercepted, amended, lost or destroyed, or contain viruses. You are deemed to have accepted these risks if you communicate with us by e-mail.
Re: z/VM 6.1 G.A. targeted for this Friday, Oct 23
On Wednesday, 10/21/2009 at 11:48 EDT, P S wrote: > One does wonder, "Why the version number change?" The z10 Architectural Level Set. Alan Altmark z/VM Development IBM Endicott
Re: z/VM 6.1 G.A. targeted for this Friday, Oct 23
On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 12:34 AM, Alan Altmark wrote: > On Tuesday, 10/20/2009 at 06:46 EDT, Marcy Cortes > wrote: > > Did pricing change? > > No. > One does wonder, "Why the version number change?"
Re: z/VM 6.1 G.A. targeted for this Friday, Oct 23
Unless someone proves #2 is going to do really wonderful things, most of us probably won't bother upgrading. We'll save our energy for the next one which should be lots more interesting. Folks just starting out of course should do 6.1. Marcy "This message may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the addressee or authorized to receive this for the addressee, you must not use, copy, disclose, or take any action based on this message or any information herein. If you have received this message in error, please advise the sender immediately by reply e-mail and delete this message. Thank you for your cooperation." -Original Message- From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:ib...@listserv.uark.edu] On Behalf Of Alan Ackerman Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2009 11:43 PM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: [IBMVM] z/VM 6.1 G.A. targeted for this Friday, Oct 23 >The only z/VM 6.1 only items I found were: > >1. Limited to z10 only >2. Prefetch guest data into processor cache >3. Closer integration with IBM Systems Director So if that's all there is, why would anyone bother to install z/VM 6.1? = Alan Ackerman Alan (dot) Ackerman (at) Bank of America (dot) com
Re: z/VM 6.1 G.A. targeted for this Friday, Oct 23
Alan Ackerman wrote: The only z/VM 6.1 only items I found were: 1. Limited to z10 only 2. Prefetch guest data into processor cache 3. Closer integration with IBM Systems Director So if that's all there is, why would anyone bother to install z/VM 6.1? Alan Ackerman Alan (dot) Ackerman (at) Bank of America (dot) com You get the benefit of all the past service rolled up into one package. So if you are behind in service, it's all here in a new release. Also, the virtual networking function is rebuilt for the z10 (hence the restriction), which should make intra-machine networking run faster. -- Rich Smrcina Phone: 414-491-6001 http://www.linkedin.com/in/richsmrcina Catch the WAVV! http://www.wavv.org WAVV 2010 - Apr 9-14, 2010 Covington, KY
Re: z/VM 6.1 G.A. targeted for this Friday, Oct 23
>The only z/VM 6.1 only items I found were: > >1. Limited to z10 only >2. Prefetch guest data into processor cache >3. Closer integration with IBM Systems Director So if that's all there is, why would anyone bother to install z/VM 6.1? Alan Ackerman Alan (dot) Ackerman (at) Bank of America (dot) com
Re: z/VM 6.1 G.A. targeted for this Friday, Oct 23
On Tuesday, 10/20/2009 at 06:46 EDT, Marcy Cortes wrote: > Did pricing change? No. Alan Altmark z/VM Development IBM Endicott
Re: z/VM 6.1 G.A. targeted for this Friday, Oct 23
Pricing didn't change, unless the price of one Value Unit changed, which I doubt. I compared the 6.1 and 5.4 announcements. They both use Value Unit exhibit VUE021. Dennis O'Brien My computer beat me at chess, but it was no match for me in kickboxing. -Original Message- From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:ib...@listserv.uark.edu] On Behalf Of Marcy Cortes Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2009 15:46 To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: [IBMVM] z/VM 6.1 G.A. targeted for this Friday, Oct 23 That's what I saw too. Did pricing change? Marcy "This message may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the addressee or authorized to receive this for the addressee, you must not use, copy, disclose, or take any action based on this message or any information herein. If you have received this message in error, please advise the sender immediately by reply e-mail and delete this message. Thank you for your cooperation." -Original Message- From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:ib...@listserv.uark.edu] On Behalf Of Alan Ackerman Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2009 3:31 PM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: [IBMVM] z/VM 6.1 G.A. targeted for this Friday, Oct 23 I cannot find much that is available only in z/VM 6.1. I looked through = the items in the announcment letter, and most of them say they are supported by PTF in z/VM 5.3 or 5.4. The only z/VM 6.1 only items I found were: 1. Limited to z10 only 2. Prefetch guest data into processor cache 3. Closer integration with IBM Systems Director What am I missing? Here is my table: Feature First release Other Support for Crypto Express3 z/VM 5.3z10 only Support for Linux guests using dynamic storage reconfiguration z/VM 5.4 IBM FICON Express8 z/VM 5.3 IBM Extended Address Volumes (EAV) z/VM 5.4DS8000 IBM FlashCopy SEz/VM 5.4 IBM DS8000 Full Disk Encryption z/VM 5.4DS8000 IBM System Storage TS7700 Virtualization Engine z/VM 5.3z/VSE o= nly Worldwide port name (WWPN) prediction tool z/VM 5.3 Prefetch guest data into processor cachez/VM 6.1z10 only OSA-Express QDIO data connection isolation z/VM 5.3z10 only CMS-based z/VM SSL server z/VM 5.4 Additional tape encryption z/VM 5.3 Multiple file dumps z/VM 5.3 Closer integration with IBM Systems Directorz/VM 6.1 Limited to Z10 only z/VM 6.1z10 only Alan Ackerman Alan (dot) Ackerman (at) Bank of America (dot) com
Re: z/VM 6.1 G.A. targeted for this Friday, Oct 23
That's what I saw too. Did pricing change? Marcy "This message may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the addressee or authorized to receive this for the addressee, you must not use, copy, disclose, or take any action based on this message or any information herein. If you have received this message in error, please advise the sender immediately by reply e-mail and delete this message. Thank you for your cooperation." -Original Message- From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:ib...@listserv.uark.edu] On Behalf Of Alan Ackerman Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2009 3:31 PM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: [IBMVM] z/VM 6.1 G.A. targeted for this Friday, Oct 23 I cannot find much that is available only in z/VM 6.1. I looked through = the items in the announcment letter, and most of them say they are supported by PTF in z/VM 5.3 or 5.4. The only z/VM 6.1 only items I found were: 1. Limited to z10 only 2. Prefetch guest data into processor cache 3. Closer integration with IBM Systems Director What am I missing? Here is my table: Feature First release Other Support for Crypto Express3 z/VM 5.3z10 only Support for Linux guests using dynamic storage reconfiguration z/VM 5.4 IBM FICON Express8 z/VM 5.3 IBM Extended Address Volumes (EAV) z/VM 5.4DS8000 IBM FlashCopy SEz/VM 5.4 IBM DS8000 Full Disk Encryption z/VM 5.4DS8000 IBM System Storage TS7700 Virtualization Engine z/VM 5.3z/VSE o= nly Worldwide port name (WWPN) prediction tool z/VM 5.3 Prefetch guest data into processor cachez/VM 6.1z10 only OSA-Express QDIO data connection isolation z/VM 5.3z10 only CMS-based z/VM SSL server z/VM 5.4 Additional tape encryption z/VM 5.3 Multiple file dumps z/VM 5.3 Closer integration with IBM Systems Directorz/VM 6.1 Limited to Z10 only z/VM 6.1z10 only Alan Ackerman Alan (dot) Ackerman (at) Bank of America (dot) com
Re: z/VM 6.1 G.A. targeted for this Friday, Oct 23
I cannot find much that is available only in z/VM 6.1. I looked through the items in the announcment letter, and most of them say they are supported by PTF in z/VM 5.3 or 5.4. The only z/VM 6.1 only items I found were: 1. Limited to z10 only 2. Prefetch guest data into processor cache 3. Closer integration with IBM Systems Director What am I missing? Here is my table: Feature First release Other Support for Crypto Express3 z/VM 5.3z10 only Support for Linux guests using dynamic storage reconfiguration z/VM 5.4 IBM FICON Express8 z/VM 5.3 IBM Extended Address Volumes (EAV) z/VM 5.4DS8000 IBM FlashCopy SEz/VM 5.4 IBM DS8000 Full Disk Encryption z/VM 5.4DS8000 IBM System Storage TS7700 Virtualization Engine z/VM 5.3z/VSE o nly Worldwide port name (WWPN) prediction tool z/VM 5.3 Prefetch guest data into processor cachez/VM 6.1z10 only OSA-Express QDIO data connection isolation z/VM 5.3z10 only CMS-based z/VM SSL server z/VM 5.4 Additional tape encryption z/VM 5.3 Multiple file dumps z/VM 5.3 Closer integration with IBM Systems Directorz/VM 6.1 Limited to Z10 only z/VM 6.1z10 only Alan Ackerman Alan (dot) Ackerman (at) Bank of America (dot) com
z/VM 6.1 G.A. targeted for this Friday, Oct 23
In case it slipped by, the G.A. announcement for a/VM 6.1 was posted today, see (watch for URL wrap): http://www-01.ibm.com/common/ssi/cgi-bin/ssialias?subtype=ca&infotype=an&appname=iSource&supplier=897&letternum=ENUS209-401&open&cm_mmc=5733-_-n-_-vrm_newsletter-_-10207_135548&cmibm_em=dm:0:1417348#h2-availx Remember, z/VM has runs only on System z10 (and presumably, future machines, too!). Part of the announcement includes: -- z/VM V6.1 requires a new Architecture Level Set (ALS) that is available on the: System z10 Enterprise Class Refer to the DEVICE2097 Preventive Service Planning (PSP) bucket for the minimum MCL level and any required updates. System z10 Business Class Refer to the DEVICE2098 Preventive Service Planning (PSP) bucket for the minimum MCL level and any required updates. Specific processor facilities required by z/VM V6.1 can be found on the z/VM Web site at http://www.ibm.com/vm/zvm610/architecture/ -- And so it begins... product positioning for z/VM "single system image". Mike Walter Hewitt Associates The opinions expressed herein are mine alone, not my employer's. The information contained in this e-mail and any accompanying documents may contain information that is confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, or if this message has been addressed to you in error, please immediately alert the sender by reply e-mail and then delete this message, including any attachments. Any dissemination, distribution or other use of the contents of this message by anyone other than the intended recipient is strictly prohibited. All messages sent to and from this e-mail address may be monitored as permitted by applicable law and regulations to ensure compliance with our internal policies and to protect our business. E-mails are not secure and cannot be guaranteed to be error free as they can be intercepted, amended, lost or destroyed, or contain viruses. You are deemed to have accepted these risks if you communicate with us by e-mail.
