On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 2:27 AM, Alan Altmark [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hard evidence of the performance of emulated FBA can be found at:
http://www.vm.ibm.com/perf/reports/zvm/html/530scsi.html
Don't just look at the tables; read the text that goes with them.
Since I have not been able
The IBM z/VM Operating System IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU wrote on
02/19/2008 04:53:22 PM:
Given that performance is very nearly the same between SAN and EDEV
connections, or acceptably so, then I would recommend that you go with
the EDEV approach. Just have your SAN folks carve out a big chunk
I should post this to the Linux list also, but I'll start with the VM list.
On a VM system hosting Linux guests,
I can think of one or two reasons why one might
want to use EDEV instead of direct SAN connections.
There are also some reasons why one would NOT want to.
Can any of you think of
On Feb 19, 2008, at 3:33 PM, Richard Troth wrote:
I should post this to the Linux list also, but I'll start with the
VM list.
On a VM system hosting Linux guests,
I can think of one or two reasons why one might
want to use EDEV instead of direct SAN connections.
There are also some reasons
Given that performance is very nearly the same between SAN and EDEV
connections, or acceptably so, then I would recommend that you go with
the EDEV approach. Just have your SAN folks carve out a big chunk of SAN
storage for your use, and then allocate EDEV (FBA type) disk storage for
guests as
As far as I know, EDEV -FBA emulation- uses much more CPU. At the
other hand, with EDEV VM's minidisk cache becomes available, what can
help Linuxes with shared minidisks. And there are differences in
error recovery for the paths: -if I remember well- Linux does it
better than CP.
2008/2/19,
