On Tuesday, 04/05/2011 at 06:44 EDT, Karl Huf k...@ntrs.com wrote:
Are there good reasons or am I making mountains where there are no
molehills?
When two disjoint entities have access to the same resources, there are
mountains that must be scaled. As others have noted, giving Entity One
Thank you all for the informed responses, they've been most helpful.
As we don't have any need for the volumes of either OS to be online to
each other I will proceed with a recommendation to segregate the z/VM
volumes on to their own LCU(s).
I could have sworn I had seen something about this in a presentation
regarding best practices for configuring z/OS z/VM LPAR's that share
the same DASD subsystems but now that I need it, no joy.
We have 2 (z10) CEC's, each with z/VM and z/OS LPAR's attached via FICON
Directors to a pair of
You're hitting the nail on the head.. 'best practice' is to dedicate the
DASD to each LPAR in the IODEF.. but this is best practice when security or
data integrity demands 'physical' separation. It keeps you from shooting
yourself in the foot and makes it impossible for an LPAR to effect
@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
Subject: z/VM z/OS sharing same DASD
I could have sworn I had seen something about this in a
presentation regarding best practices for configuring z/OS
z/VM LPAR's that share the same DASD subsystems but now
that I need it, no joy.
We have 2 (z10) CEC's, each with z/VM and z/OS
Operating System [mailto:IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU] On Behalf
Of Karl Huf
Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2011 3:44 PM
To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
Subject: [IBMVM] z/VM z/OS sharing same DASD
I could have sworn I had seen something about this in a presentation
regarding best practices for configuring z/OS
On 4/5/2011 18:43, Karl Huf wrote:
I could have sworn I had seen something about this in a presentation
regarding best practices for configuring z/OS z/VM LPAR's that share
the same DASD subsystems but now that I need it, no joy.
We have 2 (z10) CEC's, each with z/VM and z/OS LPAR's attached
