My reason to start the zvm directions thread was to start people talkin
g.
On Thursday, 06/02/2011 at 08:30 EDT, Philip Tully tull...@optonline.net
wrote:
My reason to start the zvm directions thread was to start people
talking.
And that's a Good Thing, Phil. Having an awareness that the model of
mainframe management begun in the 60s (and still in place today
And the new soon to be launched 'Destination Z Community'.
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 9:02 AM, Alan Altmark alan_altm...@us.ibm.comwrote:
On Thursday, 06/02/2011 at 08:30 EDT, Philip Tully tull...@optonline.net
wrote:
My reason to start the zvm directions thread was to start people
talking
The Unified Resource Manager's Storage Administrator function includes
the
ability exporting the WWPN configuration and importing an access list
based on it. (Sorry, I haven't personally used it, yet, so I can't
comment further.)
Yes, it can. It's pretty much useless. Trouble is, none of
On Wednesday, 06/01/2011 at 11:18 EDT, David Boyes dbo...@sinenomine.net
wrote:
The Unified Resource Manager's Storage Administrator function includes
the
ability exporting the WWPN configuration and importing an access list
based on it. (Sorry, I haven't personally used it, yet, so I
What David said!
We have enough fights integrating business critical application on the Z
with other infrastructure units.
How many of us have heard while integrating a complex application one tin
y
piece doesn't have a support statement to run on s390x linux. Not even th
at
it doesn't work,
On Tuesday, 05/31/2011 at 11:03 EDT, Philip Tully tull...@optonline.net
wrote:
Or listening to our SAN provisioning group here that every other
platform
integrates well with their tools, whereas on the Z they need to actually
type wwpn's.
The Unified Resource Manager's Storage Administrator
On Thursday, 05/26/2011 at 11:10 EDT, David Boyes dbo...@sinenomine.net
wrote:
But it's certainly a common one. I can think of at least a dozen sites
that
have heard this requirement from IBMers. I've always thought the
proper
solution to this was to add a badge reader to the HMC to allow
On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 5:06 AM, Philip Tully tull...@optonline.net 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
On Wednesday, 05/25/2011 at 11:07 EDT, Philip Tully
tull...@optonline.net 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
On Thursday, 05/26/2011 at 03:12 EDT, Rob van der Heij rvdh...@gmail.com
wrote:
Neither may be parts of IBM. At least two installations told me that
IBM requires that the original HMC user/pw combinations remain in
place for the (different) IBM support person to be able to support
them. I
The bogosity index is extremeloy high on this one.
But it's certainly a common one. I can think of at least a dozen sites that
have heard this requirement from IBMers. I've always thought the proper
solution to this was to add a badge reader to the HMC to allow IBMers to enable
these ids
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
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
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
I see that the list traffic is kind of light right now and though I
would toss out a topic for all of us to chew on.
I am looking for your thoughts on the current direction of zVM in
particular where development needs to be focused.
I sense that z/VM 6.2 with SSI will ease the burden of
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.
: Wednesday, May 18, 2011 8:31 AM
To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
Subject: [IBMVM] zvm directions
I see that the list traffic is kind of light right now and though I
would toss out a topic for all of us to chew on.
I am looking for your thoughts on the current direction of zVM in
particular where development
On Wednesday, 05/18/2011 at 11:33 EDT, PHILIP TULLY
tull...@optonline.net 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
On Wednesday, 05/18/2011 at 12:07 EDT, Marcy Cortes
marcy.d.cor...@wellsfargo.com 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
: Re: zvm directions
On Wednesday, 05/18/2011 at 12:07 EDT, Marcy Cortes
marcy.d.cor...@wellsfargo.com 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
-Original 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: [IBMVM] zvm directions
On Wednesday, 05/18/2011 at 12:07 EDT, Marcy Cortes
marcy.d.cor
Operating System [mailto:IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU] On Behalf
Of Schuh, Richard
Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2011 11:35 AM
To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
Subject: Re: [IBMVM] zvm directions
Too bad it will not work for geographically dispersed LPARS :-(
Regards,
Richard Schuh
-Original Message
On Wednesday, 05/18/2011 at 02:46 EDT, Marcy Cortes
marcy.d.cor...@wellsfargo.com 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
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
@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
Subject: zvm directions
I see that the list traffic is kind of light right now and though I
would toss out a topic for all of us to chew on.
I am looking for your thoughts on the current direction of zVM in
particular where development needs to be focused.
I sense that z/VM 6.2
(CIV)
Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2011 3:33 PM
To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
Subject: Re: [IBMVM] zvm directions
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
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
28 matches
Mail list logo
